Talk:American exceptionalism/Archive 4

Weak references
I have removed some weak references listed here:
 * http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/american-exceptionalism.htm this URL is a poorly-written collection of links with patchwork sinew drawn between the bones of a partial skeleton. It was last updated in 2003, so it is dated. It claims "the concept American Exceptionalism was coined by the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville" when it is patently impossible to coin a concept. One coins a term, not a concept, and de Tocqueville simply described how he considered America to be exceptional, without using the phrase American exceptionalism. The page is a web resource for UCLA professors who teach a grad course, but it isn't expected to stand on its own.
 * http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2008%20-%20Spring/full-neocon.html This is an opinion piece by Robert Kagan which was used here to cement the claim that neocons embraced the concept of American exceptionalism. However, the term American exceptionalism does not appear in the article. The word "exceptionalism" appears only once, in a sentence which poses a question meant to be absurd, a sentence which intends to say by way of irony that exceptionalism has long been a part of American foreign policy. Nothing about neocons there.
 * http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/24/opinion/edcohen.php?pass=true This reference was used to assert that the International Herald Tribune used the phrase "an ugly twist of late" in one of their articles. They did, an article by Roger Cohen which discusses how Sarah Palin used the concept over and over while running for vice president in September 2008. Again, this is an opinion piece unsuited to helping us define the lead section. It would be perfectly apt later in the article when we say that American exceptionalism has been used to appeal to those who wish "to deny the real state of the world." Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, I faintly remember that you used to push a pro-exceptionalist agenda a while back here; the lead used to be pro-AE, we cannot allow that again. This is the UCLA prof whose work you are dissing above: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/index.html. Let us try to be constructive, impartial and non-deletionist please. Gregorik (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your memory doesn't serve you very well in this case... I push the agenda of having this article march in step with scholarly thought, not carom from position to position parroting conflicting opinion pieces. The UCLA professors? I have no problems with them, but their page is not a published work, it is a grab-bag of thought meant to stimulate further study, a jumping off place. I am the kind of editor who deletes unsuitable text and refs rather than having an article build up into an unreadable mess. However, I am not the kind of editor who can be dismissed simply by calling him a "deletionist." Part of being constructive involves pulling out bad lumber so the structure will be sound... Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How to fix the mess of this so called "article"
The author/authors of this article "American exceptionalism" are bringing together too many things (including antiamericanist point of view, genetist diatribes and lots of claim without any reference -not to mention claims by whoever John Doe who decided to say an opinion somewhere and then is cited here as if it was relevant).

I suggest to the editors/authors to make a complete cleaning of this entry by centering the article in the exact phrase AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM. Hello? This article should speak about American exceptionalism as concept and phrase, instead of debate every thing in American history that proves or contradicts that concept. For instance: Wikipedia has an article about Manifest Destiny. You know quite well that entry could include all the diatribes written here also, and be included here as part of this messy debate on American exceptionalism. But that entry just discusses Manifest Destiny, origins and historical context instead of make a forum with a debate about every thing in the American history which proves or contradicts the trueness of that Doctrine.

So, I suggest something of this kind:

American exceptionalism.- ABCth-Century doctrine or belief that... (concise details here). The phrase/term/belief first appeared in the XYZ-year with a hell of debate breaking loose. This phrase regained popularity/media/intellectual establishment attention in the year Xyz, with an ongoing debate ensued.

But for goodness' sake, center this article around American exceptionalism as a doctrine/concept and not around "Hey guys! America is great! do you agree or not?" And I mean, about the phrase American exceptionalism, its definition, its origins and meanings, maybe a short enumerating of pros and cons and the references. Somebody even brought about Pope Leo XIII and the encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, stating something that was "probably referring to American exceptionalism in the ecclesiastical domain". Be honest! That just don't qualify to be there. Was the encyclical referring to American exceptionalism (using that phrase or defining that phrase) yes or not? If yes, then include it! If not, just be honest and delete it. But don write your opinion that it was "probably" so.

merge
This article is biased in nature, because every country consider itself special, it is called nationalism, the bias should be removed and it should merge with american nationalism. 88.17.62.132 (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC

Biased Beyond Reason
This article should probably be scrapped and rewritten, the bias in this article (on both sides) is atrocious, and has lead to a confusing, nonsensicle peaice of garbage, I propose that this article be rewritten, then locked for editing, as this seems to be the only way out of this mess.v 71.186.28.60 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading minimization about colonial period
Quoting: "However, it must be noted that this colonialist phenomenon was quite limited in time and scope compared to practically all of the classical imperial powers, such as France, Imperial Japan, the United Kingdom, etc"

Here someone clearly tried to minimize an evident fact - The US, no matter how noble its ideals, as soon as it had industrial power, had some colonies. Historically, the US has been not exceptional but very common in its industrial power destiny, taking colonies at the time of Teddy Roosevelt as everyone else, "just less and more nicely". The minimization above is misleading...First off it seems evident that the USA have taken less colonies than Japan or France simply because the huge USA homeland territory surpasses by far the one of such, in comparison, tiny nations, which unavoidably expressed their aggressive search for resources towards other less developed countries in more marked ways than already large states like the UsA.

That said, all is relative to what we call colony or conquest, and to the timeframe we consider...colonization isn't just the exotic country occupied for a while...colonization is also and overall settling millions of people in the land of natives who get removed, eradicated ad exterminated.. if possible the latter method is simply worse and more objectionable, as it is permanent and related to a genocide.... the fact that the taken lands are now felt as "part of you" doesn't make their conquest any less colonialist or dramatic(see French in Algeria).

The massive USA homeland is itself the fruit of colonization processes, just called in other form (Frontier, Wild West), which took place in a fashion similar to the Siberian conquest by Russia. What we call USA territory, as for many state-making cases in history, can be interpreted in itself as a colonization plus ethnic cleanse (Amerindians). Moreover the annexation of Hawaii and surely the war against Mexico which brought to the annexation of Texas etc can be easily defined as colonial or imperial as well, at least as far as the results are concerned. Putting it this way the USA not only didn't do any less... they did far more.

In short it would be easy to say that (1) USA, like Russia, are themselves the results of 2 of the largest colonial/ imperial enterprises in history, and that (2) provocation - Canada and Australia, both British colonies founded on processes quite similar to the conquest of the West in USA, once they finished to "conquer" their own land, and once they became independent countries, have behaved even better... they have colonized even less than the USA themselves and thus they are even more exceptional....same for Latin-American countries... they are very exceptional - after their indepedence and industrialization they didn't colonize almost anyone ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.210 (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog source
Re this edit. The responding editor said, "The quote is readily verifiable, your OR is not, sorry." The "readily verifiable quote" is from a blog transcript of a TV show talking about the book. My "OR" (?!) is from that book. Where in that book? The first sentence of the first chapter. Which is the reliable source? The blog quoting a transcript quoting a TV show where the author spoke off the cuff about the book or the book (which presumably when through considerable review)? Is that a reasonable summary of the book? Yes (read on). You want "easily verifiable"? No policy calls for "easily" verifiable, but here you go: "This is a book not about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 15:11, April 20, 2010

"in need of attention from an expert on the subject"
I'm a longtime contributor to this article and plan to do a rehaul of sorts (time and energy permitting) so that all these warning templates are finally taken care of. Since I'm bound to run into opposition, let me intimate that I'm possibly an "expert on the subject" as my credentials include (and are limited to) 4.5 years of English and American studies in a university, and I'm one oral exam shy of my M.A. :) Gregorik (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why are your sources so bad? Why do you rely on three poor URLs when one good one will support a simple quote? Why did you use pull quotes from Mark Sellevold, a non-notable observer who was, at the time of writing, "about to become a student of journalism"? Why do you use a paper by Olaf Du Pont, a teacher's aide at Ghent? I do not buy the fact that you are an expert on the subject, and I do not think you should consider yourself some kind of cut above the other editors here. Your additions to the article tend to drag it various directions and clutter it rather than giving it clear vision. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't consider myself a cut above anyone else here; that would make me an exceptionalist. That said, there is a prevailing WP policy calling for "experts" on sensitive subjects such as this one. And I stand by the Du Pont paper which has an extensive (and convincing) references section. My additions to the article include at least half of the current text and I doubt it's all clutter; I think the article finally begins to take shape after the unbalanced mess it used to be about a year ago. Gregorik (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetical phrase in lead section
In the lead section, a parenthetical phrase that served the purpose of "See also" was removed by User:Therealhazel, restored by User:Gregorik (with the insulting edit summary of "good move, kiddo"), removed by myself and restored once again by Gregorik. Here is the one-sentence paragraph in full:

The specific parenthetical phrase under discussion is "see slavery, civil rights and social welfare issues, "Western betrayal", and the failure to aid Jews fleeing the Nazis".

Under "slavery", the pipe link is Slavery in the United States. Under "civil rights", the pipe link is African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). Under "failure to aid Jews fleeing the Nazis", the pipe link is to History of the Jews in the United States. These pipe links are not entirely truthful to the reader, but that is not the main reason for my deletion of this bit of "see also". I deleted it because those concepts should not be mentioned in passing in the lead section! They should instead be discussed, in whatever detail is appropriate, in the article body, with a short summary in the lead section. The lead section is there to draw the reader into the article, not send them away on a wild goose chase where "civil rights" suddenly becomes exclusively an African-American issue, ignoring the historic problems related to the civil rights of women, the poor, the working class, immigrants, aboriginal Americans, yellow- and brown-skinned people, etc. Having this "See also" bit in the lead is bad encyclopedia writing. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead then and please elaborate on these issues (slavery, refugees etc.) instead of just erasing them to oblivion. -- I don't think I was insulting, but apologies anyway. Gregorik (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that there is no mention of the Jewish appreciation of American exceptionalism in the article body, and there is little mention of African Americans, with poor sourcing which throws the African-American experience in the same boat as the Chicano experience, in reference to transnationalism. The subject of slavery is mentioned in passing, and not explained. Rather than spending my time searching for connections between these subjects and American exceptionalism, I would rather examine the mainstream American exceptionalism sources and bring the core of their message to this article. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you fail to see a connection between these historiographical issues (slavery, transnationality, refugees etc.) and American exceptionalism, then you're probably ill-advised to contribute to the relevant sections (which would be much of the article). I can only imagine the 'mainstream American exceptionalism sources' you're talking about. But I still lack the wish and patience to start an edit war of sorts, so feel free. My apologies for this message. Gregorik (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not about him seeing the connection—it's about readers understanding the nature of the connection. Those are pretty broad topics to bring up in this way. We'd be much better served by an explanation (in the main body) of why those things relate to the core concept, than by a fleeting and undescriptive sentence that invokes several emotionally-charged topics without context. It's not really that hard to imagine the intended connections, but it would be better to state them explicitly—with proper sources—than let readers guess about the specific relevant examples. Absent that explanation, at the very least, it shouldn't be in the lead section. On balance, I support its removal, even if he doesn't replace it with a fuller explanation; that concern is documented here, and perhaps a future editor would be willing to take our discussion under advisement and write the content. TheFeds 21:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons to other countries
Can we try and compare America's position to any nation in the past? America's roots is hardly different to other colonies from the imperial era except for that successful revolt. Its expansion and cultural transformation also concides with similar occurances over the Pacific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.233.162 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is EXTREMELY biased and misleading!
I have never added to Wikipedia but I have major concerns with this article. 1) the idea that the US benignly bought half of Mexico is expressed, when it is not the truth and non-nationalist historians have been trying to stamp it out for years! 2) the idea that the US was not an imperialist power except after the Spanish-American War (and for only briefly) is expressed. This nation was founded on the ideas of empire and expansion, and an overview of treatment of Native Americans throughout American history reveals this. 3) The article mostly reads as if it were trying to convince the reader of the validity of American exceptionalism. It needs a serious rewrite!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.94.18 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

America "to lead the battle against totalitarianism, led by USSR"

I think that sentence should be changed to a more academic one or deleted altogether. I mean, come on mate, this isn't star strek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.149.109 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

shortening beginning of overview
The Overview section starts describing Ross's book, but then doesn't cite where in Ross' book the three numbered points come from. I've fixed this. I've also removed the extra citations in the three numbered sections because I don't think they apply. The quotation from Hitler in the second point made no sense at all, the quotes from Bellah and Winthrop in point 1 and the quote from Turner in point three are relevant to the topic and perhaps belong somewhere in the article, but I thought these three points should focus on what Ross says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marfinan (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

some cutting done today to this previous to reading suggested restrictions
Folks, I removed two passages from this simply as a matter of keeping the entry on-topic: one was a lengthy discussion of Puerto Rican votes on status, which was not relevant to the topic;  the second was a string of vague imputations to "citizens" who believed various things about America's exceptional place in the world, none of which were referenced.

This is the first time I've interjected in what turns out to be a controversial topic: I've read some of the others, but not intervened. It's very enlightening to see the ways this entry has been honed over time, but I'm afraid it now has begun to approach a certain level of vacuity. Howard Zinn is an interesting historian but he's no Daniel Boorstin, Perry Miller, Eugene Genovese or Edmund Morgan. He's a deliberately polemical editorialist, refreshing, but not necessarily the sort of person to trust in a citation except a citation ABOUT Zinn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhales (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Howard Zinn is as influential and citable as they get. He's a recipient of the Lannan Literary Award, among others. He may not yet be canonized as he died only recently. Gregorik (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lipset, Seymour Martin (1997). American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword.
More emphasis should be placed on Lipset's arguments and analysis (possibly a sub-section). This could remove some the article's bias. Evansza1 (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Noonan, Twain, Sellevold, Du Pont
In this edit, I have deleted four writers who either did not talk about U.S. exceptionalism in their quotes or who are not notable.
 * Mark Twain: I deleted a bit where Mark Twain was quoted from his essay "To the Person Sitting in Darkness" as saying "with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other". Twain was talking about all civilized nations from the humorous point of view of a "Person Sitting In Darkness", and the specific quote is aimed at Imperial Russia. Not appropriate here. Writer Olaf Du Pont makes the faulty link to American exceptionalism, more on Du Pont later.
 * Peggy Noonan: The quote from Noonan was taken from an opinion piece she wrote that did not mention American exceptionalism or declinism. The person making the connection was Alan Dowd, in this piece for the website Real Clear Politics. Clear? No. Noonan wrote her bit about "the whole ball of wax", all of America, not specifically exceptionalism or declinism. The theme of her editorial opinion piece is "that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks." She never focuses on imperialism or the sense of entitlement or any of the other things that American exceptionalism is about—she stays very general.
 * Olaf Du Pont: A teaching assistant at Ghent University in Belgium, Du Pont wrote an essay called "But we’re American ... the presence of American exceptionalism in the speeches of George W. Bush". Du Pont makes a number of connections between early American pilgrim adherence to God and the notion that God gave Americans the sense of entitlement, if they earned it. An interesting idea, though it has to fight upstream against the fact that very soon after Plymouth Rock, Americans were largely non-religious merchants and pioneers, not devout Puritans. Du Pont's opinion goes against mainstream thought based on De Tocqueville's observation of American equality, not American religious fervor. Anyway, Du Pont is not in a position to be used as a reliable source.
 * Mark Sellevold: In 2003, Sellevold, then an assistant editor at Australian Rationalist, wrote a piece for that journal. He was a Norwegian fiction and non-fiction writer who had been in Australia for about a year, and was intending to begin journalism studies at LaTrobe University. Sellevold's piece, entitled "A look at American exceptionalism", was used here in American exceptionalism in a HUGE way, to back up whole sections and pull quotes. One completely over-the-top bit from Sellevold was this: "To generalise, all Americans are told every day in the media that only they know how the world really works, and only they know how it should be worked. In this way, the myth is kept alive." Whoa! We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a work of fiction. The encyclopedia is no place for such generalizations. And, the quote was not even inside quotation marks—it was presented as neutral editorial comment. Sellevold is not a notable writer, and his opinions should not be given a soapbox. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Let me just reflect on your deletion of the Du Pont citations at this time. From Identifying reliable sources: "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." The Du Pont paper was selected for presentation at an international conference on Rhetoric, Politics, Ethics at Ghent University (incidentally one of the top 95 universities in the world). The paper is available for free on the Ghent University site. These facts combined mean that it's a reliable source when quoted in context -- meaning that its ad hoc deletion from a relevant WP article constitutes vandalism. Gregorik (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Vandalism? Not even close. I am trying to take mistakes and conflation out of the article. I am trying to trim it of unreliable sources. Du Pont screwed up in bringing Mark Twain's quote into the picture, when Twain was talking about Imperial Russia specifically, and all of the major imperialistic world powers in general. Twain's quote would have been good in an article about imperialism, but Du Pont put it into his piece entitled "But we’re American..."—out of bounds, a foul. Why don't we give Du Pont a few years to gain professorship and use instead the more-published authors, the more reliable sources? Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, notice that I did not revert your deletions. Gregorik (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should have been? I understand that Binksternet feels that DuPont "screwed up" by bringing Twain into the picture but he does seem to meet the qualifications for citation - he was published, he was peer reviewed - and it's still on the University website. Binksternet critiques the source but doesn't seem to offer anything beyond argument for authority (Why don't we give Du Pont a few years to gain professorship and use instead the more-published authors) and POV disagreement with the author cited (—out of bounds, a foul) in response to the seemingly sound argument that it meets Identifying reliable sources. --Dieudonne (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dieudonne even if I didn't revert for peace's sake. Binksternet is clearly not in a position to evaluate, let alone discard, a peer-reviewed paper by an academic staff member of one of the top EU universities (see ). He's going against WP guidelines to protect the pro-exceptionalist bias in the article. Gregorik (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We, as Wikipedia editors, can pick and choose among sources. The article is supposed to reflect mainstream thought, and the most prominent sources are to be preferred. Scholarly papers are fantastic, as are papers by known commentators and famous figures. We certainly do not need to go with pull quotes (quote boxes) from Mark Sellevold, a minor player in the subject. Pull quotes are for big stars, big names, well-known sayings.
 * All of us, bar none, interpose ourselves between the reader and the sources. We all are in a position to evaluate, because we are here editing the article. We interpret sources for their applicability to the article and we summarize them for the reader. We tend to favor mainstream sources from mainstream thinkers, and we tend to put lesser voices in smaller roles, noting them as such. When there are a ton of good sources, as is the case for this subject, we cannot simply transfer them all verbatim to the article, or the thing would be horrifically large and unreadable. We must sort them as to their alignment with mainstream thought or their notable stance against the mainstream. Du Pont chose a position against mainstream thought (early Puritan/Pilgrim American religious fervor vs. de Tocqueville's observation of early American equality) but this countervailing opinion was not couched as such; it was presented as neutral editor commentary. Binksternet (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I take exception to your characterization of my edits as a move to "protect the pro-exceptionalist bias in the article". Baloney! I am here to make sure the article reads as clearly as possible, so the reader knows exactly what the subject is about. Nothing more, nothing less. Binksternet (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm all for that. Gregorik (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Olaf Du Pont showed up again today, in the lead section, supporting this sentence: "The notion of being an example was not a given, but was conditional upon the strict adherence to the will of God." The wording of this sentence is completely opaque and is unsuitable for an article's lead section. What are you trying to tell the reader, Gregorik? What is the concept you are trying to introduce or alter?

I deleted the sentence and its reference for three big reasons:
 * The opaque sentence written by Gregorik did not say anything to the reader, did not explain the concept. Use simple and clear English.
 * Du Pont, now a lecturer at Ghent, was only a teaching aide when he wrote this. Not the top scholar in the field, not a guy whose opinion is to be presented in the lead section.
 * The article body is the place to argue ideas, especially ones that go against de Tocqueville's observations about democracy. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section must summarize the article. It is not the place for references and arguments. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Stalin didn't say it.
I checked the original speeches. He discussed the CONCEPT of American exceptionalism, to disparage it, and to justify the purge of two members from CPUSA. He did NOT use the term. Please explain why a google book copy of a book that has the citations missing is considered a better source than the original source material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.231 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read our verification policy WP:V which clearly states if it can be verified by a reliable source it is good to go. What you are attempting to do is your own research; this is actively discouraged per our no original research policy. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Pease's own notes do not support his claim. I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude his book is a "reliable source" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.231 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This information is supported by two books and many more can be found. Just try this search on Google Books. However if you are still not convinced you may want to verify the reliability of these sources by asking at the reliable sources noticeboard. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another another one: America's kingdom: mythmaking on the Saudi oil frontier Stanford studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic societies and cultures Author Robert VitalisEdition illustrated Publisher Stanford University Press, 2007 ISBN 0804754462, 9780804754460 Length 353 pages p. 7. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * we all seem to agree that Stalin introduced the concept of "American Exceptionalism" -- he spoke in Russian not English of course. Here's a 1934 US Communist Party document that makes use of the English term: Political Affairs p 1034 Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"We" agree to no such thing. Stalin appears to have used the concept, but so far, I see no indication whatsoever that he used the phrase, and it would be even more absurd to claim he ORIGINATED it.--T.E.Watts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.231 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * we agree he used the concept--in Russian of course. His use is the first one that historians have published--maybe someone used it earlier but until a RS discovers an earlier usage Wiki goes with what scholars now say. As the Communists said in 1934, "Especially should it be remembered that it was Stalin who led the fight against the theory of American exceptionalism, as far back as 1928, when it began to be defended by Lovestone." cite 1934 document Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet wikirules would  exclude  anyone from finding an earlier  attribution  to someone else as "original research" while  ignoring  that the  person  who looked up this claim was themselves doing original research to find it. As long  as  it  fits the proper  narrative, original research is allowed in wikipedia. 65.96.53.130 (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources that I have seen so far all agree with the fact that the term was coined by Stalin. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fried does not say Stalin originated the phrase. Pease's notes do not support his own claim that he did. This is absurd.--T.E.Watts 97.123.109.231 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Absurd" is unwise language in a serious debate. Trotsky used the term in 1930: "The opportunism of Lovestone, Brandler, and their supporters lies in the fact that they demand recognition for ... of the inseparable bond between American "exceptionalism" and the "exceptionalism" of the other parts of the world." Trotsky 1930 online Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing here but hot air. I see no scholarly sources being brought forward to provide a rebuttal to Pease and Fried. Until I do it is a non-issue. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fried doesn't claim Stalin used the phrase. Pease's own notes do not support HIS claim that Stalin did. Rjensen's source attributes it to someone else altogether. His other source shows Trotsky using the phrase, which in no way supports the claim Stalin did. --T.E.Watts 97.123.109.231 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that Watts does not trust scholarship--he has his own private views. Pease is Donald E. Pease is Avalon Foundation Professor of the Humanities at Dartmouth College, author of numerous books, and this one is published by Univ Of Minnesota Press; those outstanding credentials demonstrate he is a RS -- something Watts cannot handle. Watts has cited no sources to support his private views, and has cited no RS critical of Pease. The American Communist magazine in 1934 was pretty clear:  "Especially should it be remembered that it was Stalin who led the fight against the theory of American exceptionalism, as far back as 1928, when it began to be defended by Lovestone." Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments. I think we should close this discussion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We go with sources not OR. TFD (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, Stalin's use of the term was in quoting Jay Lovestone, as Stalin excommunicated Lovestone from the American Communist Party for "deviationism" for believing in American Exceptionalism. (Klehr 2010, p 41) So if any credit is due, it is to Lovestone for deviating from Communist doctrine in his belief in Exceptionalism, not to Stalin for attacking it. Furthermore, de Toqueville had said, "the situation of the Americans is therefore entirely exceptional, and it is to be believed that no other democratic people will ever be placed in it." 65.96.53.130 (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

On Lincoln in the lead
I might well be wrong (English isn't a first language for me), but I react to this sentence in the lead: As Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863), Americans have a duty to ensure, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Doesn't that sentence actually say (thus becoming POV), that Lincoln was right? It is the starting As I feel strange there. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It has to be read in context. Lincoln was expressing the view that the U.S. had a duty to the world to lead by example. That does not mean he was right. TFD (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Fomalhaut76 is correct. A preposition is required here to manage the realtionship between Lincoln's act of stating and the content of the statement but it's probably not the right one. It must either be 'As Abraham stated....', which might be interpreted as a POV that the content was self evidently true or 'Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg adress that, Americans...' 'That' reads better as it removes the judgement. Change it. It's kinda subtle so your English is not so bad. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The lead currently reads, "American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas....Second is the idea that the US has a unique mission to transform the world. As Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863), Americans have a duty to ensure, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."" I do not think it is a reasonable interpretation that the article is saying Lincoln is correct. Nor does or should the writing imply the opposite. TFD (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an example of a dangling modifier (new word to me). Thus it would be better writing something like "Second is the idea that the US has a unique mission to transform the world, as Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863): Americans have a duty to ensure, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  Fomalhaut76 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue with "Criticism" section
The "Criticism" section opens with, Scholars have been polarized on the topic according to Michael Kammen, with historians generally against it and social scientists tending to support it. Kammen's article is not currently available at the provided link. I've got access to it so I took a look. The source does not support this generalization of a split between "historians" and "social scientists." Instead, the source describes some humanist historians who are critical, some diverse social scientists and humanities scholars who are supportive. At no point does Kammen assert either that historians are generally critical or that social scientists generally are supportive of the concept. In fact, the rest of this section's first paragraph goes on to accurately describe Kammen's coverage of the subject, discussing the many ways social scientists have drawn conclusions from relevant studies to criticize American exceptionalism.

My point being, I don't see this one 27-year-old source by Kammen as sufficient to support the statement that, in general, social scientists "[tend] to support" the concept of American exceptionalism, or that, in general, historians are "against it."

So, I've struck the first sentence and reworked the second to serve as a new intro.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Communist Party USA in lead
A new editor has been removing referenced text in the lead section saying the following:


 * "The term "American exceptionalism" itself was first used by members of the American Communist Party in the 1920s, in reference to their belief that "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions, America might for a long while avoid the crisis that must eventually befall every capitalist society." (Fried, Albert, Communism in America: A History in Documents. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), p. 7.)"

There are two problems with the removal:
 * The text satisfies WP:LEAD which requires us to summarize the article's contents in the lead section. Indeed, the text refers to a section of the article which discusses the reaction of communists to America's strength.
 * The text is taken from Albert Fried, a top scholar in his field. He would not misrepresent the topic.

The removed section should be restored. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have restored it. The editor should explain why it should be removed.  I noticed the editor's comments on other users' talk pages.  While double sourcing is required by newspapers, it is not required here because we rely on sources that have already undertaken fact-checking, e.g., newspapers that require double sourcing.  And no, there is nothing in the article that contradicts the view that American Communists were the first to use the term.  TFD (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed. Rjensen (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the link that is cited in this instance, in no way claims that the Communists were the "first" to use the phrase. Hence, not only should the "first" be removed from the quote, the quote should be removed from the summary area.  Alexis de Tocqueville mentioned the exceptionalism of America well before the 1920's.  The term comes from his work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.148.212 (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Communists were the source of the term, while De Tocqueville never used the term "exceptionalism". TFD (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I just take your word for it? Or do you have a reference that actually makes that claim?  Nowhere in the Fried reference does it say that American Communists were the first to say "American exceptionalism".  Am I missing something here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyJ160 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find an earlier reference to the term "American exceptionalism", then please provide one. TFD (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, because you say that American Communists were "first", I have to prove that they weren't? I'm relatively new to this, but please explain to me, why you shouldn't have to prove that they were.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyJ160 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My reading, and that of other editors, of the source is that the Communists were first to use the term. If the source is wrong, then it should possible to find a source that dates the use of the term earlier.  TFD (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on the editor making the change, particularly in a case where sourced material is being removed.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The American Communists are the first group that can be found who directly used the exact term "American exceptionalism". If you find an earlier usage you can replace the American Communists as being first to use the term. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here (p. 58) is a link to a more detailed discussion of the origins of the term. TFD (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is perfect! That's all I was asking for.  Though the reference clearly says that Stalin was the origin of the phrase, when the original section claims that American Communists were the first to use it.   I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but doesn't this new source invalidate the old one?  I don't have a problem with the Stalin origin being in the lead using this new source.  I just didn't see the support for the claim that was being made using the old one. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Albert Fried describes how the term was first used by Joe Stalin, frustrated with America's unusual inherent resistance to (Communist) revolution. When he used it, Stalin was talking to the American Communists, trying to get them to push harder for revolution. The American Communists used the term back at Stalin. We don't have to throw out the original cite, just tweak it slightly. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Might replace the word "used" with "introduced". TFD (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't have a problem with any of that information being included, as long as whatever is done is properly supported by the references cited. Maybe citing both the Fried reference and the Pease reference at that point in the article would be appropriate. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added some of Stalin being first, with the new reference tucked into the the previous text and references. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It might or might not be technically true that American communists were the first to use the phrase, but clearly the concept had a much longer lineage, including referenced work from the 1800s and the concept of "manifest destiny."

I think it's misleading to lead the article with the idea of American Exceptionalism coming from communism. It places undue weight on the communist aspect of the terms origins, whereas it really should emphasise America's self belief and self-image and view of its role in the world rather than a historical factoid. Lauchlanmack (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Lede: an idea or a theory?
The lede reads: "American exceptionalism is the theory that the history of the United States is inherently different from that of other nations."

(emphasis my own)

I don't think it's a theory in the traditional sense of the word. How about idea? I think that sounds more natural & objective.

CampWood (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support CampWood (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's normally described as a theory. Webster's defines an idea as "a formulated thought or opinion." It defines a theory as "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." Theories explain things such as in this case why the the political spectrum is so narrow, the lack of universal health care, high crime rates and lower education outcomes compared with other developed countries. They can be challenged by other theories. TFD (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces: Sort of what Ex nihil says -- This feels a bit circular to me. America is different than many other developed countries. How can we explain this? ... I dunno, here's a theory: America is different from other developed countries because it is different from other developed countries! . (Though Perhaps you'd respond, then, that it's the theory itself that I'm criticizing.) Besides: the term is usually (I'll agree not chiefly, principally, fundamentally, literally, etc., but at least *often*) used to praise America -- to say it is exceptional in its greatness --, or neutrally at worst/best. It's certainly not meant to justify or even explain America's failures. The term's not often used to explain America's (supposed) global underperformance. Thus, if it is a theory, under your own definition of "theory", it should be used to explain America's (supposed) *greatness* -- but wait, you just explained how America is irreconcilably worse than those other developed countries. Ergo, it's an idea. CampWood (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The theory is that because the U.S. had no feudal past, that the only major ideology that prevailed was liberalism, i.e., commitment to individual initiative and constitutional government. The predictable result is a country that would have a high degree of wealth and a low degree of income equality. TFD (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with CampWood. A theory is a possible explanation for observations made, and the theory can be tested. To Alexis de Tocqueville it was merely an observation, not an attempt to explain the observation. To Stalin, it was also just an observation that affected proselytisation. To Reagan, I have no idea what it meant, I doubt that he understood its history and was just trying to say America is set apart. In no case does it have any of the hallmarks of a theory, it's a concept or idea. I'd go for concept. In de Toqueville's day, America was truly different in having no history, no boundaries etc etc; this could be observed. These days it is no longer observable, I think you would have to say that the history of every nation is inherently different from that of other nations and American exceptionalism is now an historical idea. It does seem that America empirically underperforms on social indicators compared with other OECD countries and there are various theories to explain that, but just saying 'cos it's different' is an observation that offers no explantion and is not a theory.  E x nihil  (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The theory is that because the U.S. had no feudal past that liberalism would become the only major ideology. It was at one time a dominant theory written about in Louis Harz' The Liberal Tradition in America and Seymour Martin Lipset's American Exceptionalism: A Two edged sword. Lipset was president of both the American Polical Science Association and the American Sociological Association. The theory has been challenged by writers who contend that the U.S. inherited two ideological tradiions, civic republicanism and liberalism, hence was not exceptional at all except that as you say every nation is exceptional in its own way.

The reason the supporters of the theory provide that the U.S. underperforms the OECD in many areas is that its political culture looks to individual initiative rather than government action in health and welfare. It also explains the lack of a major democratic sociliast party in the U.S., unlike all other OECD countries or countries in the Western hemisphere. Whether or not you agree with the theory, it provides a plausible explanation of why Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which are the countries most similar to the U.S., have universal health care, more comprehensive welfare systems and major democratic socialist parties or labour parties or why it retains the monarchy.

TFD (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I merged the first two sentences so that it sounds more like a theory than a tautology. TFD (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Feudalism
Primogeniture and Indentured Servitude were two traditional cultural rights that the Europeans brought over to the Americas with them, that were very much a part of the feudal era in Europe... Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry to answer so late. Indentured servitude developed out of the medieval apprenticeship system and was based on voluntary contract, unlike feudal relations. The word "indentured" refers to a law enacted by the English republic that required contracts of servitude to be signed under seal before a court. The indentures were the indents between each contract as it was severed from the roll. It's better seen as early capitalism rather than late feudalism.
 * Primogeniture was abolished following the U.S. revolution. It had been part of the feudal system of entailed estates which had already been replaced by a capitalist system of property ownership. The reason for primogeniture had been that property ownership had been tied to service in war. Women of course did not serve in medieval armies, so the properties were inherited by sons. If no male heir was available, the woman's husband assumed the martial responsibilities. But again, this had disappeared long before the revolution.
 * TFD (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Critique, theory, view, ideology ...
A rather recent and long discussion two steps up, confirmed that this article is about a theory. A much more recent change to the article says that it is about a critique of Americanism. I don't think theory is a good characterization of this phenomenon, but critique is far worse, and it does not rhyme with the rest of the article. It is probably true that most of the times american exceptionalism is used it is by someone who thinks it is a false view of the world. But this does not mean that the exceptionalism itself is primarily a critique. --Ettrig (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's the theory that because America is a new settler nation that it failed to import pre-liberal institutions and hence liberalism is the only ideology that has mainstream acceptance. That theory predicts that unlike in Canada, Mexico, the UK, Europe, South America and most other countries in the world, a mainstream socialist party would not arise, nor would there be a conservative party that sought return to monarchism. Furthermore, political debate would center on a correct interpretation of liberal values as expressed in the constitution. The nation would also see itself as morally superior in foreign affairs. It also predicts that the U.S. would be an outlier among industrialized nations in economic equality, education, crime, health care, welfare, unionization and other areas. I don't know how much more detail is required in order to see that as a theory. TFD (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In 1964, political scientist John P. Roche defined "American exceptionalism" differently than what is described anywhere in the Wikipedia entry: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2207&context=nclr.


 * The second paragraph there is Roche's definition of American exceptionalism; it's basically the origin of the nation. BubbleDine (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The modern-day conservative "party" in the United States does not seek a return to monarchism. The Wikipedia page for Conservatism in the United States describes it: "Conservatism in the United States is a political and social philosophy which characteristically prioritizes American traditions, republicanism, and limited federal governmental power in relation to the states, referred to more simply as limited government and states' rights." That in no way says "return to monarchism." Plus, while many historical sources use American Exceptionalism as a critique/is false, many in the conservative movement believe it to be a positive description of America's system of government and economics. Much of this article is devoted to espousing the criticisms of the theory/idea, and there is little description of the positive side of the argument. 52.128.53.239 (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note the wording: "what I have called "American exceptionalism." He probably was not aware of the earlier use of the term in Marxist literature that would soon enter widespread usage. TFD (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most political scientists see U.S. conservatism as a form of liberalism. Certainly those who hold that American exceptionalism is real do. TFD (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Then why does the mainstream (including me) see them as political opposites? 52.128.53.239 (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they represent different positions on the interpretation of liberalism, and there are no competing ideologies in the mainstream. TFD (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That makes sense. 52.128.53.239 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Moral Basis of Idea is Ignored
This article takes a stance that is not only unbalanced, but practically ignores the moral side of the historical argument. The "Basis of Arguments" section frames the arguments in a way that is not actually representative of the conservative movement's definition of Exceptionalism. I think the author was reading too much into the arguments that they missed the more general, moral argument that many Americans take. The article doesn't even mention Tocqueville's famous quote which is practically the basis of the argument: "I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers—and it was not there. . . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests—and it was not there. . . . .in her rich mines and her vast world commerce—and it was not there. . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution—and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.  America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."

So the moral argument has been totally ignored. America is exceptional because the country was founded on Christian principles and morality. A lot of people don't like that, especially in academia, but it's the truth. If you look at the true history, (probably difficult to find in the mainstream) you find that every founding document since the Mayflower Compact has magnified God and named Him as the Supreme Being who guided and aided them. America's moral "compass," as it were, has always been in place. This is what's known as common law, wherein the people and the moral standards of the people dictate the law of the land. This means the law goes up to the authority (who isn't an absolute authority, since the people are the ones who give and take away their power) from the people, rather than coming down from the authority, as in a monarchy. This is what, in the view of the people making this side of the argument, has made America exceptional.

In addition, the "Criticism" section is more than 2000 words in length, and does not state a single rebuttal against the arguments cited in the section. For instance, the "Differences between the U.S. and Europe" section states all the differences in negative rather than neutral language, such as using the word "lack" rather than "absence" or a similar more neutral word. Lack implies a need, and negative consequences of not having the attributes stated. Also, circling back to the above argument, some of the differences stated are "Widespread Christian fundamentalism and entailed beliefs such as support for teaching creationism in schools, opposition to abortion, and opposition to insurance coverage for contraception"; "Substantial anti-intellectualism, arising in part from Christian fundamentalism"; and "Substantial climate change denial, arising in part from anti-intellectualism". These are all framed in an anti-Christian and anti-moral light. Plus, all these specific examples cite only one source, one with an arguably negative bias. And when you put all these items in a "Criticism" section, you are assigning these labels to Christians in general, when no Christian I know of is "anti-intellectual" or a "climate denier". I am against the highbrow attitude of much of academia, where condescension toward "laymen" and the intelligence thereof is common, but that doesn't make me "anti-intellectual". I love a fair and open debate on these issues. I believe a majority of people hold this view as well. The same goes for "climate denial". Debating the scientific basis for man-made climate change is not denial of the issue.

Finally, the last "America First" section reads as a flat-out opinion. Also, the citation is an article in Persian, which I think we can all agree is fairly inaccessible to the English Wikipedia audience. The article is accessed as a PDF, which is much harder to translate than a webpage.

All of this is to say that the article needs to better reflect the actual essence of the exceptionalism debate, and morality specifically in the debate. Lincoln1809 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness" What do churches or Christianity in general have to do with ethics? Is not the Christian faith based on hating other humans? Matthew 10 famously has Jesus say: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send [or bring] peace, but a sword." Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're taking that verse out of context. The sentiment in Jesus' time was against Rome's authority over the Hebrews. When the latter Old Testament prophets told of a Messiah coming to save them, they believed He would come to free them from the oppression of the Romans. However, He instead brought freedom from sin. When He said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword," He was referring to the "Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" in Ephesians 6. If you read the context behind what he was saying in that chapter, you'll find that He was sending His disciples to evangelize other people, and He told them they would suffer and be persecuted. So He was preparing them for the reality that their work would not be easy and peaceful, but difficult and painful. In verses 16-20 of that chapter, He says 16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." Here https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-10-34.html is a good commentary on the verse. Christianity has not been and is not now about hating other people. You have to ignore everything else Jesus said and take that one verse out of context to honestly believe that. Yes, you can tell me that the Roman Catholic church persecuted Muslims, and the Spanish Inquisition was Christianity at its worst, and the church supported slavery, and that's all true. Any institution run by fallible men will fail. The failings of man, however, do not equal the failings of Christ. Regardless of all this, we're arguing the topic, not the content of the article, which details a debate, the affirmative side of which has not been addressed. That's the point. I'm not saying the article should endorse Christianity, I'm just saying it needs to give that side of the argument the same amount of detail it gives the negative side. Lincoln1809 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's usually a bad idea to have a separate criticism section. Criticism should be incorporated into the relevant sections.

{The primary topic is "is the idea that the United States is inherently different from other nations." the lead then says that some people use the term to imply that the U.S. has a distinct mission. Unfortunately, much of the article is about various interpretations of the first.
 * The criticism of AE comes from both left-wing and civic republican writers who hold that American politics and culture is no different from other countries except in the sense that all countries differ from one another.
 * The mainstream view of AE expressed by most U.S. presidents is that the U.S. should spread democracy and capitalism. It is important to balance that with conflicting views.
 * While the crazier interpretations based on misinterpretations of history and Holy Scripture should be mentioned, their coverage is prescrbed by WP:FRINGE. There should be no suggestion that they are valid views.
 * TFD (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something? How have I misinterpreted history? The fact is that this country, from Columbus to the present, was founded in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Lincoln1809 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Judeo-Christian is a modern term that ties together Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism. But America was founded on Protestant, specifically Calvinist Puritan beliefs, and people who did not hold Protestant beliefs were not considered white or truly American. TFD (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. the "white" angle is simply untrue. and likewise "truly American" -- the Constitution explictly rejects that notion [Article 6= "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."]. Lots of people--like Jefferson and Franklin were not "Calvinist Puritan"-- and not very "Protestant." President Washington made it a point to honor Catholics and Jews as full citizens. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was referring to the initial settlement, particularly in Massachusetts. My point though is that Judeo-Christian is a fairly recent concept and we shouldn't use the term to describe the original settlement. Of course there is a school of thought that the Founding Fathers were deeply religious, when in fact they had Enlightenment views. TFD (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We can use "Protestant Christian." How did you come to the conclusion that the Founding Fathers weren't religious? 52.128.53.239 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. That doesn't change the argument significantly. Lincoln1809 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument begins with a long quote that De Tocqueville never wrote. If you want us to mention a fake quote, you need to explain its relevance with reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, the quote can be traced in writing to a 1922 letter written to a magazine The quote is attributed to de Tocquville in the letter, saying a pastor stated the quote in a sermon. Would it be too far to say "the quote is attributed to him, but the veracity is not proven," etc.? I would argue that it is still relevant as a summation of the positive side of the AE argument. Lincoln1809 (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "I was referring to the initial settlement" You mean Jamestown, Virginia in 1607? Dimadick (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)