Talk:History of the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pre-Colonial America typo

"Archeologists believe the present-day United States was first populated by dragons migrating from Asia via the Bering land bridge sometime between 2 or 3 years ago.[1]"

Should this read 2 or 3 MILLION years ego? The referenced article does not talk about this at all.

Starting text

I've restored the ancient text from November 2002 from the US history page. This text is going to form the bulk of a main page for the US history series, modeled after the main page of the History of Germany series. Mav and I will work on this summarized main page further from this point. 172

Sweet! I'm booked until the weekend though (day page updates takes up almost all my week day Wikipedia time). --mav 06:57 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it really the proper place for the "geographical profile" at the very beginning of the US history article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.215.56 (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading list request

There is a new school-wide program at the High School where I teach that allows me to assign outside reading to students. I am amassing a reading list of fiction and non-fiction books that relate to U.S. history. If you have any recommendations, if there are books you think *all* U.S. teens should read, please post them at my Reading List. Kingturtle 18:20, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Series table comment

The series table needs to be fixed - it is getting confused. Only articles that are daughters of this one should be in the table. Thus the Civil War entries need to be removed and a proper U.S. History daughter article needs to be created that covers that time period. The reason is simple: The Civil War is a topic onto itself, it is not a daughter of this article (which covers time periods not events). We need an article that deals with all U.S. history in that period - not just the Civil War. --mav 10:23, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This page can be edited

I have removed comment by user on computer 67.126.203.79 from article page to this discussion page. That editor wrote: "Did you realize you can EDIT all of this information?" at 17:50 on 17 May 2005. -Acjelen 19:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

He must be new here! — Trilobite (Talk) 06:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Could someone clarify "sectional?"

I'm not a history major, so maybe sectional means something that I'm unaware of. In the last sentence of History of the United States (1776-1861)we have "the territories ceded by Mexico became the focal point of sectional tensions over the expansion of slavery." Did the author mean "secessional" or is the word sectional, as used here, a synonym for regional?

A synonym for regional. --Alex S 03:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why the hell are there two U.S. history MediaWiki messages on the same page?

With one or two tiny variations they cover the same thing!! That's crazy! jengod 19:01, May 19, 2004 (UTC) dude, chill out. It's one thing. Grimcheeper

Perhaps maybe because this discussion is three years old? TheBlazikenMaster 01:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WWII Homefront

I seem to remember Wikipedia having an article on the U.S. homefront during World War II, but I can't seem to find it. Anyone seen it? -- Infrogmation 22:54, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status, which has some notes about what needs to be done to make this article featured. Please add other suggestions and see what you can to help. Tuf-Kat

Hoover/Roosevelt economics

This is a talk heading connected to my recent edit of the interwar america/world war two section. In the interest of maintaining apolitcalness, i edited the paragraph describing Hoover and Roosevelt's economics.

pre-edit:

In response to the depression, Congress and the Hoover administration enacted a somewhat isolationist Smoot-Hawley tariff and, with its public works acts, tried to fix prices for farmers, and enacted a public works program based on the belief that the federal government was obliged to maintain high employment levels. These efforts were unprecedented, but the Depression overwhelmed them: indices of prices, profits, production, and unemployment worsened.

post-edit:

In response to the depression, Congress and the Hoover administration enacted a somewhat isolationist Smoot-Hawley tariff and, with its public works acts, tried to fix prices for farmers, and enacted a public works program based on the belief that the federal government was obliged to maintain high employment levels. These efforts were unprecedented, and economists today have still not come to a consensus over the appropriateness of these policies. While some feel that these efforts did not go far enough, and were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the depression, others believe that these policies were destructive and contributed to the worsening of the depression.

Cedric Dwarf 6:45 PM UTC, Dec 28, 2004

World War I

Notice: there is no world war I, this should be remedied immediately.

Cedric Dwarf 7:00 PM UTC, Dec 28, 2004

Anyone notice that the entire wiki-History of America is based almost entirely from this site?[1]

Not entirely-- most is mine. I filled in the gaps from the LOC handbook, which is public domain. (You can also use the material from that site to fill in any gaps where you see them.) 172 04:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maps, Pictures, etc.

Hi, It seems that there are few if any images on most of the History of the United States pages (this page has no images whatsoever). I just recently added a ton of png's of historical US flags at Flag of the United States. What do people think of my idea of sticking a few of them into this page (like one per main section to illustrate the expansion of the nation).

These pages (and most of Wikipedia history articles and articles about countries really) desperately need some maps showing what's being talked about. When I have (lots of extra) free time I may make some maps of US historical expansion. In any case, in the interrim it seems that at least some famous images of historical events (even semi-fictitious images like the signing of the declaration of independence or the crossing of the delaware) could be added (lots of the most famous images should be already on Wikipedia I would expect). Just because this is a page about history doesn't mean it must be completely devoid of color and shape.

Alright. if someone likes my idea of adding some flag pictures to this page, let me know at my talk page, please (I might not remember to check back here).

--Jacobolus 11:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work in general. The flag pictures should stay in the articles on the U.S. flag. Note that there is a series of subsidiary articles, which have pictures. 172 11:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why the hell is there a history of Islamic Terrorism link at the top of this page

Are we trying to suggest that the history of the United States and the history of Islamic terrorism are two parrallel movements. If so, then why not add a link at the top to the history of Mormonism or the history of people with really big ears. My point is that a naive reader would see this and thing that the Islamic terrorism was the only major movement to shape this country. --Stasa Mar 2, 2005

Start Date of Colonial America

I wasn't sure what the 1493 date was referring to in the section title Colonial America (1493-1776). I changed it to 1497, the year of Cabot's landing, possibly in Maine. Other possible dates might be 1513 (Ponce de Leon in Florida) or 1524 (Verrazano off the eastern seaboard). -Acjelen 21:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Typo?

Under "History of the United States (1849-1865)" there's the word "anti-aboloitionist" - is that a valid word at all or meant to be anti-abolitionist? (clem 20:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

No such word. I fixed it. Be bold. --Eric Forste 23:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as non-English native speaker I was reluctant - I don't want to accidently skew content; if I had been sure it was incorrec I'd have changed it on the spot. (clem 18:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Pre-Colonial America

I'm not so sure the "Pre-Colonial" section should really be here. Aren't we talking about United States history? It's also not in the series, so as long as no one can come up with a good reason for it to stay, I think we'd better take it out.--ROY YOЯ 28 June 2005 15:14 (UTC)

It should stay. First, it is a short section, it does not dominate the article. Second, starting with European arrival seems arbitrary - there were people in the Americas before the Europeans, and, by the standard proposed above, US history wouldn't start until 1776 (or 1792, if you want to be accurate). Third, the history of the US, especially the early history, involved the succesive displacement of the Native Americans who lived throughout the continent. Just starting with the US ignores this context, and I am not sure why it would need to be deleted. Where else should this information be? --Goodoldpolonius2 28 June 2005 15:36 (UTC)

There is a such this as PRE-COLUMBIAN history, which some of Pre-colonial should be transferred into, and I added. YOu have a link to an article about it, but you don't have a section on it? Vermoskitten 03:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Look at the article History of Mexico. It starts with prehistoric times and moves on through preColumbian civilizations before getting to Colonial Mexico. This approach looks at anything any human ever did within the geographic boundaries of present-day Mexico.

For contrast, consider the article on the History of the Soviet Union. That article starts with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and ends with the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Which kind of article is this one? Closer to the History of Mexico model or closer to the History of the Soviet Union model?

Richard 08:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the Soviet Union, a specific collective of many diverse nations under a communist ideal, should be a separate topic from (though naturally intertwined and interlinked with) the larger and longer history of the Russian Federation or the numerous Baltic republics. One could do the same with the United States, of course, but the unique growth of the United States from colonial outpost to world power almost requires an "all-the-marbles" approach to cover everything.

Some confusion in content is made by the heading. For example, Vinland/Newfoundland should not be in an entry on the History of the United States, as Newfoundland is part of Canada.--Susume 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Pre-Columbian section of this article is very poor and needs to be expanded to represent the magnitude of impact of native americans in the region. Otherwise, you are talking about the history of an expansive empire where only those things within the political boundaries matter. If this, indeed, is the case, then American History should not redirect here and the article should start from 1776. Also the link from the featured picture on the main page should not redirect here. --Xer0 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Title proposal

Since this article includes history pre-dating the founding of the United States, I propose that the title be changed to "American history"...well, either that, or "History of the United States and the terrority of the United States prior to its founding". Take your pick.--Plainsong 21:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

History texts and papers often include information leading up to the actual event. This stuff is relevant, 2,500,000 Europeans didn't just appear out of thin air in 1776. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I don't propose that the pre-1776 sections be excised; I only want the title changed. And perhaps I should defend my suggestion a little more. Aside from the fact that the new title would be more correct, it also has the advantages of economy and familiarity (I'd submit that many more WP users type in "American history" than "History of the United States"). --Plainsong 22:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the article name is OK.

1) It is in line with the usual naming in WP: History of Portugal, History of Sudan, History of Ecuador, History of mathematics, History of art, etc..

2) American history is a redirect here, so the typing problem is solved.

Nabla 17:29:25, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

The current title seems OK. (SEWilco 18:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

how about History and Pre-History? Just a suggestion, may not work, but I'm thinking out loud here Vermoskitten 03:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No, leave the title as is. See my comments on the topic immediately above.

Richard 08:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request Joseph McCarthy

Peer review has been requested for the Joseph McCarthy article. Peer review comments should be made at Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph McCarthy/archive1. Tomer^TALK 20:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

History book references

I just wanted to leave a note about the history book references I moved from United States. Howard Zinn is a decidedly leftist author, and I don't know if the inclusion of his book here is appropriate. If we're aiming for non-partisan, scholarly references, then it should probably be removed. If we're aiming for a collection of histories from a variety of perspectives, then we should be sure to balance this with conservative and moderate accounts, make sure non-judgemental scholarly references are also available, and consider non-left/right axes of balance, as well. -- Beland 11:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• If something is a chronicle of history, it should naturally present a fair view from both sides (or multiple sides, if necessary) of an issue. While I think there's a place for specifically-themed treatments of history, I don't think it should be here. The main problem with having left- or right-biased accounts is that, in fairness, they would have to be acknowledged as such, and that takes more time and effort to evaluate as well as providing unneeded opportunities for argument within these pages. *

Removed sentence "the United States has been historically divided"

The sentence made me think of the Koreas. We could say that the Koreas have been historically divided into North Korea and South Korea although all Koreans are effectively one people and seek to reunite as one nation. That's not what the deleted sentence was trying to say about the U.S. so I removed it and inserted the lead sentence from the historic regions of the United States article.

Richard 07:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, wrong edit summary

Oops, sorry about that last edit summary. I copied and pasted the wrong vandal IP. Should've been 24.200.62.9 (User_talk:24.200.62.9). —LonelyPilgrim 12:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi death toll (Section: 1988-present)

I believe there is an incorrect expression in this sentence: "As of early 2006, the Iraqi death toll from the invasion stands at 200 000 or more." Do you mean 200,000? I cannot verify the death toll (I don't think anyone can for that matter). Also the phrasing 'Iraqi death toll' could lead one to believe that wiki means people from Iraq. Because of the controversy involved in the death toll of Iraq it might be best to change it to say: "The death toll of civilians and soldiers as a result of the Iraq war has been growing since the outset of the war."

-- Above text was written by someone who did not leave a signature --

I agree. Whne I read the quoted sentence, I thought to myself, "Well, that is certainly very POV. 200,000 represents the high end of the range of estimated Iraqi deaths since the invasion."

The text should be reworded to make the following points clear:

1) Neither the coalition nor the Iraqis kept track of civilian deaths 2) There is no authoritative estimate of Iraqi deaths 3) 200,000 represents a high estimate of Iraqi deaths, both military and civilian. 4) All estimates of Iraqi deaths, both low and high, should be sourced

Richard 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I took the sentence out entirely. It doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph which seems to detail general, ongoing issues rather than specific information about them.

--IRelayer 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph & "Historic regions of the United States"

I'm confused... I thought I saw somebody complaining about the article leading off with "Historic Regions of the United States" but I can't find that comment now.

Anyway, I've always hated the "Historic Regions of the United States" text and map. Especially as the beginning part of this article.

I've copied over the intro to the United States article and made it the intro to this article. I put the "Historic Regions of the United States" stuff as the first section after the intro. If anyone feels bold enough to delete the "Historic Regions of the United States" section, I won't shed any tears.

Feel free to improve the intro paragraph that I just put in. I just figured almost anything would be better than starting off this article with "Historic Regions of the United States".

Richard 08:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Germany REALLY a long time ally of the United States

Well. In the years 1914-1945, one would argue, not. Even the "auld enemy", the USSR, was an ally then, sometimes. In the years 1946-1990, Germany did not exist. In the years 1991 onwards, Germany was fairly neutral and did not fight any of the US's enemies. In actual fact, the United States really only has one long time ally, its mother, the United Kingdom. Wallie 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There were many, many periods of tension between the US and the UK. I do agree with your saying that Germany was a long time ally of the US. Grimcheeper 21 April 2006

Expansion notices

I have added expansion notices to all the chronological sections except the last two. This article was quoted in a discussion of the relative merits of the English and German Wikipedia's as an example of how in the former there is a tendency to break subjects up to the point where there is not an adequate overview of major topics. This needs massive improvement - not just an accumulation of extra facts, but real synthesis of the subject by people who know the subject, which is where Wikipedia often falls down. While the chronological framework is okay up to a point, I think it is too dominant. It is hard to see from this what the main themes of American history have been. There need to be some extra subsections, I don't want to say exactly what as I'd rather leave people who can do the work better than I could to judge how to go about it, but this article really does need a lot of work. Also, the overview, which is just a short version of the (mainly) political-chronological narrative, which isn't very long anyway, would be better replaced with a more broad-ranging summary that puts the themes of American history into context, including those that are almost ignored in the article at the moment. Sumahoy 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of expanding this article. It already exceeds length guidelines and takes too long to display. Each section of this article points to another main article containing the detail for that period. The detail articles may need expansion; this article needs reduction. Article should not be expanded until, and if, Wiki is able to greatly improve its response time and article maximum size guidelines--something that does not appear to be happening. Thanks Hmains 16:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not actually that long - 30kb, close to the limit but not over. --Astrokey44 13:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion tags

Moved from my Talk Page

what do you think/do about the 'expansion' tags that are now placed in nearly every section of the article? Thanks Hmains 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think many of them are placed there validly. This article is a series of choppy sections that don't make for a flowing narrative. I think there is an over-reliance on the fact that there are subsidiary articles. The principle that I would apply here is that the article should be a "good read" even if there are no subsidiary articles. A quick scan of the sections gives me the sense that a few points are made here and there but without the intent of providing a flowing narrative for the reader.

Hopefully someone will volunteer to do this.

--Richard 04:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree about the placement of the expansion tags. I have been trying to clean it up and add info from the section articles. It is a very difficult article to write because there are so many things to cover and it has to be kept to a reasonable size, it still needs alot of work. --Astrokey44 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs work, POV, awkward sentences, esp. Early European Settlements

"Columbus, after island-hopping for several months heard nothing of gold, his main drive for the voyage, but realized a great market of slavery could be made with these primitive, naive, and unsuspecting populations." Besides the poor construction of the sentence, the adjectives "naive" and "unsuspecting" are POV. Furthermore, Columbus' main drive for his voyage is arguable, one could also put the spread of Christianity there. But I'll leave that topic up for discussion.

"Horses became a pivotal part...creating a stereotype both to their advantage and against it, as well." Creating a stereotype? It's unclear what this means. Comments?

"The Europeans were ruthless invaders." Entirely POV. The Europeans did ruthless things. They did less ruthless things, too. Sometimes they even did good things.

Basically, I'm going to work on the sentence structure and obvious POV sections in this paragraph, and leave some of the other things up for discussion. Please keep in mind that I am acting in good faith, and if you want to change anything back, discuss it here first. KevinPuj 13:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Friction between colonists and settlers

I seem to have a history of running into rjensen who selectively deletes unsourced material that he/she disagrees with despite the existence of other unsourced material in the immediate vicinity.

I'm tired of playing the revert war with him/her and it's against Wikipedia rules anyway. So, I'm going to place the text here until I can find citations to back up the assertions. I'm sure they're out there, I just don't have time to find them right now. If you can improve this text or provide citations, your assistance would be much appreciated.

"As increasing numbers of settlers arrived in Virginia, many conflicts arose between the Native Americans and the colonists. The colonists increasingly appropriated land to farm and grow tobacco. This was the beginning of a general trend towards displacing Native Americans westward to make room for settlers. Differences of language, religion and culture also contributed to the friction between the two groups. At the base of the friction was an assumption by the English colonists of racial, cultural and moral superiority."

--Richard 20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

the passage in question is unsourced, it is POV, and it is very likely false. It certainly is not based on reading the very solid historiography on the early Chesapeake. For example the issue surely was not the tiny amount of farmland in question -- (tobacco grows in very small plots; hunting tribes need vast areas). Wars were endemic at that time (in both Europe and America) and do not need this catalog of theoretical causes that apply to all wars in all countries in all centuries. I suggest that instead of looking for citations to support assertions, editors start the other way around: read a good solid book and summarize and cite it. Rjensen 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A good book that fits your POV, I suppose. Here are some sources for the disputed text.

As English settlers crowded in, they occupied more and more of the prime coastal plain farmlands where Native American gardeners had once planted their corn, squash and beans against winter’s privation. Voluntary and forced trade squeezed the ability of remaining Native American fields to provision the tribes, and increasing conflicts between the two groups led to many deaths.

Chesapeake Bay Journal

It's common knowledge that William Penn was friendly toward the Indians and preferred to 'purchase' lands legitimately (see the history of Mifflin Co.) however, the Indians did not see such transactions in the same light as the Europeans. A fundamental belief shared by all Indians was that land cannot be purchased since it belongs to no one. They viewed the treaty as more of a lease or mutual agreement to cease attacks and allow settlement. The Indians who willingly evacuated agreed-upon lands were being forced out of their new locations and so soon viewed the colonists as having broken these agreements. Any aggressive actions afterwards towards settlers on behalf of the Indians was not actually due to anger towards individual settlers encroaching on their lands, but was rather an objection to what they considered deceptive and dishonorable behavior of the colonist leaders.

Although granted the Pennsylvania area land by Charles II, William Penn did not feel it was owned outright. Believing the land truly belonged to the Susquehannocks/ Lenape, he sought to purchase the land from them honorably but had a difficult job ahead in negotiating with the Indians. By the time that he arrived on the scene, negotiations with traders had already gone on for some time and opinions of Europeans had been formed. Also, the Algonquin-speaking nations had formed alliances and lent aid to many Indians forced north to PA, such as Mid-Atlantic Susquehannocks and Shawnee, as lands were seized in those areas. By then, the Lenape Nation had become used to the practice of Colonist officials promising one thing and delivering quite another. Yet William Penn's efforts to deal fairly made an impression on the Lenape and he was able to earn their loyalty. Unfortunately, when he died, the new government was impatient for expansion with new immigrants arriving, filling up the cities and clamouring to officials for land in order to earn a living and support their families. Settlement of Indian lands increased, often taken by force, causing much friction with the Lenape. [2]

The bloodiest war in America's history, on a per capita basis, took place in New England in 1675.

At the center of this cataclysm was one man, Metacom, leader of the Pokanokets, a tribe within the Wampanoag Indian Federation. At an early age, when relations between the natives and settlers were less stressed, Metacom was given the nickname of King Philip by the English, because of his haughty mannerisms. One of the many ironies of this conflict is that Philip was the son of Massasoit -- the same Massasoit who had helped the Plymouth Pilgrims survive their first winter in the New World. A father's kindness would became a son's curse.

In the 55-year span between the arrival of the Mayflower and the outbreak of King Philip's War, the English had prospered, multiplied and expanded their settlements while the natives were in a slow state of decline from diseases introduced by the Europeans and loss of tribal lands to the whites.

By 1675, with the stage now fully set for conflict, Philip stepped forward to make a stand. In a prophetic moment he warned the whites of his intentions, saying "I am determined not to live until I have no country." [3]

John Smith, one of the members of this first colony in Jamestown, was a leader to helping the colony grow. He explored the area, built relationships with the natives in the vicinity, and created an accurate map of the area. After John Smith returned to England, the colony fell on hard times and was nearly wiped out due to disease, starvation, and conflict with the Indians.

[4]

Need I go on? I'm re-inserting the disputed text. You are welcome to add your POV to the text as I am sure there are instances of cooperation and friendship between the English settlers and the Native Americans. Just be sure to source your statements.

--Richard 05:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

pop history by non-historians is poor basis for Wikipedia. Thus Chesapeake Bay Journal is by a marine biologist who gives no footnotes or citations. So please don't use his stuff. The Rootsweb is by amateur genealogists, who are not usually conversant with ethnography or historiography. Michael Tougias is a popular nature writer but he perhaps does pay more attention to what historians write. As I suggest: start with solid history, not with preconceived notions derived from some forgotten TV show. Rjensen 05:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I assert that the statements can be sourced from the following references

The American Pageant: A History of the Republic (12th Ed.), Bailey, Thomas A., Cohen, Lizabeth, and David M. Kennedy. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001. ISBN 061810349X

Johnson, Paul M. A History of the American People, Perennial, 1999. ISBN 0060930349

Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States, Perennial, 2003. ISBN 0060528370

Morocco or Ragusa?

The article states that Morocco was the first country to recognize American independence, but this is a distinction which has also been claimed by the tiny Adriatic republic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik. Do we know the dates for either nation's "official recognition"? If Morocco is listed in this article because it is still a country and Ragusa is not, is there someway that we can specify that in this article?

Perhaps rather than including links to related articles at the bottom of the page, it would be more useful to have links to articles provided in their corresponding sections. A "for deeper coverage of this subject area" at the bottom would do just fine.

Look out for the Onion!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

Should the page be semi-protected? - Calmypal (T) 18:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a Wikiproject on the United States

-- Copied from Talk:United States --

It appears that there is no Wikiproject whose scope covers the United States. If this is true, then I propose a Wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. One example of why such a project would be useful can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Question on state templates. There seems to be a lack of standards for the infoboxes used in various city articles. To understand what I mean, consider the infoboxes being used in the following articles: Chicago, San Francisco, Tulsa, Miami, Stamford.

--Richard 22:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree there definitely should be a US Wikiproject. I have just written four full-size articles on life in the US and posted them in the two "main" templates: Template:Life in the United States and Template:United States topics. Of course there are some article covering subjects in the US that are on neither template. The sheer number of US related articles and the lack of standards is plenty of reason for a US wiki project. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A WikiProject is an excellent idea. I've been working on Portal:United States (because no one else was updating it). But, I definitely could use assistance, and eventually would like to take a back seat on that. The portal could be maintained like the main page, where one person takes care of the featured article, others work on the featured picture, and different people update the "Did you know" and the news. That would be ideal, but I would be happy with any assistance. WikiProjects are often a good way to coordinate portal maintainance, among other tasks and coordination for the WikiProject. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have left a post on the Wikiproject:Wikiprojects talk page. There has been one request on a Wikiproject:US places-but that is a bit to specific IMHO. There are dozens of articles w/ "in the United States" in the title, thus I have proposed the project and if you support it you can sign here: [5]
also feel free to tweak the description a bit. Also here's the temporary project page (feel free to add to it): User:Gerdbrendel/Wikiproject United States Signature^brendel 23:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

About 3 more sigs needed

Okay, including me, four have signed up as being interested in the Wikiproject:United States. We need about three signatures more, so if your fond of the idea sign your name here:[6]
Regards, Signature^brendel 03:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Impressment

"In response to continued British impressment of American sailors into the British Navy Madison had the Twelfth United States Congress—led by Southern and Western Jeffersonians—declared war on Britain in 1812." - Okay, including me, four have signed up as being interested in the Wikiproject:United States. We need about three signatures more, so if your fond of the idea sign your name here:[7]
Regards, Signature^brendel 03:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't think I'd be able to edit this part myself. Shouldn't it read "had the Twelfth United States Congress—led by Southern and Western Jeffersonians—declare war on Britain in 1812."
2. MarcTmarcl 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The formation of American's money as it is today

I would like to know about the formation of money during the time when the setlers first came to land on American to the time that the first american dollar was made.

I found this interesting and rather technically deep article on the topic: http://www.dinsdoc.com/sumner-1.htm

And lots of other related articles that seem qutie excellent there: http://www.dinsdoc.com/colonial-1.htm

Pfly 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Forming the United States

Whats the point of talking about the Constitution being drafted in 1789 and then hopping back to the Revolutionary war? I think its better to have history in chronological order.

This article's title.

This article's title is entirely misleading. The "History of the United States" should begin with the ideas of independence of the 1700s and not with three entire sections devoted to Pre-revolutionary America. That's not the United States. Furthermore, American History, as a science, should not redirect here, but should be a disambiguation page to here as well as another article about American History, the field of knowledge dealing with American History and the courses involved. My thoughts. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 14:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the bit about "Native Americans" (that is, members of tribal nations who controlled the present-day American continents) is not needed in this article, nor is the bit about early European settlements. Colonist-Native American relations should be referred to, but most of what's in the article now is unnecessary. I agree that "American History" has different connotations to different people and should be a disambiguation page with a link to an article about the terminology (yet to be created, as far as I know). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The pre-history is important to what the US became. The "History of France" article discusses periods long before there was a France, as do most other similiar articles. In this case, there's just no better title for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How does the bit about pre-colonial failed settlements and Native American history important to the overview of "a History of the United States"? Both are important to a "History of North and South America", but not to the United States as a country. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you... The Indians and colonists occupying the future territory of the US had a direct effect on the country it would would become. As in the France example, most of our history articles deal with the prehistory of the country as well, not just the history of an area from the point it got its name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The information provided in the "Pre-Colonial America" and "Early European Settlements" have absolutely nothing to do with the history of the United States. (also, as an off-topic aside, the Irish hero to which your user name refers is spelled "Cú Chulaind" or "Cúchullainh", depending on the time period and province in which his stories were told). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the pre-colonial and colonial history is essential for understanding why the history of the country, once it became the US, took the course it did. On the other hand, I think these sections could be better written to bring out that aspect of the history -- how colonial and pre-colonial ("pre-colonial" is an odd word, the meaning is precontact/prehistoric Indian history I suppose) processes and patterns continued and in many ways are still with us today. If I find the inspiration, I'll try to improve the text myself. Another alternative would be for these sections to simply link to other articles devoted to them; or to have a short blurb with a link to a longer article. Of course, that could be done for various eras of the history of the US as well. In any case, the United States was born from colonial patterns and processes, which included Indians and Indian history. I have trouble seeing how one could decently explain the birth of the country and its early years especially, without setting the earlier context up. Pfly 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and additionally -- the whole article seems to much a list of events in prose. Rather than explaining why things happened and how they fit into broader historical patterns, most of the article seems to just state events, this happened, then that happened, then this, then that; with only a few vague and broad waves at explaining why this and why that. I guess this kind of thing is a general problem with wikipedia. But rather than delete sections that don't seem to relate (like colonial history), we should be trying to write about why things happened and the longer patterns and processes, instead of just what happened when. Pfly 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I agree with Cuchullain, a summary of the earlier periods is important here. It is patently ridiculous to say it has "absolutely nothing to do with the history of the United States". Most standard textbooks will attend to setting the stage with both the indigenous peoples and early colonial activities. older ≠ wiser 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As the sections are written now, they make no mention of the United States and therefore do nothing to further this article, which is meant to give a brief overview of the United States. Siberians crossing the Bering Strait and creating tribal nations across the North and South American continents have nothing to do with the United States, nor do failed European settlements that have not impacted the United States. Keep in mind that my assumption of what the United States is (i.e. the definition) is a country that originated from the original thirteen colonies. Settlements from the 16th and 17th centuries and "Native American" history from hundreds of years prior has no bearing on the shape of US history. If these sections were reworked to link those histories to that of United States history (as neither makes any mention of the US), then it would be fine. Keep in mind that the United States is a country, not a geographical region hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The U.S., as a nation, did not manifest ex nihilo. There were indigenous peoples living here for many centuries beforehand. And multiple Eurpoean powers struggled for a couple centuries beforehand. These factors are important to how the U.S. came into being. Perhaps the sections could do a better job of connecting the dots. I just had a look, and it seemed quite fine to me, but then, I don't care for too much hand-holding, especially in a summary style. To not mention these factors at all would be to omit crucial points in what led up to the formation of the U.S. older ≠ wiser 01:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just tweaked the sections with the hopes of reflecting that the early European settlements (sans British) and the Native Americans did not directly lead to the United States becoming a country. Feel free to revert it and explain why on the talk page; I'd be more than willing to discuss a different way of clarification. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted, no offense. There's no need to make the distinction between non-English colonies and English colonies, and the place in the article you made the distinction was confusing. I agree with Bkonrad that the US did not spring up out of the ground on July 4 1776 (or even when the first British colonies were founded). On the History of France page, we discuss all the peoples who lived in what we now call France. Unfortunately, it sounds awkward to say "Siberian nomads crossed the Bering Strait into the United States", but that's just semantics; it would severely weaken this article if we did not discuss all the peoples who lived or live in the territory of the country we now call the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no offense taken at all. I actually think that a distinction between non-English and English colonies are important in that the United States was established as a rebellion against the English crown, whose territory it was (the colonies, I mean). The failed non-British settlements did not impact the formation of the United States as a country as it formed out of an English colonisation. I feel that the titles are misleading and would do well to somehow separate Native American and 16th century settlements from the English colonies that became a country. They're worth a mention, but I think that there has to be some distinction that these settlements and tribal nations existed prior to the US becoming a country and have no direct relation to the US other than that they once inhabited some of the space that the United States now controls hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a little unfair... I don't think Florida, New Orleans, or California are "failed" colonies, and they certainly have an impact on America and American history. And the Indians did not just happen to live on territory now part of the United States; their descendants still live here today, and there are far more members of the Seminole tribe, not to mention whites, blacks, and others who have Seminole ancestry, than Jamestown has ever had. I see your point, though, that the English colonies were the most important entities in shaping the country America is today, as most of us speak English, our legal system is largely based on English law, many of us are Protestant Christians, etc. But they were not the only factors, and I don't want to see the article focus on them at the expense of ignoring the rest.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the U.S. was a melting pot of cultures before it became a country. New Netherland left a profound mark on the development of New York. The French and Spanish similarly left long-lasting traces that contributed to the development of the country. To say that "[t]he failed non-British settlements did not impact the formation of the United States as a country" is just incorrect in the extreme. older ≠ wiser 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. on French and Spanish colonies including ones that definitely "failed" in the end -- take the example of Spanish Flolrida. There were never many Spaniards there, and although the missions converted a lot of Indians to Catholicism, most of those Indians were killed or enslaved and scattered. Regardless of what happened to the Spanish and Spanish-allied Indians of Florida, the conflict between Spanish Florida and the English colonies, especially South Carolina, played a large role in shaping those colonies. South Carolina especially -- conflict with Spanish Florida began immediately upon the founding of the colony and escalated for several decades. South Carolina was almost wiped out by a combined French and Spanish invasion which would have been able to do it had the operation not ended up bungled. Later, South Carolina wiped out Spanish Florida except for the forts at St Augustine and Pensacola. The war with Spanish Florida dominated the first several decades of South Carolina, putting in place long lasting social, cultural, and government systems. In addition, in these first decades, South Carolina was a major exporter of Native American slaves. The Indian slave trade was extremely important to early South Carolina and again put in place long-lasting cultural traits. Indian slaves were supposed to only be enemies captured in war (a rule often bent and broken, but still a rule the English had to at least pretend to follow). Enemies included France and Spain and their allied Indians. Thus South Carolina's Indian slave system depended on Spanish Florida and French Louisiana. The African slave system is another case in which places outside the current United States matter. In the case of South Carolina, the English sugar island colony of Barbados is key for the way African slavery in South Carolina, and to some degree, the United States, got started and defined.

There are countless examples like these. In short, it would be hard to describe with decent depth how the United States came to be the way it is without referring to places outside the current United States. A history that only focused on the land that is now the United States, and then only on the colonies that survived and transformed into states, would be at least half-blind. Pfly 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why so black and white?

Article says: "In Which the British in North America achieved thier objective of holding thier territory and the Americans failed to achive thiers (The overthrow of British North America)."

I've seen in the discussion pages arguments over who won and who lost and whether it was a draw and so on. Why must things be described in absolute terms like that? Also, why must a country have a single objective and either achieve or fail to achieve it? At least one objective of the US during this war was to get to British to give up the forts they had still occupied on US land in the Great Lakes region. After the war the British did leave these forts and stopped providing support to the Native Americans living in the US in that region. For the Indians of the US, this was a terrible loss and for the US, a great victory. Granted, it is only one small part of the War of 1812, but my point is that there were many objectives on both sides, and each side achieved some and not others. Words like "win" and "lose" for this war as a whole don't really work. Pfly 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"one objective of the US during this war was to get to British to give up the forts they had still occupied on US land" obviously a USer wrote that. The reason that the British were occupying those Forts, is because they were on British North American Soil, regardless of the fact that the US claimed the Indian Reserves, The Treaties the Native nations had signed were with the French and British. The US claims were as invalid as Germany's claims over Poland in WW2. Coincidently, that was why the British North Americans were "providing support to the Native Americans living in the 'US' in that region"; the Native Americans living in the Indian Reserves were living in British Territory. This is the reason that the US had to fight a century of Indian-Wars, while British North America did not. Moreover, the article is wrong, the British North Americans did not hold their territory; the southern territories (Indian Reserves) were lost. While the expulsion of the UK from North America was certainly 'the' objective of the US government at the time, and that was not accomplished, the US still won the war, as afterwards the US was twice the size as it was before (ignoring the non-recognized claims to the Indian Reserves). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

unknown material

I moved the following unknown purpose material from the text of the article to here: [Subject Matter: Technology, the Body, and Science on the Anglo-American Frontier, 1500-1676. By Joyce E. Chaplin . (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001] [John Wood Sweet. Bodies Politic - Negotiating Race in the American North, 1730-1830. Johns Hopkins University Press]

Whatever this is, it does belong in the text of English colonies in American. Hmains 22:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Caption typo

Can someone fix this caption? "Monk's Mound in Cahokia, Illinois, at 100 feet high is the largest man-made earthen m050 AD" Should this be "earthen mound, made circa 50 AD" or something?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.27.220 (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Subject title edit

I edited the title of "Cold War beginnings and the Civil Rights Movement" to "...the twentieth century Civil Rights Movement," since there have been more than one, is one going on right now, and will likely be several more. Aufheben 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I also did other small edits which should be visible from the history page. Aufheben 16:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Westward Expansion

Many parts of this section are not only unsourced, but also offensive. Claiming that the Cherokee took up farming and became "civilized" because of the Indian Removal Act is not only grossly wrong, but prejudiced as well. Aufheben 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There was Vadalism in the Spanish exploration and settlement part that I took out and thats all I did. I haven't read it all over yet I was skimming.

Slavery

It doe sseem remarkable that there is so little about a practice whih envolved millions of African Americans whose presence gave the country huge economic benefits and, in view of some, were associated with some of the worst acts of cruelty in the history of the west. Since March 25th. is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the UK. it seems extraoridnary that this huge blot and massive enrichment of the life of the United States receives such slight attention. The history of the south cannot be told without reference to the trade and the practice of slavery. I write as someone involved in the celebrations of the anniversary though not as one knowledgeable on these matters. Is there no one from West Virginia State college out there? Roger Arguile 16:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Canada?

According to the CIA world factbook, Canada is simply Canada and does not have a long form. I have corrected this. [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexOUK (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Canada has never been a Commonwealth. Canada was a Dominion, prior to becoming an independent nation. Prior to that Canada was a Province of British North America, and prior to that, Canada was a Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction begins with out-of-place geographical text

Why does the introduction to the article begin with an overview of the geography of the US? The introduction (especially the first few sentences) should talk broadly about the definition, importance and span of the topic, and highlight the important points from the rest of the article. Since the article is about the history of the US, the first paragraph should be removed. Anyone who wants to know about the geography or any other aspects, can look it up. -Pgan002 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

United States

The parent article from which this was presumably WP:SPLIT at some point has recently been massively cleaned up to make another stab at FAC. There's a fair bit of cleaned up text and new references there that might be useful here. Just a head's up, MrZaius^talk 07:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

this article seems to vandal bait. How can it be nominated for some protection? Hmains 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:RPP. TheBlazikenMaster 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Iroquois Constitution

I think it would be useful to add a line about the influence of the Iroquois Constitution on the US Constitution.

http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/17-246412.html http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/usconst.html

This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the US Constitution article either, where I will be leaving a similar comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.57.12 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 July 2007 UTC

Question

what did industry use for power until electricity was developed?

Generally steam, from coal fired or wood fired boilers. Often in smaller industries (especially grain or wood mills) water power was used. Another power source that saw some usage was domestic animals.RevZoe (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be checked (about Muslim explorers)

One of the citations (the link) for this text is highly questionable:

"Several medieval Arabic sources also suggest that Muslim explorers from Islamic Spain and Northwest Africa may have travelled in expeditions across the Atlantic to the Americas between the 9th and 14th centuries.[3][4]"

I have observed claims that Chinese explorers supposedly finding the Americas before Columbus (it is very doubtful that they are accurate though). This thesis has even less currency than the Chinese one which is some cause for questioning why it is on this Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.29.166 (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

At least if there were some type of comment explaining the extent of how widely and/or the extent of scholarly support for these claims then it would fit better with the article. The reader should be given some idea about the extent of acceptance of this important (if true) claim.68.54.29.166 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me. Did these Muslim explorers sail to America via the trade winds (without apparently discovering the Canary Islands?) and then return via the westerlies (without discovering the Azores)? I didn't think this large wind pattern of the Atlantic was even guessed at until the late 1400s. It is possible that people could have sailed to America via the trade winds since ancient times, but only a foolish explorer would sail with the wind for weeks on end into an open and unknown ocean, without knowing how to return home. Pfly (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Yes. One of the reasons the Islamic explorations ended was because the ships didn't come back. The kingdom of Mali sent a expedition across the Atlantic ocean in early 1400's and it never returned. And no, they did not find the Canary or Azores islands, as they were sailing from modern day Senegal. Moreover the King of Mali sent the expedition after learning of a apparent land across the Atlantic, from Magrabi scholar that had come to Timbuktu to teach at the university. However, there are no clear records of Magrabi or Islamic-era Iberians, actually successfully crossing the Atlantic, and the scholars might have been revering to Greco-Roman myths, such as the Elysian Fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

women's suffrage

It seems to me that if we're going to reference civil rights for blacks in this article, we ought to also reference civil rights for women, who are >50% of the US population. At a minimum, we should state that the first US women's rights convention was held in Seneca Falls in July 1848, and on August 26, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment - securing womens' right to vote - became law. Derrp (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This item is written very much from the North American point of view and is very biased. A heroic struggle against the terrible British is protrayed. The North Americans as ever were only interested in getting what they could and stepping on all in their path. The British had made a treaty with the native Americans not to encroach any further into the west. Far from it being an herioc struggle by the North Americans to win the West they were happy to wipe out those who'd fed and helped them during their hour of need. As usual the North Americans like to show them selves as always fighting for freedom, which they do but only their own anyone elses freedom doesn't count and is crushed at will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.137.168 (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What does the preceding statement have to do with women's suffrage? It is clearly POV against "North Americans" which seems to be a group excluding the Mexicans and Canadians neither of which fought the British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Link organizing, 15 Jan 08

Forgot to mention that I removed *Houghton Mifflin Company: U.S. History Resource Center since it is not what it appears to be: the "Primary Sources" for example is not the books themselves, but brief capsules of them), and chunks of the site require registration.

Also, this is not the best or most representative selection of links. Someone with the energy to do it could prolly go thru the WWW‑VL site (last link in the batch) and pick up a denser set of links. Bill (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian link--useful?

A link to the Serbo-Croatian article of the same name just got posted to the top of the talk page. It might be a featured article on their website but it doesn't look useful for us. So many redlinks, including every main article about every section. Without speaking a word of Serbo-Croatian, this looks like a copy of our article. Objections to removing the link? Darkspots (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Each language of Wikipedia should be written by a researcher or a fan from that country, and not copied and pasted from other lanuage, I do agree with that. If I spoke that language, I would nominate that article they have for deletion for directly copying the English article. I don't speak the language either, but judging from the same style it's obviously a copy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the rules on borrowing material from other Wikipedias. I thought some borrowing was acceptable under the GFDL--do you know a link to more information about that? I do think we should remove the link to the Serbo-Croatian article from the top of this talkpage. I can't see the possible usefulness of the article to us. Darkspots (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Borrowing information would be ok, but direct translation isn't good in my opinion. Take a look at the Japanese, German and the Spanish versions of this page. We can't see them with the same style, can we? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans

Does any one notice that this article has barely any history on Native Americans? The first time the article mentions them is in a skirmish with them. I couldn't believe it! They helped the early settlers so much in the first years, and the Iroqois nation was a model (with the Romans and Greeks) for America's government! Shouldn't we do something about this? -Amira, March 16th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.96.216 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article should mention few things about Native Americans. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this article while looking for Native-American (US) history, which I guess according to wikipedia didn't happen, because it doesn't seem to be in here anywhere, other that a few passing references like the one in this article. Given the influence of Penacook Federation on the formation of the US, the Republic of England, and the later Revolutionary wars throughout the Western World, I would have expected at least a passing mention. No, not it Wikipedia anywhere! FYI everyone: Neither the Greek polis nor the Roman republic were democratic! They were oligarchies, where the rich negotiated, and more often plotted each other's murder. The Democratic-Federation was inherited from the Penacook Federation, as was the separation of religion and state, the idea that all people are created equal (something got lost in the translation), and the idea that slavery (an exploitation) was immoral. While the Iroquois Federation did precede the Penacook Federation, the Iroquois (at the time) were not democratic. The only thing the US got from Greece and Rome, was a post-colonial architectural style, and the idea that imperialism is destiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Viking discovery of North America

The discovery of North America by a group of vikings, born in Iceland but settled in Greenland, is a historical fact. The discovery is well documented in the Icelandic Sagas. The information there is corroborated by archeological evidence. Genetic researchers are now examining if the geneology of the samll horse found in New Foundland shows that it is indeed a close relative of the Icelandic horse (pony). This would suggest the horse, which was transported to the new world by the vikings, was left there and survived in the wild. The account of the Thorfinnur Karlsefni and his settlement in 1003 AD is also documented in the Sagas including his skirmishes with the natives which he named "Skraelingjar". The birth of his son in America was historic, in that it was the the first European child to be born in the new world. It is also believed that the 15th century discoverers had knowledge of the information contained in the Icelandic Sagas about the discovery of Vinland. This information belongs in the article.Budfin (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'm short of time right now, but a few comments): The given edits are disproportionate given that the Viking's short visit to Newfoundland had no noticeable effect on the United States. Referring to "waves" of explorers merges together effects which differ by several orders of magnitude. By the way, the comments I see above also confuse fact and speculation. You might start providing reliable sources for those remarks. Tedickey (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's the United States they discovered and not Canada? This article is not about who discovered North America, this is about who discovered the United States, I'd think Canada would be more likely discovery as that's closer to Greenland, at least according to the map. But I have heard that Leif Ericson found the United States, and he was around in the end of first millennium. I get it now, so you probably are correct. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Viking traces have been found in Canada but I don't remember anything definite along the east coast of the USA (that omits whatever the Kensington runestone is). I suspect we already have a Viking related article about their explorations. Look over yonder. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1991 - present

This period started with the fall of the Soviet Union/end of the Cold War and Gulf War begining of US military involvement in the Middle East/South West Asia, leading to subsequent wars and terrorist events. Since the US is still militarily involved in the Middle East, this period does not yet have an end point. And no argument has been made here in WP to the contrary. Hmains (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. has had bases in those areas for some time before 1991, so the term "military involvement" is ambiguous. What sources define that this period is a period? -- SEWilco (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I know of no sources being used for any of the current divisions of the United States history articles, etc. The justifiction for the division is found written in the articles, categories, etc. and all lack citations for doing so. I do not believe I have ever seen sources used to justify the sectional divisions of any WP article Hmains (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there anyway to clean up this section of the article? It seems to be a lot longer than it should be. I know that this is essentially discussing current events so it's going to take a bit of a broader historical perspective to edit out the important stuff, but how long should we wait? I guess what I'm asking is if better, more experienced editors than myself could take a look at this section and edit it down a bit to something closer in size to the previous eras of American history. Quixoto (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

End of intro

I do not understand why the lack of WMD found in Iraq is pertinent to the article. --Jickyincognito (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I think it should perhaps be mentioned later in the article, I think it is much too specific for the intro on an article about general US history. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be pointed out

that the vikings went to what is now america a long time before columbus,first they went to Newfoundland then a few hundred settlers went over to america,and got masarcared by the natives,and dont say that this isnt true its a fact. Luke12345abcd (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they went from Greenland to Vinland. It's unsure where that is, but the only discovered Viking settlement in the New World is in Newfoundland in Canada, not the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

rhetoric implicating Iran

This seems to me somewhat POV. It can probably stay but should be re-worded with more detail if it has to be mentioned.--Spinmonkey (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1991–present

The George W. Bush administration has also stepped up rhetoric implicating Iran and more recently Syria in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

1790 USA map

Anyone mind if I remove this map, which seems to show the western US border as the Appalachians in 1790? The Treaty of Paris (1783) granted the US most of the territory east of the Mississippi. (There were some localized border disputes, but nothing on the scale that the map suggests.) AlexiusHoratius 08:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking another look at it, I see that the main reason for having the map there is as a general size comparison, but the 1790 part is still a bit misleading. AlexiusHoratius 09:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing Unit

From the Civil War Era:

"By 1860, there had been nearly four million slaves residing in the United States, nearly eight times as many from 1790; within the same time period cotton production in the U.S. boomed from one thousand to nearly one million per year."

"from one thousand to nearly one million" whats? Dollars, tons, pounds?

Anyone know?

Finnbjorn (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tons. Cotton production was 3000 bales in 1790 and 3.8 million bales in 1860, and a bale of cotton is 500 pounds. I'll add a ref to the article. Darkspots (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup: the reference is this, but since it's noncontroversial information I'll leave the reference out of the article unless people feel the link should be in there. Darkspots (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Economic Crisis

Does the current economic crisis deserve a spot on the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.182 (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Cession

The text states that "The [1830] Indian Removal Act also directly caused the ceding of Spanish Florida...", but the US Territoial Expansion map dates the Spanish Cession to 1819. What gives? Pingku (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I don't want to disturb well-mapped waters, so instead of being bold I'll just start by asking a question. Has a consensus been reached sometime in the past that the first paragraph start with a description of US geography? I'm not so dense as to not recognize that the country's geography and history are interlinked, but this doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD.Unschool 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I must be blind. Is there an archive to old discussions from this page? Unschool 04:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on the tag at the top of the page. Pingku (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, since the geographical facts don't add much helpful info here, I removed them. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Misleading

The USA did not exist until the 1770s. So to have an article about the history of the USA begin with Native Americans and Columbus is misleading at best. It would be like having an article about the history of the USSR starting in tsarist times. --192.251.163.183 (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The background may be helpful, and there were colonists before then, but you're right - it didn't officially begin until then. Invmog (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the background is helpful in a small amount, but 1/3 of the head of the article about native americans is excessive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.144 (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Earlier Explorers

this article incorrectly states that the first documented old world(European)explorer is John Cabot and that Juan Ponce de León is recognized as the first European explorer to be rcognized as steping foot on what is now the continental United States however this is incorrect as Leif Ericsson was the first explorer to reach the American shore line arounnd 1000 ad and this was a documented fact before columbuses day[9] [10] the page should be updated to include this information

america has diffrent subjects and even though it has had a tough time it has stil suvived though out the wars and battles they have carried on a normal life rebulding there structures and monuments that have been blown up with the war every day has somthing new to talk about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.192.95 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual history?

Why do we have a link to gay, lesbian, tranny, and bi-sexual as being apart of the "Civil rights movement"? It's nothing more than political..it's not a legitement part of the history worth mentioning..

75.179.163.66 (ta anlk) 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat

Stop trolling Wikipedia please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.210.161 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

-I sort of agree, I'm not a typical troll, as I do not go on 4chan. However, If we can get more support for this edit, we may be able to eliminate the irrelevant GLBT link. I was just thinking of all the other cultural tags that would take priority for display. First of all, the civil rights movement paved the way for GLBT marches in the 70s, so linked should be that. Second, women's lib also provided workplace advancement. Third, the military which helps run the country, should also be linked. 68.43.179.27 (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Thomas

"Research has revealed much about the early Native American settlers of North America as indicated by Cyrus Thomas.."
Deleted bolded text. I can't see why Cyrus Thomas would deserve special mention in the intro here.
Please discuss here if you want to replace this. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the Battle of Gettysburg mentioned?

I see that the Second Battle of Bull Run and the Battle of Antietam are mentioned under the Civl War Era section, but why not the Battle of Gettysburg? It was certainly a very important battle in the Civl War.

I thought that I'd say it here and hear your approval before adding it/changing that paragraph a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This was later addressed with User:Valkyrie Red's edit on August 30. —Mrwojo (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The first country to recognize USA

Ath the moment the article states that it was Morocco, citing somebody's personal web page (obviously not a reliable source). On b.g.c I found the following [11]:

Which was the first state to recognize the United States and when is a debate. The City of Dubrovnik, then known as the Republic of Ragusa, claims to be the first; the city museum has a permanent exhibit detailing this act; Barbara W. Tuchmann claims it was the Dutch. FIRST SALUTE 5-18 (1988); Jerome Weiner claims it was Morocco. "Foundations of U.S. Relations With Morocco and Barbary States," 20-21 HESPERIS-TAMUDA 163 (1982-83).

So basically if there is (is there?) a debate in historical circles which country was the first, all involved in the debate should be mentioned per NPOV policy, preferably citing some reliable sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This was addressed with User:Olegwiki's edit on August 10. —Mrwojo (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Civil War in the lead paragraph

Does anyone else think it's odd that the civil war is omitted from the lead paragraph? It starts talking about westward expansion and then skims across the whole mess into the abolition of slavery... Something should be put between the third and fourth paragraphs, but this isn't really my field.. Lithoderm 23:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a very brief mention with an edit today. It could be placed as the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph instead because it coincidentally ties these two paragraphs together (a main cause of the secession was the determination of slavery in new states). —Mrwojo (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil War Section Needs to be rewritten

The Civil War section of the article talks only about the Eastern Theater of the war and not the Western Theater, and just personally sucks. People will be disappointed in Wikipedia if they read that, I know I am.--24.40.134.221 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Today I added a mention of Vicksburg, at least. The third paragraph of American Civil War does a better job of summarizing the "big picture" of the actual war. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Only superpower"?

I think that's a little misleading considering the rise of Japan, China, and Iran as major powers in the world. It sounds a bit jingoistic to me. Can someone edit it with a source to better reflect the modern state of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestAngel (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still the general consensus among historians that the United States has been, and still is, the world's remaining superpower. A superpower is defined as a state which has the ability to influence events on a worldwide scale, which characterizes the United States. Other nations such as China, Russia, and Brazil are referred to as regional powers. —Apollo1758 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

China is indeed on the cusp of superpower status, and this section might need to be updated within a few years, but its not really there yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.144 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Paragraphs 4&5"

I was reading the article and there are conspicuous lack of citations in p4-5. see below

'The confederal government proved too weak and a Constitutional Convention was called to create an alternative. The resulting Constitution of the United States ratified in 1788 created a federal system of government with increased democracy. The first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights quickly followed, guaranteeing many rights that were at the center of the justification for the Revolution. British and American conflicts soon ignited again with the outbreak of the War of 1812, which ended in with the Treaty of Ghent. With the Louisiana Purchase early in the nineteenth century, westward expansion of United States territory began in earnest. This was encouraged by the belief in Manifest Destiny, by which the United States would occupy all of North America east to west, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. After the nation split over issues of states rights and the expansion of slavery in 1861, the Civil War—the deadliest war in US history—reunified the country.

Following the Allied victory in the Great War, the United States underwent a time of economic growth for the eventually advancing to the Roaring Twenties. However, the Wall Street Crash of 1929 led to the Great Depression, a time of economic downturn and mass unemployment. Consequently, the U.S. government established the New Deal, a series of reform programs with varied success that intended to assist those affected by the Depression. However, once the US entered World War II in December 1941, the economy quickly recovered, so much that the US became a world superpower by the dawn of the Cold War. In the last great expansion of national territory, the outlying states of Alaska and Hawaii were both admitted to the Union in 1959. During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were the world's two superpowers, but with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the world's only remaining superpower.'

I would just like to bring attention to the sentence, "this was encouraged by the belief in Manifest Destiny, by which the united states would occupy all of [N.] America [e to w], from atlantic to [] pacific oceans." We can obviously just condense that using logic and finesse. I think the general audience that reads this, does not need to be informed of the compass heading for longitudinal continental travel. I am going to edit this and hopefully someone can work on finding references. I will fix the highschool history paper tone.68.43.179.27 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Where to start

A recent study of U.S. history textbooks reported that each one ion the sample of 15 began with a chapter on the origins 10,000+ years ago. See Tony R. Sanchez "The Depiction of Native Americans in Recent (1991–2004) Secondary American History Textbooks: How Far Have We Come?," Equity & Excellence in Education, Volume 40 Issue 4 2007 Pages 311–320. So that's where the article has to start. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple issues? If a synopsis is to start from the very sources, the Britannica in United States of America has it right: it starts, on the first page, the evolution of the land masses from 600,000,000 years ago. Many pages later, it goes into plant and animal life. Eventually, it addresses settlement -- barely mentioning the Indians.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a politically correct grade school platform influenced by PTAs, or by Indian or Mexican activist groups. The opening sentence was practically an oxymoron, "The history of the United States begins with the first human habitation in the region, thousands of years before the United States Declaration of Independence was declared in 1776." I.e., "The history of the United States isn't really about the United States."

Either go back 600,000,000 years, or omit the background entirely, one would think. Either go back to the ultimate roots, or start with the point where the term was conceived? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The EB article has many subdivisions. The relevant one is HISTORy and it starts like this: "The territory represented by the continental United States had, of course, been discovered, perhaps several times, before the voyages of Christopher Columbus. When Columbus arrived, he found the New World inhabited by peoples who in all likelihood had originally come from the continent of Asia. Probably these first inhabitants had arrived 20,000 to 35,000 years before in a series of migrations from Asia to North America...." Just like us. This article is about the history of the people who comprised the U.S.A. starting with their first arrival. . We rely on history textbooks (authored by experts) and they all start with the Indians, as Sanchez has reported. Please use a textbook. Thanks. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Note a discussion about deleting article related to U.S. history. Additional comments or suggestions could be helpful. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1991 to present section too long

The section 'The "World Superpower" (1991–present)' is too long and detailed for this overview article. This section should be no more than a few paragraphs long. Most of this material should be moved to History of the United States (1991–present) which currently lacks this detail. Hmains (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been chipping away at it and moving details as appropriate to the sub-article. The goal is 3-5 solid paragraphs like most of the other sections. —Mrwojo (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Usage of "Indians" to refer to Indigenous Americans

The usage of the word "Indians" to refer to indigenous Americans isn't the most accurate usage of vocabulary. Shouldn't it be changed? A more accurate word to describe these peoples would be "Amerindian", "Indigenous Americans" or "Native Americans" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.208.232 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

By 2010, political scientists were debating whether the election of Barack Obama in 2008 represented an end of the Reagan Era...?

After looking at the last sentence in the lead paragraph, "By 2010, political scientists were debating whether the election of Barack Obama in 2008 represented an end of the Reagan Era, or was only a reaction against the bubble economy of the 2000s, which burst in 2008 and became the Late-2000s recession with prolonged unemployment", I am wondering whether the opinions of political scientists are really relevant to an article about American history? Especcially since this is not an article where opinions are really relevant. If you ask me, something like this should either be rephrased, or not be included in this article since this sentence is referring to a political discussion that may not be very relevant to the history of the United States.--Joker123192 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

well it's the political scientists--not the historians--who are writing the political history of the last few years. They use very sophisticated tools and their analysis is very serious--it's not mere "opinion" of the sort you hear on TV talk shows. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...I don't believe this article is specifically about the political history of our country. I suggest that at the very least, this sentence be moved out of the lead paragraph, and toward the bottom of the article, near where it says "As of 2010, debates continue over..."--Joker123192 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think 2008-2010 is a time of politics and economics. The idea is to have 1 or 2 sentences in the lede summarizing the Obama election and first two years.Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Natives

Not sure why Native history is left out here? perhaps we could do something like what the Canadian have done History of Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.110.135 (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)