Talk:List of the oldest buildings in the United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of the oldest buildings in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mounds as buildings?

I'm not sure if the mounds should be included in this list or perhaps another one should be created? They don't seem to be freestanding structures, and I'm not sure they are buildings at all. Are there walls and internal rooms? Swampyank (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mounds that were occupied - not burial or ceremonial mounds - typically supported a structure of wood or stone built on top. As the mound was raised to higher levels older structures were filled in to make the new level and a new structure built on top of that. see Platform mound --68.199.109.142 (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit this table

Copy and paste the following into the right place in the table:
|-
| <!- Building name goes here ->
| <!- Image goes here, like this [[File:ImageFileName.xxx|100px]] ->
| <!- Location goes here, usually a Wiki link ->
| <!- Two letter state abbreviation, all caps, goes here ->
| <!- Year first built. Must be four digit year first so it will sort correctly. Add "circa" or other qualifiers after the four digits. ->
| <!- The building's principal use -- House, Religious, Government (includes military), Tavern ->
| <!- The claim, "Oldest building in Iowa" or whatever. ->

And fill in each of the lines as instructed, removing the instructions, including both ends of the <!- instructions ->. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Niagara "French Castle"

Built in 1726. Please add. See wiki entry for Ft. Niagara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmelyova (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications: oldest building in the eastern interior of the U.S. Oldest building west of the Appalachians, east of the Mississippi. Oldest non-Spanish non-native-American building west of the Appalachians. Oldest French building in the U.S. Shmelyova (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French castle in Niagara fits these especially since there is the Spanish buildings there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.50.184 (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Reading Comprehension

This list says a house dated 1646 is the oldest house in the US, that a house dated 1640 is the oldest house in Plymouth MA, that a house dated 1639 is the oldest house in Connecticut, that a house dated 1637 is the oldest timber frame house and that a house built between 1000 and 1200 AD is the oldest continuously inhabited site in the US. That means there are on this list FIVE houses older than the oldest house in the US. And you wonder why people think that Wikipedia is a joke book? 87.114.36.187 (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Blast furnace

The article states that the Oxford Furnace in Oxford Township is the first hot blast furnace in the United States. I am not sure what the difference is between a "hot blast furnace" and a "blast furnace" which I would assume is also quite hot. That said the Furnace Carolina site built in Cumberland Rhode Island in 1734 by Eliezer Metcalf would certainly predate the Oxford furnace by 7 years. Perhaps the article should read "Oldest surviving intact blast furnace" instead. Then this would read true since the Furnace Carolina site is actually a ruins. Off hand I seem to recall some years ago someone else telling me of another even older New England blast furnace but I cannot recall any other detail of that conversation so will only mention it here in passing. While we can often verify a claim of being oldest in a particular catigory if a building still exists it is difficult to prove something is the FIRST in any catoagory as often local history is unclear or not perfectly recorded.

A house I once lived in was suposedly built in 1790 but some years later when it was very carefully examined it was determined that the oldest surviving part of the structure could not be dated back before 1850. It was suposed to be the first house built in the village. Now this is known not to be true.

I once had an English professor who claimed a particular person was the very first author who lived in a particular catagory and was quite happy to declare such to all her classes until I dug up three works by authors who lived in that location a century before and published long before the birth of her claimed first author.

When you claim that something was the first in nearly any catagory someone is going to come along and find something that came before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.148.178 (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Misery

I'm always a bit skeptical of lists like these (perhaps I've expressed that skepticism on a related list). Nevertheless I do have several photos included on this list, so I'm not completely against them! :-)

In any case, I've just included somebody else's picture as the last (youngest) item on the list, Fort Misery, as "the oldest European-built building in Arizona." I'm not sure what that says about the Spanish, but I suspect it's really about the non-Native-American American-built buildings. For irony's sake, I'll note that both the oldest and youngest buildings on the list are in Arizona. Feel free to remove this if you can figure out the proper rule for inclusion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Findowrie house in Keswick, VA was built about 1730 and is considered the oldest unaltered house in Virginia. There is still no bathroom in it. No upgrades, no improvements have ever been done to the inside. It's as it was. It is located on over 500 acres of property once owned by my Lewis family relatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cblaker68 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Buildings or "Firsts"?

Does this article discuss the oldest buildings between a period of time (i.e. pre-1760's)? I am a little confused since it seems to be the oldest buildings as in the "firsts" for a state or area. It needs to be defined and narrowed to a certain time frame. --Liveon001 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth mounds?

Earth mounds should not be counted as buildings unless they have some internal passage or stonework. Otherwise they aren't really buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.97.209 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of the oldest buildings in the United States. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nosfarchives.org/sanmiguel.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pilgrimjohnhowlandsociety.org/howland_house.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://circa1679.com/default.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paulreverehouse.org/about/paulreverehouse.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mounthollyfd.com/history.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://firehistory.org/oldest-fd/oldest-paid/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 13:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content without requesting source verification

As this is a list derived from other WP articles, most of the listings are not individually sourced. If an editor questions the source or veracity, it is appropriate to tag the content and discuss it on the Talk page rather than unilaterally deleting content without consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 03:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what is "appropriate", what matters is wikipedia editing policy and deleting unsourced material is always "appropriate." Your opinion is of no consequence in matters of wikipedia policy. What you are saying is that unsourced material cannot be deleted, a statement which does not conform to wikipedia editing policy. Please refrain from pushing your own personal agenda; an editor can delete unsourced material and preventing an editor's freedom is explicitly forbidden by wikipedia policy.Old houses (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I am saying. WP:Source list: When reliable sources disagree, the policy of keeping a neutral point of view requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any in particular. Simply present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight through coverage balanced according to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Please refer to WP:NPA regarding your unwarranted comment concerning my "agenda". NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 06:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of the oldest buildings in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Williamsburg?...

really shouldn't be listed here because most of its present buildings are reconstructions dating from the 1930s Rockefeller era. Yes, some were actually built in the 1700s but not as many as the general population thinks. I have always heard that Alexandria, Virginia has more authentic (mostly Colonial) buildings in its Old Town area than Colonial Williamsburg has within its borders. Now, finding a reliable source that states all of that as a verifiable fact?... Shearonink (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Colonial Williamsburg#Restoration and reconstruction I removed the Colonial Williamsburg section from this List. The Historical area contains about 500 buildings of which only maybe 88 can be thought of as original but of those 88 the Capitol, Governor's Palace, Wren Building + some assorted houses are constructions dating to the 1930s Rockefeller-era. Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of the oldest buildings in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Relocated Buildings?

Should there be a separate list article (I’m not using that cringey portmanteau “listicle”) about the oldest buildings relocated from other countries? I’m really interested in seeing where buildings like Miami’s Ancient Spanish Monastery, Virginia’s Agecroft Hall, and Michigan’s DeZwaan Windmill would be on a list like this. I’m sure these buildings appeared on this list before, but were removed because of the rules for this particular article, so I would like to know how useful a separate list like this would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.118.188 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Size of images in 17th century section

I adjusted the sizes of the various images in the 17th century to all generally be the same, as in larger to allow for more detail to readers. That edit was reverted. Now the article is back to having large amounts of white space surrounding all the buildings' small images except for one single oversized image. The 18th century section has the same issue - large amounts of white space surrounding every image except 2, 19th century (again) has the same issue - large amounts of white space surrounding almost all the (small) images except for 5 buildings. Like it? Don't? Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors had added the "thumb" param to some of the images so that was enlarging those tables, but all are fixed now. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive Insertions in 17th Century Entries

Someone has inserted text to the effect that dendrochronology has not verified the age of many of the entries. There are multiple reasons why this is not appropriate: 1. Before this change, no entry included the method used to verify building age - and the vast majority still do not. 2. Details of building age verification would be more appropriate within entries on the individual buildings; list entries should include only general information. 3. Only one entry, the Feake-Ferris House, used dendochronology - along with other methods - to verify its age. 4. Dendochronology is not the only way to verify building age, and cannot be used for buildings not made of wood (like the all-brick Jamestown church). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.55.86 (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dendrochronology is the only way to precisely date a house built before building permits. A survey by an architectural historian is the next best way to get at least a ballpark date. But like dendro, surveys by architectural historian are rare. Title research and genealogy cannot date a building with any accuracy. The Feake House has theoretically been dated by dendrochronology, but the actual results have not been made public, so the date reported here is not reliable; a 1645 date is unlikely to be true, therefore the date should be deleted, according to wikipedia editing guidelines. And very few houses have been dated by dendrochronology, so dendrochronology should only be mentioned when it has been done.Old houses (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings in Kansas

I'm skeptical whether El Cuartelejo should be included here, as the only "building" present is an outline of where the walls once were, built with stone in 1971.

Further, the listing the the Fort Leavenworth Rookery states that it is the oldest building in Kansas.

The page List of the oldest buildings in Kansas doesn't list El Cuartelejo, and lists a house that is older than the Rookery. Dbh97 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza de Yerba Buena

Plaza de Yerba Buena is listed, yet the sources do not in any way indicate that the current structures date to 1833. The Wikipedia article for this plaza says it was fully rebuilt in the 20th century to add a parking structure. Unless there is evidence of some portion of the plaza dating back to 1833 I believe this should be removed. Valentinejester (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vernon?

I don't see it listed here. Originally built in 1734. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vernon 199.223.129.4 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]