This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This is a controversial historical topic that may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
History of the United States is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.
Are people here devoting the same space of the History of the US to the Spanish period as to the Dutch period? Do they know anything at all about US history? If I have to pose this question, I guess this article has no hope! Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree more needs to be added - I added Spanish and French colonies to the Lead, as they controlled more territory than the Dutch and they were outside the original Thirteen Colonies, but contemporary with them (and, in some Spanish settlements, preceding them) and sometimes approaching them from the continental direction.Parkwells (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Only Jefferson gets his own section in the early 19th century. Then titles jump ahead to the 21st century and "Obama." This seems WP:RECENTISM IMO. Bush also requested and got a trillion dollars, as I recall. Leader subtitles seem more appropriate IMO for dictatorships than democracies, where some concurrence by somebody else other than the President is required. Student7 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The Jim Crow laws are mention in the intro of the article, and once in the civil rights movement, but never talked about in the Reconstruction Era or anywhere else. JamesNicolasE (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying to add a little to this article. But, we need citations, particularly in the lead section, which has none. I'm going to try adding in the next few days, but would appreciate help.Kude90 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
normally the lede does NOT have cites, except for quotes. It is a summary of material in the subsections, each of which is sourced. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
WRONG. WP:LEADCITE. Same expectations for verifibility. Which means cite what needs cited. And as thus far, yes, I have seen things that need citing. So yes, I will cite things.Kude90 (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
the polic at WP:Lede says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." that means it should be decided here. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
As shown by the south poor thing, they will be needed in some places. I wasn't going to put citations in every sentence. But, where needed, they should be added. Like in statements such as "the south was poor." Thus far, I seem to have noticed a left leaning theme in this article. That's why more citations are needed. Kude90 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
in the old days even high school students were all taught that the postwar South was poor. That's because it was so obviously true and important. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's true, you can cite it. It's that simple.Kude90 (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you may have misread your source. Read the last sentence of the second paragraph, and the third paragraph. it says that the perception of a poor south post civil war was wrong. So...Kude90 (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, you've solved it, so I guess everyone's happy. My thought would be to move the current 2 sentences in the lead, into the article itself. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary, say "The South never recovered its pre-war prosperity until the last half of the 20th century."(no cite) Never mind about the North and West. I would have said "first half," but what the heck. Student7 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I had made quite a few attempts months in the past to shorten it and now that I come back to it, it is even longer than how I found it before. There is almost no other lead in this entire Wiki of millions of articles with a lead this long, with a blatant disregard for everything set forth in WP:LEAD. I'm not going to bother trying to make it more concise any more because it ends up going in the complete opposite direction. When I first found it, I thought having 5 paragaphs was long, now it has 7 and takes up two full computer screens. Who thought that adding two more paragraphs would be helpful? Is all the detail in there really crucial? How can the history of the United Kingdom which existed long before the US, have a lead that is less than half as long? I am actually astonished by the blatant disregard for guidelines and standards set forth by Wikipedia. Does anyone care? Cadiomals (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I think saying that Dred Scott legalized slavery everywhere is a bit of an exaggeration. If I'm correct, the ruling simply stated that a slave after being brought by his owner into a free state would remain a slave as well as stating that territories could not be divided up as 'slave' and 'free'. However, I don't believe that the ruling changed the distinction between free and slave states. Andrei Bolkonsky (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Right! I tried to rewrite with a bit more accuracy but maybe too long for this article. And needs cite. So still needs work but more accurate. Thanks for catching that! Student7 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's difficult to write an overall history, but given the continuing issues related to the colonists' takeover of Native American lands and displacement of peoples, and the entwinement of slavery in the US economy, culture and politics, it is striking that both are so glossed over in the colonial and 19th c. sections. After all the historical work that has been done in the last 40 years on these topics, as well as major civil rights movements, we ought to be able to acknowledge more here about these issues and peoples. As an example of one aspect, slave trade wealth contributed to important institutions in New England and the mid-Atlantic, not just the South. For instance, the New-York Historical Society's major 21st exhibits on "Slavery in NY" showed that cotton-related exports were half of shipping from NY before the Civil War. The New York mayor proposed secession because of the city's economic ties to the South.Parkwells (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Until this 2013-JUL-01 edit, the accessdates in this article were predominantly or entirely YYYY-MM-DD. MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT specifically permit YYYY-MM-DD in accessdates, exempting them from other parts of MOS:DATEUNIFY. WP:DATERET advises us to keep the established format - established by the first user or by later explicit consensus. Per WP:DATERET, this 2007-NOV-06 edit established the default accessdate format for this article. Having all the accessdates in a YYYY-MM-DD format is actually a benefit to readers & editors alike, making it clear at a glance which date is an accessdate & which is a publication date. I propose that the accessdates in this article all be restored to YMD--JimWae (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Military/European format may be logical, but it is not standard for American articles. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
slurs to describe all supporters of Reconstruction Era Southern Republicans
Since when is it NPOV to use slurs to describe all supporters of a political party? The sentence below is in the Reconstruction and the Gilded Age section and it stinks of POV and racism.
New Republican governments came to power based on a coalition of Freedmen made up of Carpetbaggers (new arrivals from the North), and Scalawags (native white Southerners).
All white southerners who supported reconstructions era Republican governments should be called scallywags? What kind of racist POV history is this?
"a coalition of freedmen made up of carpetbaggers" That doesn't even make any sense. The newly freed slaves were "carpetbaggers"? Is it appropriate to use these slurs in this way in a wikipedia article?Lance Friedman (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
the statement should read: "New Republican governments came to power based on a coalition of Freedmen, Carpetbaggers (new arrivals from the North), and Scalawags (native white Southerners)" -- a typo that is easy to fix. These are the terms used by scholars in the 21st century. for example some recent book titles from university presses: Bryant, Emma Spaulding. Emma Spaulding Bryant: Civil War Bride, Carpetbagger's Wife, Ardent Feminist; Letters and Diaries, 1860–1900 Fordham University Press, 2004; Twitchell, Marshall Harvey. Carpetbagger from Vermont: The Autobiography of Marshall Harvey Twitchell. ed by Ted Tunnell; Louisiana State University Press, 1989; Wiggins, Sarah Woolfolk; The Scalawag in Alabama Politics, 1865–1881. University of Alabama Press, 1991. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
See reversion. If the original editor accepts this, so do I. But I think rather the original editor was rather trying to summarize the paragraph than anything nefarious. I can't see that anything critical was omitted. IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)