Talk:Pre-Columbian Belize

Belize Top‑importance

	Belize portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belize, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belize 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.BelizeWikipedia:WikiProject BelizeTemplate:WikiProject BelizeBelize articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 3 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Archaeology of Belize. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 3 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Mainly for consistency with each other. "Pre-Columbian X" is the most common formulation, but I think by now it's widely accepted that classifying Indigenous history with reference to the arrival of the man who began their genocide is... less than ideal. Pre-Hispanic, pre-contact, etc. suffer from the same problem. "Indigenous history of..." would be one alternative. However I prefer "archaeology of" because that is what the vast majority of these articles actually cover (as opposed to oral histories, mythology, etc.) and it has the benefit of consistency with similar articles on countries outside of the Americas (see archaeology by country). – Joe (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as proposed. The proposed titles are way too vague, and would probably affect the scope (which is history, rather than just archeology). Consistency with other countries is not a compelling reason, since the history of all of the Americas is conventionally divided into the periods before and after the European colonization. Perhaps I could support a different proposal, but I don't think this one is an improvement. Also, I can't think of a succinct alternative, but at least Prehispanic history of Chile does not strike me as inappropriate. No such user (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you're in favour of using one scheme for the rest of the world (Archaeology of Greece, Archaeology of Israel, etc.), but having those articles redirect to e.g. Pre-Columbian Belize for the Americas? – Joe (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not "one scheme" for the rest of the world. Rather, we have titles selected case-by-case depending on the article's scope (or the author's preference). Apart from the "Archaeology of" scheme, we have the "Prehistory of" scheme; "Prehistoric" scheme; and perhaps a few others. I think that "pre-Colombian" or even "pre-hispanic" are too common (or too entrenched) in the historiography to be replaced lightly, with a less precise and common term. No such user (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different topics. Archaeology concerns more than prehistory; prehistory is within the domain of more than just archaeology. And I don't understand what you mean by "less precise and common term" here. What is imprecise about the word "archaeology"? I am quite certain that it's a common term in all these countries. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The articles are not about archaeology, they are about history of this places. It may be that much of that history may rely on archaeology, yes, but this is not about archaeology. I'd expect the article to be merely a list of digs. Walrasiad (talk)

Oppose Pre-Columbian may have its problems, but it could be too well-established to abandon. I think we have recently begun to read some written records from these societies. Also, some of our knowledge of these societies comes from the writings of Spanish explorers etc. shortly after contact. Also, archaeology could include post-Columbus remains. PatGallacher (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There should be two articles for each of these. There are traditions (oral and material) which are not archeology.★Trekker (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Keep both articles separate. One deals with a historical period, the other with a scholarly discipline, would like wiki to have articles on both (single article would be bloated and messy I'd imagine) – Asdfjrjjj (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.