Talk:History of North America

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


I think this article needs a bit more about the first Spanish settlements (and other early settlements). There is some discussion about English settlements, after all. I realize this is a summary overview, so I guess we can dig this from the individual articles referenced on the page. I'll do it myself if nobody else does it first, when I feel less lazy. :) Martijn faassen 18:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanna take a look at Spanish colonization of the Americas ? :-) -- PFHLai 03:52, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I think that this site should fricken actually tell you about histoy in the 1990's, i meen geez i've been trying to do my homework for hours now!!!

Take a look as well at Spanish Florida. The info in this page is only wrong by more than a century!

This can't be right..[edit]

Or it is trying to advance something other than the idea the Amerindians came from Asia, in which case it requires rephrasing...

"Factors supporting Asiatic migration are discoveries in Cassiar, British Columbia of Chinese coins identified as circulating in China in 2000 BC, in Telegraph Creek, British Columbia of large Buddhist charms of a type not manufactured for 1500 years, in Nanaimo, British Columbia of a Japanese sword eleven feet underground. Linguist Father Jean Marie Le Jeune recorded that he found evidence of Hebraic words in native languages in British Columbia, possibly stemming from early Jewish influence in China. Anthropological models of migration to the New World also provide insight into the earliest history of North American indigenous people."

Latino template[edit]

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim 1m 18:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher Columbus owned a boat(??) who received orders from the royale family Queen Ferdinand to go about and discover the new world. He left and went about his trekking through the unchartered waters towards where he came to South America. Then progressed to North America but not reaching above the Gulf waters.<#:42am> te —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with list of main articles[edit]

Why are the articles about US history listed in the first place? What is the rationale behind this? Those articles should be listed alphabetically, not discretionally. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 09:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammer & Spelling[edit]

I have noticed several careless grammer and spelling mistakes on this page. Could someone go through and fix them? 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The irony is that you yourself have misspelled "grammar". Shall we fix that too? (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the history of north America start with the europeans?[edit]

Why does not the article discuss the history of this part of America before the arrival of europeans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would assume the the history of North America would focus on it the geological aspects of how the continent was created, not necessarily the human (specifically European) influence over the last 500 years. This article should be merged with other history articles or should be re-written with little focus on the European history. Basically, this article needs to be sub-categorized with this main article only highlighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher Columbus = Catalan?[edit]

Does anybody have any evidence in support of that statement? To my knowledge, as well as that of those who wrote the article on Columbus, he was from Genoa. (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) djttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttjffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffylutjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misleading Article Title[edit]

Shouldn't this article be titled "Ethnographic History of North America" or "Anthropological History of North America"? I came across this article while searching for the way in which the landmass of North America was formed. Which is part of its history.

I recommend changing the article's title to something more accurate. Mattyleg (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I concur most wholeheartedly!! I know there was once a massive northerly-southerly seaway west of the Rockies but I forgot the name, and now I'm having trouble finding it again. Where's Geologic history of North America?? Xaxafrad (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was precisely just now looking for such an article... (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansion time[edit]

So, I want to improve this article, as it's ranked highly in importance, yet lacks content, and I love history and research for it. I have a strong understanding of American history and history writing techniques, so this will be fun and productive. The article should reflect similar types of histories of continents, such as History of Europe, likely the best example. I understand concerns from above points of people seeing geological history, but this article is for the history of the populations of the continent, like the European article above and others, such as Africa and Asia.

This is generally what I see needs to be done:

1. A new, thorough lead section. I've begun work on this.

2. Revision of the Native American, pre-colonial history. This section looks acceptable as is, but expansion is always helpful.

3. Possible expansion of the Colonial Era section. It seems lacking at the moment. The French-Indian War deserves more attention, for example.

4. Much more content for all subsequent, modern sections.

Content in this article should discuss the major events and developments of the continent of North America as a whole. It should avoid focusing solely on events pertaining to only one country, which receive proper attention in the history articles of the respective countries. Events such as the American Civil War should only receive brief mentions and descriptions unless there is an effect on other countries.

Highlights of the article should include expansion of the United States, the Mexican-American War, border conflicts between Canada and the United States, developments of trade between the countries, the gradual interconnection and globalization of the continent, such as through NAFTA, and immigration.

My contributions will mostly focus on histories of the main 3 modern countries of North America: Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Of course, North America can also encompass Central/Latin America and the Caribbeans. Outside of major events such as the Spanish-American War and imperialism, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and recent issues of drug trafficking, I know much less about these regions, and therefore assistance is helpful for those if they're to be included.

I'll contribute as I can in coming weeks, starting with the lead and then the areas needing most attention, with references along the way. Scarlettail (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

colonization text[edit]

The paragraph (below) at the start of colonization seems a bit awkward, of unnecessary detail, and ill-placed. It talks about what colonization is, and seems like it would be better: 1) left out entirely, as it sounds like an academic discussion on a subjective defintiion of colonization; 2) moved to the wiki page for colonization, since it is about colonization in general, and not this page specifically, or 3) moved to the daughter page about colonization. The "it is important to understand" bit is especially troubling since it is written in wiki's voice, and implies that the subjective definition (rather than an objective, general definition) that follows is universal fact being attested to by wiki, and that it is important for the understanding of the article. I don't find it to be either universal, important, or notable in the sense of this article. I'd recommend removal, to be honest, especially given only one questionably notable source.

"In order to understand what constitutes as successful colonization, it is important to understand what colonization means. Colonization refers to large-scale population movements, where the migrants maintain strong links with their or their ancestors' former country, gaining significant privileges over other inhabitants of the territory by such links. When colonization takes place under the protection of clearly colonial political structures, it may most handily be called settler colonialism. This often involves the settlers entirely dispossessing earlier inhabitants, or instituting legal and other structures which systematically disadvantage them.[21]" (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is very general, it gives a brief but specific overview of the History of North America, including Revolutions that took place. The information is not biased and most of it comes from books and academic journals. The links in the citations do work, they lead to online academic journals and encyclopedias. Everything mentioned in the article is relevant to the topic and leads to the proper description of the History of North America. 0621Amandag (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of North America. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revamped taskforce[edit]

I am reviving the North American History taskforce. This article is directly related to the taskforce, so I'm wondering if anybody wants to join. Please feel free to add your name. Ghinga7 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation Needed in First Paragraph[edit]

I added a "citation needed" mark to the last sentence in the first paragraph. I seriously doubt the sentence is accurate. As admirable as the indigenous cultures are/were, there was a lot of conflict among them. Sometimes one group even wiped out or absorbed another. UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the statement that early North American cultures were "based on peaceful trade" moreso than were the cultures of other continents. The statement may be true, but there was no supporting research cited.UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Article Merge[edit]

Should Prehistory of the United States be merged with this article? The United States didn't exist in prehistory, so I think we should use the geographical location and combine the rest of the area in North America as well. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not support. This article is mostly human history while that article is geological periods. This article is long enough. Extending the time period would be too long. Also see WP:MERGEPROP on how to start a discussion that will include interested editors. Fettlemap (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]