Talk:Ancient maritime history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who wrote this crap?[edit]

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)[reply]

Stop deleting this - Sweden 1800 BC[edit]

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)[reply]

Primary source regarding ancient Luzon sea crossing[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]