User talk:24rhhtr7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, 24rhhtr7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Butler, Pennsylvania. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to tea[edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! 24rhhtr7, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Charles (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey![edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

April 2013[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Yo, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how half of the sources on that page are the least bit reliable. Middle English? Dutch? Japanese? Seriously? I gave a source that is from somebody claiming to be from Philly suggesting another possible origin, not by some academic who probably never stepped foot in the neighborhoods that birthed the term. Considering the way so many Irish and Italian-American East Coast things have been co-opted by people and then wrongly credited to African-Americans, I figure this is something that people finally need to get right, whether or not its origins are really what the source I gave claims.

If you want me to leave it alone, then stop editing the article as if the source by some academic is definitely how the term came about. Say it's a possible origin instead of THE origin and I won't feel any need to edit it again. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A "letter to the editor" isn't even close to meeting the threshold of being a reliable source. If you can locate sources that do meet the requirement to meet the threshold of being a reliable source, great, feel free to use them to improve the article. But the source you are currently using isn't adequate. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, neither are half the sources used for that page. I just used a book source that I found on the Wikipedia entry for the song "Guaglione". I will find more sources if I have to. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the other sources are various dictionaries. You are seriously claiming dictionaries fail to meet the threshold on being a reliable source? Please read WP:RS. Of the two sources on that page that are not dictionaries, one supports Philladelphia as a possible origin (as is already stated in the article), and the other mentions an alternate historical spelling. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the way those definitions and origins in said dictionaries came about should be the focus, not just the fact that they are in there. Slang words should never be defined by academics who don't actually know how they came about. I've never been a fan of slang being in dictionaries. Not only is the entry often inaccurate but it is not something worthy of being in a dictionary.

Furthermore, is not an actual dictionary. It's a website. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and pretty much every single entry having to do with slang/colloquial sayings on Wikipedia is unreliable and really just laughable. "Wigger" and "Yo" are my two favorites. Speaking of, one of the main sources for the "Wigger" entry is an editorial by somebody who admits to being one and attempts to attribute his own traits to the larger human race and to everybody with white skin.

If such an unreliable source is valid for that "article" why not for this one? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A few useful Wikipedia policies and guidelines for you:
Per WP:V (one of the five core policies of Wikipedia), which points out that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.
Also, regarding other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A problem with one article does not justify introducing comparable problems into another article.
As to - follow the link, it displays the result from, which is an on-line dictionary. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If I had put my beliefs or experiences into my editing, I would say that loser little punks from the suburbs need to stop trying to define terms that come out of places they're too soft for, whether they write books about it or not. I'd say that I'm sick and tired of the discussion of what this slang term or that slang term means or where it came from/how it came about being dictated by people who only came across it through movies, music, books, the internet, or other mass media. It should be dictated by those who came across it because they're connected to it. The idea that any of the "sources" used in these discussions are the least bit reliable is just hilarious to me. "Yo" is an Italian-American term, not a Japanese, Dutch, or Middle English one. Arguing either of those origins is not only ridiculous but it is insulting to the poor immigrants who had such a huge, often downplayed, influence on both the US and the rest of the world. There, those are my "beliefs and experiences". I did not put them into the article, and don't you accuse me of doing so.

I have never used "original research", and you disliking the sources I used does not make them "original research". I didn't publish the letter, now did I?

Furthermore, given the way that Wikipedia is trying to be "the" source of information for the entire world, maybe you all need to think a bit about what really is a reliable source, and about your responsibilities in that regard. Trash "articles" like "Yo" and "Wigger" and how often they are used as "reliable" sources are exactly what compelled me to start editing on this site, among other things 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I listed links to those policies to help you - I was not accusing you of using original research, simply giving a one-sentence synopsis of the policy. I'm sorry if you took it as an attack - it was only meant to assist you in learning more about Wikipedia core policies that were relevant to the discussion.
If you disagree with Wikipedia's definition of "Reliable source", feel free to suggest changes at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. If community consensus supports the change, it will likely be implemented. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you have repeatedly accused me of using original research. Check the edit page the next time you try to deny it.

"Community consensus" by who? Considering Wikipedia tries to be "the" source of information worldwide, that is a question that seriously needs to be asked. What qualifies anybody in that "community" or especially the people who are higher-ups and Administrators of said "community" to have such influence or determine anything?

No, I have repeatedly stated that you need to provide a reliable source, and linked to the related content guideline. The only time I ever used the words "original research" was in the summary of the verifiability core policy. They are two different issues, although related to some degree, and Wikipedia has separate policy/guideline pages for both at WP:RS and WP:NOR.
The Wikipedia community is all editors of the site (or, in practical terms related to site content, all editors who take an interest in the specific subject being discussed). See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMUNITY for more. When there is a dispute, or a need for additional outside comments, there are also options to initiate a request for comments which places a notice of the discussion on a various site noticeboards so that others can be aware of the discussion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, that conversation and process is pretty much entirely run by outsiders to the culture that these slang terms actually live in on a daily basis. Therefore, I fail to see you as credible judges when it comes to slang terms. It's fairly simple. Stop co-opting and trying to define cultures you're not a part of. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Upper Darby Township[edit]

Hello, 24rhhtr7. I just noticed some of the changes you made to the Upper Darby page, and I just want to discuss them with you. Before any of this, please understand that I am not here to start any sort of edit war or argument; I am here to get the correct information and make Wikipedia a reliable source for information. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

So first, thanks for taking off some of the vandalism and unnecessary information on the page. However, I do wish do discuss one thing that you did remove; the sentence about the other inner-ring suburbs of Philadelphia. You said in your edit summary that "Upper Darby is absolutely nothing like the other places mentioned in the sentence. It's a lazy generalization and completely unnecessary information" (with the other places referring to Haverford, Lower Merion, Cheltenham, and Bensalem). I would like to discuss this sentence.

According the definition of a inner-ring suburb, it is a place usually bordering the city that experienced a population growth before the postwar baby boom. Now, as evidenced by your other edit summary and the raw data, you are correct, Bensalem does not fit this description, and should be removed. But the others (along with Upper Darby) definitely do comprise the inner-ring suburbs of Philadelphia. Just because two places aren't the same does not they both cannot be inner ring suburbs. Look for example the difference between Takoma Park, Maryland and Bethesda, Maryland. Both are definitely inner ring suburbs of Washington, DC; they both border the district, they both have populations that predate the postwar boom, and they have fairly large populations. However, their geography and demographics are completely different. Takoma Park has a lot of green spaces, parks, tree lined streets, and is very diverse. Bethesda, on the other hand, has a lot of hotels, office spaces, and is not diverse at all. They are two completely different places, but they are still both inner ring suburbs. The same story applies here to Cheltenham, Upper Darby, Lower Merion, and Haverford.

If you know anything about Philadelphia (which I'm sure you have a great knowledge of the city), you will know that it too, is very diverse socioeconomically, demographically, and geographically. Philadelphians take pride in the neighborhood they come from because each has its own identity, dating back generations deep. The same can be applied to these four suburbs. Each has its own identity that just because they are different, does not mean they are all not inner-ring suburbs. Chestnut Hill is just as much in the city as Olney as is Bridesburg as is Passyunk Square. But each of those four neighborhoods are astronomically different from one another you would think you were in different cities every time if you didn't know any better. It's the same thing with these four suburbs.

You are right in that Upper Darby is much different from the other four (especially compared to Lower Merion). But you would be surprised of how similar Cheltenham and Upper Darby are (having myself been to and lived in both areas). Both are extremely diverse, have a lot of public transit services, and have distinctive communities (i.e. Bywood vs Drexel in Upper Darby and La Mott vs. Wyncote in Cheltenham). But it's not just Upper Darby and Cheltenham, if you put all four in a venn diagram, there would be a lot of similarities and differences between all four of them. But when it comes to what defines an inner-ring suburb, difference doesn't matter. If anything, it helps identify it even more; that these areas established their identity long before the postwar population explosion and were not susceptible to much change, unlike the outer-ring suburb counterparts which changed drastically.

So I would like you to re-think on what it means to be an inner-ring suburb. And also realize that despite their differences (and their many similarities as well), Cheltenham, Upper Darby, Lower Merion, and Haverford do make up the major inner-ring suburbs of Philadelphia.

Thanks Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

And who is that definition by? Who decided it? Really, it seems like this stuff changes whenever it suits whoever is using this or that definition better for it to mean one thing or another.

I'm FROM Upper Darby (and by that I do not mean some cushy Drexel Hill suburb). I still live here. I walk around in the world and no matter where I go or how far away it is, I have the "Upper Darby" label on me. I have "skin in the game", as people like to say. I'm not pontificating from up on some self-appointed pedestal or speaking as an outsider. I know Upper Darby in and out much better than anybody not from here ever could. I know Bensalem and Cheltenham, Haverford and Lower Merion. None of them are anything like Upper Darby. The closest is Cheltenham and even that is nowhere close. With all due respect to Cheltenham, it's a nice area that has seen some decline. Upper Darby on the other hand is a place where growing up working class is the norm, not the exception. When I say Upper Darby, I mean 19082 and the Kellyville area, the two working class, hard-nosed parts of the township. The majority of Drexel Hill on the other hand is definitely suburban.

Allow me to correct you there. People from Upper Darby have pride in what section they come from and if you don't then you're not from what people consider Upper Darby. People say they're from Bywood, they're from Cardington, Stonehurst, Westbrook Park, and more likely they'll tell you their parish or their street. None of the three actual suburbs have that same kind of NEIGHBORHOOD pride, and if you really knew Upper Darby you'd know it's the same as Philly that way, as every little section of that part of Delco is. Why do you think the township is so divided in the first place?

I don't need to rethink it. I'm not an outsider to it. I know what a suburb is. I know plenty of people from them. A place built around industry with pockets that were built as streetcar suburbs is not a suburb. It's a collection of villages either built around industry or some other use that dates back to before this country was even a country, that happened to build itself out with development and with redevelopment of former industrial land. If you actually knew the history of Upper Darby, you would know this. So no, Upper Darby isn't an inner-ring suburb nor is it anywhere near as similar to Cheltenham as you think it is. A suburb isn't built around industry. It's built with housing as the focus. Upper Darby having anything in common with the "new urbanist" suburbs of the DC metro? ... No.

Like I said, it's a lazy generalization and unnecessary information. Moreover, I'd appreciate it if you stopped insulting Upper Darby by lumping it in with those places.... especially Bensalem. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

First, let me clarify that I am not in any way insulting Upper Darby. Why would I want to insult a place where I LIVED for quite some time?

Second, Bensalem is removed from the equation a long time ago, so please stop bringing up that place to add to your argument. You already proved your point.

Third, I want you understand again that just because two places are different, does not mean they cannot fall under one category! Again back to my analogy of the different Philly neighborhoods. Correct, people will say they are from Chestnut Hill, Logan, etc. but it is indisputable that at the end of the day, those are all parts of the city of Philadelphia.

I'm going to take something directly from the Upper Darby page: "The census-designated place of Drexel Hill and the communities (or neighborhoods) of Aronimink, Beverly Hills, Bywood, Drexel Park, Highland Park, Llanerch Hills, Kellyville, Kirklyn, Oakview, Primos, Secane, Stonehurst, and Westbrook Park are part of Upper Darby Township." If you're familiar with geography and muncipialities in Pennsylvania, they are broken down by Townships/Cities/Boroughs, and then THOSE are broken down even further to CDP's and unincorporated communities (which is where you get you "neighborhood pride" feel in these different areas). And you don't think Cheltenham has that? There is no way someone who lives in Cheltenham Village would say they are from Wyncote or someone from Laverock would say they are from Melrose Park, etc. YOU have obviously never been to Cheltenham if you seriously think they lack the neighborhood feel that Upper Darby, and frankly, so do Haverford and Lower Merion. Upper Darby isn't the only place in the world with neighborhoods.

I'm just curious of why you think a suburb is a bad thing? Upper Darby isn't part of Philadelphia. So if it isn't part of the city, and it is close, what do you consider it to be? In fact, looking at the history, Upper Darby is the newest of the four townships (Haverford was 1681, Cheltenham 1682, Lower Merion 1713, and Upper Darby 1736). I am also curious to know how Upper Darby isn't similar to Cheltenham "at all."

And I wasn't saying Takoma Park or Bethesda were similar to Upper Darby, I was simply making an analogy.

Well I'm not going to re-add it because I have better things to do with my life and looking back at your talk page, it seems you are quite bitter on little things and are a bit stubborn and not worth my time. For the record, I got the definition I got from a book I recently read called "Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States" by Jean Gottmann, published in 1961. Very good book if you ever have the time to read it. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said you were insulting Upper Darby intentionally. You still were insulting Upper Darby though, whether or not you agree. I bring up Bensalem because you put it in that sentence. You're seeming to confuse my deleting it from the "See Also" with my pointing it out as part of that sentence.

Just as neighborhoods in that part of Delco are all a part of that section, not "suburbs of Philadelphia". They developed as different neighborhoods, with the exception of places that were actually built as suburbs of Philadelphia.

It's not a good or bad thing; it's simply an inaccurate description. If you think that everything outside of but close to Philadelphia is a suburb then I suggest you do a little more reading up on local history. Upper Darby is a township made up of many small neighborhoods/villages that have existed since before West Philly was even built out, with redevelopment of industrial land and streetcar suburbs connecting the far reaches of the township. The Upper Darby that you see today has only existed since the GI Bill era, with plenty of even newer construction in parts. Before that, and before the streetcar suburbs brought on by rail lines, there were farms, estates, and then there were legitimate slums built around industrial properties, some of which were called "millhouses". These have all been bulldozed or redeveloped or both. Then came the streetcar suburbs, then the GI Bill housing, and so on. To label Upper Darby a suburb is to insult the people who have roots here.

Sorry, but no. I have been to all of those places and none of them have that same neighborhood pride. I didn't say CDP. I said neighborhood. You're comparing people who mostly grow up middle class in a much less working class school district to people who have grown up around industry for hundreds of years now. There is no comparison. Upper Darby is only newer because it split from Darby Township. If you were from here like I am, then you would know how it's not similar.

If you weren't trying to say they were similar then why were you making an analogy?

Not worth your time? Who the hell are you to say that to me? "Bitter" about "little things"? No, I'm just sick of suburbanites like you trying to define and dictate the conversation on urban culture and on urban places. I'm "not worth your time" because I just exposed your argument for the pile of misinformation and ignorance that it is.

Good for you. She's not from Upper Darby and neither are you so stop trying to define it.

Super Bowl[edit]

Just letting you know I responded to your comment on (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Hey Man,

I would really like to thank you for all the great information you provided me with. Ever since my comments above, I have really questioned what I really know about the area. You were right, I do not know a whole lot at all. And I was wrong for making such ignorant comments about things I did not know a whole lot about. Specifically, about Upper Darby and the rest of Delaware County, where I only lived for a few years when I was young. I have since lived in Cheltenham Township. After re-reading above, I can't believe some of the things I said and am truly sorry for everything I said. My tone was inconsiderate and unkind and I feel terrible.

Since my last comments, I have done a fair amount of research about the history of the area, in particular, Cheltenham and I believe I have grasped the difference between a suburb and non-suburb that you were talking about. From what I read, Cheltenham was founded on mills powered by Tookany Creek in the late 17th Century and the early neighborhoods of the township were defined by the different mills. It was a mill-based industrial set of communities for a long time. It then became heavily industrialized with the coming of the railroad in the 1850's, then became home to many mansions and streetcars (particularly the route 6) in the Gilded Age which were destroyed in the early 20th century for homes, most of which still stand today. Cheltenham hasn't changed a whole lot over the past 70-80 years, which is uncommon for Montgomery County. I have a job that requires me to make a trip once a week to Upper Dublin, and driving up there, it couldn't feel any more different than Cheltenham. Upper Dublin is just endless suburban wasteland, strip malls, housing developments, etc. This also goes for Whitpain, most of Abington, Upper Moreland, Montgomeryville, etc. My dad (who grew up in Springfield Township, Montco) always comments when we take 309 about 5 miles north of Cheltenham to the turnpike how it was all open space near the turnpike interchange and how going up 309 any further than that was going into the country. Now, it is just buried in suburbia. He says how for the most part, Springfield and Cheltenham haven't changed a whole lot since he was little. But obviously there has been a lot of change in other parts of Montgomery County, as little as 5 miles up 309 from Cheltenham. Given this information and based off some of your criteria, I don't think Cheltenham is a you think it is? I believe if it hadn't been for the earliest communities in the area, none of the developments like Upper Dublin, Upper Moreland, etc. would exist as they do today.

I again really want to apologize for thinking I knew what I was talking about, when in reality, I didn't at all. You should really be proud of not only how much you know about your hometown, but also how much you care. You really made me want to learn about the history, and I have learned a lot since. I really can't thank you enough. Have a great summer. Please let me know if anything I said is incorrect so I can learn more. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit I am more than a little bit surprised (pleasantly) at this. It's nice to be reminded that there are still some people who can get over themselves and actually question things rather than continue going along with the groupthink.

As for Cheltenham, you are correct in that it isn't a traditional suburb and probably isn't a suburb at all. Actually it's a lot like Upper Darby used to be and to an extent still is in that its different neighborhoods and two CDPs are not seen as "Cheltenham" and probably don't consider themselves as "Cheltenham" but as their own separate place. The same situation occurs in much of Upper Darby, especially with sections like Secane, Primos, Drexel Hill, and still to an extent Westbrook Park. The problem with places like Cheltenham and Upper Darby is that lazy people assume they were built as suburbs simply because the Philadelphia city limits eventually stretched out to their borders, when in reality those who know history know that these places existed when Philadelphia was only Center City, a handful of other built up areas, and woods and small towns throughout the rest of the current city limits. Because people from outside of Upper Darby and Cheltenham are now starting to make up the majority in those two places, both are being seen as a suburb of Philadelphia even more than they were before. This is why it is so important to know the history of an area and how it came to exist, otherwise you just lazily generalize places based on nothing of substance. I admit I don't know as much about Cheltenham as I do about Upper Darby or Delaware County in general though.

The interesting thing about both Upper Darby and Cheltenham is that both have sections that were built as suburbs of Philadelphia. Upper Darby has the 69th Street area, Drexel Park, and non-industrial parts like Beverly Hills and Highland Gardens. You already know which parts of Cheltenham were built suburbs of Philadelphia I'm sure. The fact is though, anywhere in this area near an old creek or stream most likely was built up around industry at least to an extent, and that includes plenty of places that became suburbs and even exurbs. Many people view Havertown as a suburb yet Oakview was built up around mills. Landsowne and Yeadon were both built up as suburbs of Philadelphia yet the oldest parts were actually built up around a former freight line (that went through Havertown as well, and was called the Newtown Square branch) that was built because all of the industry in the areas it ran through. That's what happens in places that are as old as this area is. Some counties are more suburban than others. Montgomery County is one of the most suburban places on the East Coast probably, because in between the two formerly industrial parts of the county in the north and south, there are huge swaths of nothing but suburban sprawl. The way you can really tell if a place is a suburb or if it is a place made up of individual communities is if there is a main street area in the different neighborhoods. Every section of the older parts of Upper Darby has one. Drexel Hill has one in the area where Burmont, State, Garret, etc all come together around each other. You wouldn't know it if you didn't really pay attention though. Ignorant people assume it's just TOD from the trolley (former Red Arrow train) line but in reality it was the town center of that section of Upper Darby going back to before the train line even existed. Even Havertown has one around West Chester, Eagle, etc roads. It's important to know the history because otherwise you can't be sure what is TOD and what is an organic town center or downtown or main street.

You shouldn't feel so bad for not knowing more than you do. I was the same way, because what was important to me growing up was what was going on currently and I didn't know how unique my neighborhood was until I left it. I didn't take the chance to learn about the history the way I should've but by the era I grew up in my neighborhood had lost much of its independence and knowledge of its own history. Kids don't learn the history anymore because the adults don't care enough to teach them.

We need to learn our history, treasure it, and pass it on to future generations because it's an asset for us. Not many places in this country are as old or as historical as this metro, and if we don't hold on to and promote our history then it will continue to be thrown away by people without a clue which will make our area less and less unique and appealing to people from elsewhere. I'm glad I caused you to want to learn the history of this area. My elders to an extent did the same for me but the biggest thing that made me really want to learn the history of this area and especially my general area was the negative changes I saw occurring and coming to terms with all of it. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk: Graffiti[edit]

While copyediting Graffiti, I noticed that Sionk had replied to your comment on the Talk page in Talk:Graffiti#Are you kidding me?, but without using Template: Reply to or another method (that I could see) of notifying you of their reply. So if you haven't seen it, duck over there and look. That's all. See you around the wiki. Thnidu (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! 24rhhtr7 (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Using Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain to attack the British[edit]

You've been around long enough to know better. If you need links to policy or guidelines for evidence that your post was entirely unacceptable, you can ask at the WP:Help desk. And just in case you make any assumptions about me, I'm not British. Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What I said was entirely factual. That article was attempting to establish the British people and by extension their Empire as somehow being a continuation of the Romans and their legitimate empire and that is so unbelievably false that it's laughable. This after article after article of revisionist history by pro-Anglo sources in regards to the crimes against humanity that empire made, as if it were somehow benevolent or beneficial to anybody outside of the UK. The Americas, the Near and Far East, and Africa are all much, much older and more historically important than any part of Western Europe other than Italy and Greece, and they can't seem to accept that. Yet they have no problem telling the rest of the world and especially the US to accept all of its history. --24rhhtr7 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)