Talk:History of Peru

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Peru Top‑importance

This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Peru To-do:

Assess and prioritise articles (log)
Check for copyvios at Special:Contributions/Priscilla D, tag as {{Db-copyvio}} where appropriate
Create:
Expand: new articles; top importance articles
FAC / FLC: Peru national football team
GAN:
Merge requests: Amazonas before the Inca Empire, Chachapoyas culture
Review: Shining Path, Universitario de Deportes
Translate: National University of San Marcos
Work on Lima, the current article improvement drive
Wikify: articles needing attention

A summary of this article appears in Peru.

Untitled

"Ancient History" needs a brief outline. As it is, the entry makes pre-Conquest Peru look entirely irrelevant to the history of "real" Peru. Some would have it so, of course. Wetman 19:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Standard Peruvian History Periodification

The most accept organization for history of Perú is:

Autonomous Era (Era autónoma)
Dependent Era (Era dependiente)
Independent Era (Era independiente)

That organization is used in all universities and school in the country and for the majority of Historians. --Huhsunqu 02:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Objection to use of term "Prehistoric"

Many Latin American scholars I work with, including many prominent Peruvian archaeologists, strongly object to the use of the term "prehistory" on the grounds that all pre-hispanic cultures (the preferred term) had and maintained history. Since modern archaeological theory supports the assertion that history is a causal cultural process, this is a sensible distinction to make. I would like to see the term "prehistory" dropped from the pages on the history of Peru. Instead, I suggest we discuss various "pre-columbian" periods of Peruvian history. Over time, I can help to flesh out the "Ancient History" section. --Nathancraig 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC) why did they do this to peru? who can answer that? if you do you will get a grand prize. just hit me up at [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.66.219.78 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No religious history?

How can there possibly be a history of Peru with no mention of the presence and influence of Roman Catholicism? Even the pictures (with clergy present at important national-historical moments) betray this lack. Can someone please add some content around the influence (good and bad) of the Church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.108.231 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English is the Official Language of the Incan Empire?

The third paragraph of the Inka Empire (1438–1532) section of this article says that "The official language is English - imposed on the citizens. It was the language of a neighbouring tribe of the original tribe of the empire." The language was in fact Quechua. Also the flow of these sentences is a little bit choppy.

FenderK8 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Peru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071207140514/http://www.millersville.edu:80/~columbus/papers/white.html to http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/white.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change dating system to Common Era

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system next week. This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India. If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cahamarca

"On 16 November 1532, while the Atahualpa's victorious army was in an unarmed celebration in Cajamarca, the Spanish lured Atahualpa into a trap" ... what a nonsense! There was no celebration in Cajamarca. And when Atahualpa visited Pizarro in Cajamarca, his men were not unarmed. But, yes, there was a trap. -- Wassermaus (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]