Talk:Ancient maritime history

Who wrote this crap?

The text is written in a very poor English. It is unreadable. The content is factually incorrect and incoherent. The articles like this one show why wikipedia is a pseudoscientific disgrace. 220.158.191.95 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Stop deleting this - Sweden 1800 BC

Under Northern Europe: Sea-going ships are evidenced from as far back as 1800 BC shown in petroglyphs in Sweden, similar in style to the well-known 'viking' ships 2,500 years later.[[1]]

Anything that is added to a Wikipedia article needs to be supported by a reliable source. WP:RS tells you about how this works. Wikipedia does not qualify as a reliable source – see WP:NOTSOURCE for an explanation of why. Since this is a historical subject, you might also want to take a look at WP:HISTRS for the type of source that this article should use. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Primary source regarding ancient Luzon sea crossing

Hello, @ThoughtIdRetired,

In the summ for this this edit you stated that a primary source should not be used- at least not alone. sorry if this question is somewhat ignorant, but what makes that a primary source in this context? again, my understanding may be limited or naive, but I thought a primary source was one closely associated with a subject person, organization, etc. Like, don't cite the bubble gum brand X's company website in the article for bubble gum brand X.

can you flesh out the sense of "primary source" you're talking about please? cuz it seems to be different.

thanks, skakEL 17:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A research paper is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY. It would be better to see this research discussed in a review paper or a publication written by another academic with an established reputation in the field. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed medieval-era seafaring

The scope of the article only includes ancient and maritime activities. I have removed two large sections which do not fit that.

First, the entirety of the Chinese section. Even in the text, you can see that it's describing "naval" warfare in rivers and lakes (like in the Battle of the Red Cliffs). These are not maritime. China only started seafaring in the Song Dynasty (10th century CE), which is already within the medieval period, not ancient, and thus can not be covered here. There were claims in the text of Han era travel to South Asia, but its presented misleadingly. The Chinese accounts of those ancient travels clearly state that the Buddhist pilgrims used Southeast Asian ships (Kunlun ships) for passage, where they are specified. Faxian, mentioned here, didn't sail at all from China, but went overland, only going by sea on the return journey. There is absolutely no mention of Chinese seafaring ships in Chinese records or anywhere else prior to the Song. The legendary poems and fables from ancient China involving dragons and sea monsters and the elixir of immortality do not count. There was also a brief sentence about China invading Annam by sea. But this is completely unreferenced. The only naval battles in the Ming invasion of Annam is on the Thái Bình River, which is not maritime. Chinese ship technologies like the central rudder and watertight bulkheads which later also became a part of medieval seafaring junks did develop from river vessels in the ancient period. But that's not relevant here.

I also removed the paragraph on the Chola Empire in the Indian subcontinent section, as well the Javanese invasion of Tanganyika (which isn't well-recorded anyway), for the same reasons. Both are medieval, happening in the 10th century. They don't qualify as ancient.  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)