Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Americas, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject AmericasTemplate:WikiProject AmericasAmericas
The language within this article should be changed to better reflect the distinction between a best supported theory and a proven theory. The current tone of the introductory summary gives the reader the impression that the theory of first peopling over the Beringian ice bridge is proven or settled science, which does not accurately reflect the relevant fields or the philosophy of science.
I do not believe this is an insignificant semantic, especially because this topic is vastly more contested, complicated, and harder to study (given that all the archeological evidence that could’ve been gathered from the ice bridge is now at the bottom of the ocean) than the peopling of regions in Eurasia, and yet uses a similarly definitive tone. 2603:8080:A200:4E0B:112E:98CC:50C:6C74 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Since when? Its fairly common that theories can, and have been, proven. All it takes is empirical testing, that can be repeatedly tested with the same the predictable results by various scientists. Did you mean something else by "You can't prove a theory"? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, "All it takes is empirical testing, that can be repeatedly tested with the same the predictable results by various scientists." Examples include the therories of Evolution and Relativity. Btw, in formal logic, propostions CAN be proved or disproved. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because "unproven" and "proven" theories are the same. Proven theories technically don't exist, because all theories are falsifiable, and it's why we call them "theories" and not "laws", no matter how much evidence we have for their existence. JungleEntity (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proven/unproven theories are not the same thing, as I made clear above. By the way, are you suggesting that "laws" are not falsifiable? Please clarify. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the orignal poster's comment. However, DW and JE had legitimate questions and concerns. I explained the difference between proven/unproven theories. I have not yet received a response since my last post. That's pretty much where we stand at this point, to the best of my understanding. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not seeing where we're taking a firm position the lead clearly says...."While there is general agreement that the Americas were first settled from Asia, the pattern of migration and the place(s) of origin in Eurasia of the peoples who migrated to the Americas remain unclear"..... We go on to say the land bridge theory is the traditional theory.... we don't say it's the right one.... In fact I believe saying this would leave people to believe it's an older assumption.Moxy🍁22:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of what I'm talking about. The "Clovis first theory" refers to the hypothesis that the Clovis culture represents the earliest human presence in the Americas about 13,000 years ago.Evidence of pre-Clovis cultures has accumulated and pushed back the possible date of the first peopling of the Americas. The bold italic sentence is misleading, seemingly suggesting that it is the current dominant theory. I propose the following changes:
So much evidence of pre-Clovis cultures has been gathered that the scientific consensus has changed to acknowledge the presence of pre-Clovis cultures in the Americas, ending the "Clovis first" consensus and is no longer widely accepted by the scientific community.
I think making it clearer that the Clovis first theory is "dead" is important, for the reason I stated above as well as the first RS indicating that it is indeed "dead". I'm only suggesting a single, simple replacement of the sentence in bold above. Do you have an issue with that? If so, please explain. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Say....."Numerous claims of earlier human presence began to challenge the Clovis first model beginning in the 1990s, indicating people might have populated North and South America as early as 15,000 to 20,000 years ago." Moxy🍁17:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous claims of earlier human presence began to challenge the Clovis first model beginning in the 1990s, indicating people might have populated North and South America as early as 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. However, the Clovis first model has now been demonstrably and clearly falsified.
The "however" threw me, and the "now" has me scratching my head. Do we have a general "as of" date that can substitute for "now"? Numerous claims of earlier human presence began to challenge the Clovis first model beginning in the 1990s, indicating people might have populated North and South America as early as 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. As of (the early 21st century?), the Clovis first model has been demonstrably and clearly falsified.Schazjmd(talk)20:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the previous sentence is also supporting the problems with Clovis first, so it isn't the contrast that "however" implies. It's a "then AND now" situation. Schazjmd(talk)18:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. The second sentence is clearly a continuation/result of the information stated in the first sentence and starting it with "however" leads me (as a reader) to expect a contrast or contradiction. The second sentence doesn't need it and is poorer with it. Schazjmd(talk)18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that "demonstrably and clearly falsified" = dead. I'm suggesting to remove "however" from the second sentence. Nothing needs to replace it; the sentence is fine without it. I also suggest changing "now" to something less ambiguous. Schazjmd(talk)20:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version you proposed:Numerous claims of earlier human presence began to challenge the Clovis first model beginning in the 1990s, indicating people might have populated North and South America as early as 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. However, the Clovis first model has now been demonstrably and clearly falsified.My suggested changes:Numerous claims of earlier human presence began to challenge the Clovis first model beginning in the 1990s, indicating people might have populated North and South America as early as 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. However,Since 1997, the Clovis first model has been demonstrably and clearly falsified.("Since 1997" taken from Monte_Verde#Pre-Clovis_controversy) Schazjmd(talk)21:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
The redirect First settlers of the Americas has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § First settlers of the Americas until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)