Talk:Kon-Tiki expedition

message: It would be nice if there was a map of the voyage included in the article, just to make the distance covered clearer. 94.217.15.89 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the voyage 

message: According to Google Maps' measure distance tool, the shortest (i.e., following the curve of the earth) distance between Callao Peru and the Raroia Atoll is 4,360 miles, which is a difference of some 700 miles from the distance mentioned in this article. Considering the Kon Tiki voyage predates satellite imagery, perhaps that is the source of this fairly significant factual discrepancy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeeasterly (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  issue with distance 

message: The article mentions that a radio was the only modern equipment carried onboard Kon-Tiki. However on www.eterna.ch (navigate to Eterna -> Milestones -> 1958) it is mentioned that an Eterna sports watch was worn by Thor Heyerdahl. Isn't this considered modern equipment?
Ferengi 12:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs rewording. As you say, they took lots of modern equipment: radio, charts, sextant, watches, tinned food, metal tools and fish-hooks (no metal implements would have been available to the people who were supposed to have made the journey), drugs and medicines, even an inflatable dinghy. I suppose the point is that none of these were essential to the validity of the experiment: they could have made the journey without them. That point isn't actually stated in the text though. Matt 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to reword; please make any further changes you feel are necessary. Matt 14:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio was the only modern equipment? 

message: This page indicates that kontiki is the sun god. However, the spanish page for INCA indicates that kontiki is the water god, and it also indicates that it was even more important than the sun god named INTI.
I believe that there's something here to be check.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.9.4 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Kon-Tiki 

message: You can argue over the effect of modern equipment all you want, but the fact that the boat was towed 50 miles is, IMO, far more significant. Not coincidentally, it took Kon-Tiki past the near-shore currents that would have been impossible for early sailors to get through. Heck, if NASA takes me past Earth's gravity well, I can probably make it to the moon in a homemade spaceship. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkantor (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towed 50 miles 

message: The one sentence regarding the 2011 sailing of An-tiki is under the heading "Popular culture references", which is entirely wrong. It's not "popular culture"; not even close. And it's not a reference, it's a parallel event. This needs to be placed into the "See Also" section. SteveO1951 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscategorization of "An-Tiki" 

message: I changed some of the text that was not precise as to modern views of Heyerdahl's theory. The text correctly stated that he believed that the South Americans could have populated South Sea islands.  The article then incorrectly stated that was a position "discredited" by most anthropologists. That's not true. "Most anthropologist" now believe that the population migration did not go West to East, as Heyerdahl said it could; that is not the same thing as saying that is could not have.  Heyerdahl's experimental anthroplogy voyage did prove that the migration could have gone East to West and that capability remains true even if modern DNA studies tend to show that it in fact did not go that way.
Also, the single citation to this modern view was to Wade Davis who, although certainly "award winning", started his speaking career by asserting that "zombie powder" really works (a position certainly "highly discredited by most scientists") and it is stated by Wikipedia that "Davis commissioned a grave robbery of a recently buried child" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Davis  So let's not source the entire modern view on the tenuous credibility of Mr. Davis.
Finally the articles I cite go directly to the point of what the modern published science is: that "Most archaeologists agree that Polynesians can trace their origins to the Lapita Culture, a fusion of Melanesian and Austronesian peoples that had spread as far east as Fiji by 1000 B.C.E. But archaeologists are deeply at odds over when Polynesians fanned out across the vast northern, central, and eastern Pacific Ocean." Meaning, in part, that even if the South American DNA has direct links with that of Polynesians, that could well be because the migration was West to East.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction re modern view of Heyerdahl's theory 

message: In the intro it's said:
Heyerdahl believed that people from South America could have settled Polynesia in pre-Columbian times, although most anthropologists now believe they did not.[1][2][3]
(Btw, source 3 is included in source 2. Should they be kept separate..?)
The Antropology section later on seems to contradict the previous sentence:
In 2011 Professor Erik Thorsby of the University of Oslo presented DNA evidence to the Royal Society which whilst agreeing with the west origin also identified a distinctive but smaller genetic contribution from South America.[12]
Source being called: Richard Alleyne (17 Jun 2011). "Kon-Tiki explorer was partly right – Polynesians had South American roots". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 17 Jun 2011.
I am no anthropologist, but it seems they should be put closer to each other, possibly in the same section, and with higher clarity of what "everyone agrees on" if correct...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggot (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just the other way round: Latest DNA investigations show the evidence of the East West settling. Sorry to say: Heyerdahl may be wrong. Edgar Wollenweber--14:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropologists POV 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl - what's with all the references to "Brendan Heyerdahl"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.36.110.71 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thor Heyerdahl 

message: In the "Communications" section, it says that "A German Mark V transceiver was used as a backup unit.[10]"
I looked up the citation for that assertion ("An LA, as in Norway, Story, By Bob Merriam, W1NTE, March 5, 2003") on the web archive (see https://web.archive.org/web/20030419103759/http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2003/03/05/1/?nc=1) and surprisingly that article does not make any mention of a German transceiver. Unless a reference for this assertion can be found, I suggest deleting it. 
After rereading the key article on this topic (Ref. 9, Anonymous (December 1947). "Kon-Tiki Communications – Well Done!". QST (The American Radio Relay League): 69, 143–148.) it is clear that the Kon-Tiki carried two British 3-16 MC Mark II transmitters.  
Therefore, I suggest that "A German Mark V transceiver was used as a backup unit.[10]" be replaced by "Two British 3-16 MC Mark II transmitters were also carried on board.[9]" Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:134:E801:34F4:EE4C:9930:2976 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communications Section 

message: :Kon-Tiki →  – The article is really about the expedition as a whole, not just the raft. Some minor changes to the opening paragraph would be needed if the name change goes ahead. I am happy to do those. 217.44.208.185 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about "expedition" one way or the other, but "Kon-Tiki" is a proper name and the dash is part of that proper name. It should not be removed. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was unintentional and I have now corrected it. 86.150.71.23 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 March 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kon-Tiki expedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071028203635/http://www.kon-tiki.no/Events/indexold.html to http://www.kon-tiki.no/Events/indexold.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that the following needs to be removed from the second paragraph in the lead section.
This information belongs in the article, but not in the lead, which should focus on the Kon-Tiki expedition itself. At the very least, the lead section needs to be rearranged, because in its current location this passage is a digression in a paragraph where the flow should lead directly from the sentence about Heyerdahl's belief to the sentence about his aim in mounting the expedition. Developments in 2010, 2011, and 2015 involving neither the Kon-Tiki nor Heyerdahl don't belong in a summarization of the flow from Heyerdahl's belief to his aim to his pursuit of his aim. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this belongs in the article in any case. Any sources would need to mention the expedition. There's no reason for this article to reply the discussion elsewhere, although obviously is can link to it. Doug Weller (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to go ahead and remove it.  —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shrinking the second paragraph in the lead section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kon-Tiki expedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201131047/http://webtv.tv2.no/webtv/sumo/?treeId=444033&progId=185694 to http://webtv.tv2.no/webtv/sumo/?treeId=444033&progId=185694
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Does anyone know if the expedition had a support vessel? -If no, why not? Soerfm (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Why not? Because that would have undermined the whole point of the expedition. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, I should have said "escort" vessel, a vessel that just follows them without helping unless there is an emergency. They had a radio, but it would just weigh them dowm if they stated sinking. - Soerfm (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No reports talk of one, so I don't think so. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support vessel?! 

message: The part about Hyperdiffusionism sounds excessively racist and not really on point with the Kon Tiki expedition. The Kon Tiki expedition clearly wanted to prove that South Americans could have traveled to Polynesia. The experiment pretty much succeeded and recent genetic evidence support the contact in the islands that carry some of the architectural megalithic culture. 
The non-white comment is out of place because Heyderdhal explicitly suggests that the possible colonization happened from South America, which was also non-white. 98.47.237.80 (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the racist angle? 

message: :
While the general idea is slightly true, the specific details here may not be accurate due to the older sources in use.  Newer sources shed more light on the competing theories and details based on the recent migratory evidence. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sources needed