Talk:The Farfarers

Untitled

It's interesting that the Orkneys are mentioned - incidentally, they have a relatively high incidence of mtDNA Haplogroup X, which is also found in the Americas. Perhaps this can be mentioned in the article. Twalls 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Mowat also mentions what appear to be historical events such as great naval battles fought by the Picts which I have never read of anywhere else. What is the evidence for this ?--Streona (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User and medal winner Deconstructhis was way out of line. I do not have the book with me now, as I live on the other side of the planet, but were it with me I would gladly have referenced the page number, publisher, edition number, publication date and whatever else would satisfy his lust for redacting without actually reading. A simple [needs citation] would have sufficed and I am sure that other readers would also have been glad to provide it. Deconstructhis is just full of himself and his ´expertise´ concerning ´sweat lodges´. (Look at the Pueblo Indians too, dude!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.192.152 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks, comment on material, not on the editor. All that's needed most of the time is a friendly (or even 'neutral') comment either on the article's talk page, or that of the relevant editor's. Many editors are more than happy to reasonably explain the rationale behind their editorial decisions and invite healthy criticism. Now to the material. I have restored some of the material that you posted the other day, specifically that which described specific elements of the book, to which I'm adding citation request templates. Applying them seems somewhat redundant to me, because the article itself is tagged as having no references or sources whatsoever; not even basic bibliographical details about the book itself. That's one of the reasons that I rejected, in whole, the material from the other day; the article is already replete with "details", but not a single reference. I'm continuing to contest the validity of the material that I haven't restored as unreferenced non-npov "personal commentary". The text I removed from the first paragraph has, in my opinion, a distinctly promotional tone to it; a personal "review", without a reference. I'm also continuing to contest the claim that was added to the second section, titled "The Albans", specifically "While Native American oral histories and some archeological evidence support his theories, the book is not free from well-argued challenges and controversy." I contend that this is unreferenced speculation that suggests that there is existent mainstream archaeological evidence or documented native lore to support the presence of Albans in first millennium North America, a claim that even Mowat himself might shy away from. I'd also suggest that unreferenced claims such as "the book is not free from well-argued challenges and controversy" is not a neutral statement according to Wikipedia policy. I'd like to invite you to continue this discussion and perhaps between the two of us, we can at least introduce at minimum some bibliographical information for the actual book. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Well done. Carry on, then, and give it time. -Others, and possibly soon enough also I myself, will support or discredit, or at least reference the claims of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.192.152 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Vinland == Newfoundland? Archaeological evidence for that?

From the article: "It is now an established archaeological fact that the Vikings sailed from Greenland to Newfoundland, Canada (which they called 'Vinland')."

Although the Norse settlement at Anse-aux-Meadows does establish the archaeological fact of Norse settlement in Newfoundland, there is little or no archaeological evidence that they sailed there from Greenland, rather than, say, from Iceland. As to whether Newfoundland is the same place as what was called "Vinland," that is also lacking archaeological support. So maybe this needs to be rephrased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete it?

Questionable notablility, unsourced for 2 years...the only proposed source is the book itself, OR....I'd nominate it myself if I had an account. 92.16.99.141 (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

National Geographic November 2012 article may add support to Mowat's thesis of wider spread European settlement of the Far North. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.242.89 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link to the National Geographic piece: [1].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Farfarers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Yeah this page would be much better if someone could actually contribute to it. Ironic it is, considering the corpus from the great mind of Farley. -Verifiable? Don't be so thick! Defiles his memory.

Substituted at 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)