Talk:History of New York City (prehistory–1664)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexin.Lin, LaneyLai, Peixinchen97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Human Pre-History section
I wonder if the number 8,000 as in 8,000 early encampments isn't a bit too high

Would someone who knows this topic well please have a good look at this recently added link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.78.249.234 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Questionable link
Would someone who knows this topic well please have a good look at this recently added link:


 * New York and its origins. Legend and Reality (about the really walloon origin of New York City).

I'm always very suspicious of links to personal sites, especially ones with an attitude of "we've got the truth and the widespread view is just a legend." - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jan Rodrigues
In an effort to be overly politically correct the article previously stated that Juan "Jan" Rodrigues was the first African-American to live in and work on Manhatten island. Since Rodrigues was not born in Africa and it's debatable whether the term American was in common usage at this time, this was a misnomer and was changed to the more correct statement that he was the first black man in Manhatten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.87.87.151 (talk • contribs) 18 October 2006.

Misleading detail
This article asserts that New York was named after the king's brother James, Duke of York, which is misleading. New York was named after the City of York in honour of James, the then Duke of York. Refer to the related York discussion page for further info. --Dotjay 11:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in that wikilink that shows the city of New York was actually named for the city of York in honor of James, Duke of York. Being that the title of Duke of York had nothing at all to do with the city other than that the title was named in honor of the city (he was never actually Duke OF the city in the sense that he either ruled, owned, or even lived there), neither was the title a hereditary one that was once such a title, it was specifically conveyed onto individuals (usually brothers or close relatives of the King). I find it strange the city of New York would actually be named for the city and not specifically for the title that he held, as Albany (capital of New York) was also named after a title held by James and never for the city in England.Camelbinky (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Improved, seamless coverage
If this article were History of New York City (prehistory-1624), it would be followed seamlessly by New Amsterdam and the last section could still treat the earliest encounters between Lenape and Europeans, 1613-24. New Amsterdam text currently here would be added to New Amsterdam, if not already fully covered there.--Wetman 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

English not British
As 1664 was before the Act of Union (1707) which formed the Kingdom of Great Britain from those of England and Scotland, there was no concept of 'British' at the time. New York was taken from the Dutch by the English not the British or the Scottish fot that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.166.139 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of New York City (prehistory–1664). 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/20101023083225/http://www.nnp.org/nnp/documents/schagen_main.html to http://www.nnp.org/nnp/documents/schagen_main.html

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) 20:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Lenape
The article states "According to archaeological digs, the first humans arrived in the region as early as 9,000 years ago." This is nonsense. An archaeology dig doesn't make claims. Experts interpret evidence and after critical (peer) review a scientific consensus is hopefully reached (in broad strokes). Let's say that there is good evidence that human habitation existed "in the region" about 9,000 ya. That certainly does NOT mean that humans didn't live there 12 or 15,000 years ago. The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered the land which today makes up NYC, but because of a dramatically lower sea level, dry land existed (it is believed) far out into the present day Atlantic. Absence of evidence is generally not evidence of absence. The early habitation section needs a rewrite. Granted, what we actually know isn't a neat as bald (and inaccurate) fairy tales. Why not just say archaeologists have found evidence of human habitation in the region dating to as early as 9,000 ya.?98.21.213.85 (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)