Talk:History of the Americas

message: "Thousands of years after the Indians arrived, the continent was rediscovered by Europeans."  Perhaps "discover" would be a better word as the word "rediscover" implies that Native Americans original discovery was somehow not valid, and the European discovery was.
Discovery of America redirects to the European colonization subsection of this article. I propose that it instead redirects to Voyages of Christopher Columbus.
Cronica universalis written by the Milanese friar Galvaneus Flamma (it. Galvano Fiamma, d. c. 1345) written in the 1340s contains a reference to a terra que dicitur Marckalada, situated west from Greenland. This land is recognizable as the Markland mentioned by some Icelandic sources and identified by scholar Paolo Chiesa as some part of the Atlantic coast of North America. The exact text:
"Inde versus occidens est terra quedam que dicitur Marckalada, ubi gigantes habitant et sunt hedifitia habentia lapides saxeos tam grandes quod nullus homo posset in hedifitio collocare nisi essent gygantes maximi. Ibi sunt arbores virides et animalia et aves multe nimis. Nec umquam fuit aliquis marinarius qui de ista terra nec de eius condictionibus aliquid scire potuerit pro certo." : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00822884.2021.1943792?journalCode=ytin20&journalCode=ytin20   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogidoo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: "The history of the Americas begins with their colonization by Native Americans"    This quote seems oxymoronic to me.
Since Homo sapiens is not native to the Americas, there ought to be a more accurate term for the earlier settlers.   24.31.216.105 01:48, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native Americans 

message: I hate to be a picky historian -- but most events in North, Central and South America would be considered prehistoric as they took place without benefit of written records.  Would a change of title be more appropriate or should a discussion of the application of historic terms and perspective be included in the body of the article? WBardwin 07:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your point, but adopting a literal interpretation of "history" in the title (ie, renaming to something like prehistory of the Americas) would bring its own set of problems. For eg, if requiring to demarcate by when written records appear, the account of events in Mesoamerica would have to break off sometime in the mid 1st millennium BCE, but other regions continue on up until the 16th C, even beyond. I think that the article could live with using "history" its common, non-specific sense of "account of things which have happened", since the intent of this article seems to be providing a potted overview of human events in the Americas. Indeed, the title is the least of this article's problems, it has a long way to go to reach comparable standards- IMO.--cjllw | TALK 08:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No problem, WBardwin, and I agree that given the article's near-limitless scope, it can only ever hope to serve as an umbrella article with pointers to other relevant articles which can (or should) cover the many and varied facets in the detail they deserve. That being said, I also agree that the article should be much more than a bare list, and needs some wide-ranging but succint narrative to interweave the various topics. Tackling a summary on the initial migrations to the New World is a logical place to start as you point out. Perhaps if this can be nutted out in a paragraph or two, it will be easier to see the way forward in improving the rest, and better defining the scope. As we progress, we may even find relevant areas which are currently lacking in coverage, such as a comparative discussion on the different disciplines and how they have informed present knowledge on the subject. It may also be productive to firstly compile some listing here of existing articles whose coverage can be summarised and/or linked to in this one- I'll start hunting around for these.  --cjllw | TALK 01:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-history?? 

message: I think the Mormon part absolutely out of place. I think this article should be more serious.
:What makes you think the Mormon's aren't serious in their beliefs?  We should strive for a neutral point of view, yes, but present many opinions and assertions as well.  WBardwin 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: origin of species??  I assume that you are not implying that human beings evolved in the Western hemisphere?  The Mormon's present a viewpoint, yes -- based upon their scripture -- that several groups immigrated to the western hemisphere over time.  Their "groups" are not confirmed by archaeology, but there are other theorists out there that support the concept of seperate groups influencing the genetic and cultural mix of native Americans.  Theories include people from:  the Mousterian culture of Ice Age Europe, lost sailors from Jomon era Japan, and sailors from early/medieval Brittany and Ireland.  Many other theories were popular in the 19th century, but are not discussed much today.  All of these theories were controversial in their day, some even on the fringe, and many still are, but they all deserve a NPOV mention in this article.  WBardwin 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mormons? 

message: I find this article misrepresentative and poorly executed. It illustrates a lack of depth of historical understanding on the part of its author. Were this a traditional encyclopedic document we would have to scrap it entirely and sack its writer, and most likely sack the incompetent HR person who hired afore said writer. But herein lies the beauty, nay the glory, of Wikipedia. Anyone with a bit of quality knowledge can add it to the stock, improving and fleshing out articles like the one under discussion. I think I will touch up he North American civilization category, it's dredfully limp and lifeless, quite the opposite of the realities beheld here in the PreColumbian days. For instance, before European conact the greatest concentrated population in the New World, aside from that in Central America, was in the Pacific Northwest. One of the largest(in area) commercial empires ever was seen on the banks of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, connecting all the lands about the Great Lakes to all those about the Gulf of Mexico and everything in between. It is the failure of this article to mention these things which calls for its immediate improvement.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.13.236 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Always good to get new editors involved in the Wikipedia project.  I'd personally recomend creating an account before begining, & then diving in.  --mordicai. 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 24th 2006 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latin_America#South_America_in_1705. Thanks. bamse (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help with featured article candidacy 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Inca Quipu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: http://www.newser.com/story/149448/new-copy-of-americas-birth-certificate-found.html
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18700489  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.12.54 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Copy of 'America's Birth Certificate' Found ‎ 

message: I've got a problem with this. Part of it is some of the trivial quotes. It also doesn't make it clear that this is considered evidence against the Solutrean hypothesis.See which says "These findings may explain the presence of mitochondrial lineage X in Native Americans." and "the study concludes that two distinct Old World populations led to the formation of the First American gene pool: one related to modern-day East Asians, and the other a Siberian Upper Palaeolithic population related to modern-day western Eurasians." and "The presence of a population related to western Eurasians further into northeast Eurasia provides a more likely explanation for the presence of non-East Asian cranial characteristics in the First Americans, rather than the Solutrean hypothesis that proposes an Atlantic route from Iberia." I'll revise the text.
There may be a bigger problem. Western Eurasia includes the Middle East, and after the Last Glacial Maximum some of the re-colonisation of Europe was from the Levant - from the Middle East. Given the dates, what we seem to see is that groups from the Middle East went into Europe as well as going west and eventually into North America. But that hasn't been discussed yet so far I can see. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mal’ta skeleton, tracing back to Europe 

message: You fail to mention the second established nation in the America’s “Haiti”. Their liberation literally led to the revolutions in the Spanish colonies. They assisted Simon Bolivar in building momentum to free those countries. 142.196.38.2 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haiti