Talk:History of the United States (1865–1918)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States History (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

My recent edits, cite styles, etc.[edit]

I've recently rewritten the Philippines section and made some other edits. In doing so, I've added some specific supporting cites.

There's a hatnote in the article saying that it needs additional citations. The article mentions plenty of general references, but is very sparse on inline citations. I may do some work trying to add inline cititations to the references mentioned (or may not).

The inline citations I've added used {{Harvnb}} and {{Citation}} templates to provide wikilinks linking Shortened footnotes to full citations. This is not in keeping with the citation style previously used in the article. Articles should use a consistent referencing style, and if I can get a consensus here about what style should be used I'll use whatever style is preferred -- I'll redo the existing cites in the preferred style as needed. Some alternative citation styles which might be used can be seen in Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods. I happen to prefer the style I've used in my recent edits, but freehand cites wrapped in {{wikicite}}s work just as well to provide targets for the wikilinks from the shortened footnotes, and some articles just omit the wikilinks from the shortened footnotes to the cites.

So, what referencing style is preferred in this article? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

in a short summary article like this a huge amount of history has to be covered briefly; attention given to specific topics must be proportional to what you find in standard sources like textbooks. The Philippine war gets a line or two in the textbooks, not a whole section. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not at all what I was asking about, but the article had a whole section on the Philippines prior to my edits. My rewrite of that section reduced its size from 18 lines of text to 14. Five hundred edits ago, in January of 2006, the section was named The Philippine-American War and was 25 lines long, having grown from the 15 line section which was added to the article by this 2004 edit.
Does anyone have strong preferences re citation style? Any objection to using shortened footnotes wikilnked to full citations as I did in the notes & refs in the Philippines section? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a strong preference for leading readers to the classic books on the era -- such as those by C. Vann Woodward. A very useful format is C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (1951). Rjensen (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Philippines section has now been reduced to just four lines. It's easy to get a misleading impression of the relevant US & Phil joint history from the oversimplified info left in the Philippines section, but that can be corrected by looking at the articles linked as {{main}}. Since I came to this article on the track of bad info about U.S. and Philippine joint history (some of which my initial edits corrected here) rather than focused on overall U.S. history, I'm going to de-watchlist this article for now.

Unrelated to U.S. & Philippines joint history, I corrected what looked to me like a bit of vandalism left over from this 2007 edit while I was here. I don't think I made an error in doing that, but if I did I invite interested editors to correct it. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reconstruction section[edit]

Part of the Reconstruction section seems to be missing.Rojawi (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

yes thanks for the alert. It was vandalism & i fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)