Talk:Gilded Age/Archive 1

Article needs substantially more content
The stuff that is there is good... however it is rather disjointed. The article reads like several smaller articles on mostly-unrelated topics (anti-Chinese discrimination, the Pullman strike, Westward expansion and its impact on native Americans and buffalo--that are only related temporally.

The article is also very incomplete, failing to mention key subjects.

Other topics which should be of key concern:


 * The rise of monopolies (and the consequences thereof), and of the Sherman Act. (The Sherman Act is only mentioned due to its use to bust unions--later the National Labor Relations Act would declare that the anti-trust laws do not apply to labor).
 * Supreme Court decisions and such defending the status quo.
 * The rise of populist movements in response
 * The Spanish-American War

I'm not a sufficiently versed student of history to modify this article myself--perhaps someone who is is willing to step up to the plate?

I've added the template:attention tag.

--EngineerScotty 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to take this moment and say that the Gilded Age is a series of events such as: production of iron and steel, the increased demand for western resources like lumber, gold, and silver, and the demand for improved transportation. Also, it gets its name from the many great fortunes created during this period and the way of life this wealth supported. Therefore, there is a wide variety of events happening at this time, so it might sound a little disjointed, but it isn't. The Spanish-American War is also not a big deal when it comes to the Gilded Age, sure it happened at that time period, but the Gilded Age is about industrial and entrepenurials in the United States. --User:flajemming 21:08, 14 March 2006 (PCT)

massive revert
Bloody hell, someone delete the majority of the article's content on the 31st of that month and [u]noone[/u] bothered to revert the damage. Great work, folks.[/sarcasm].--KrossTalk 12:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So are you angry at yourself? Who is it that you think has more responsibility than you for this article? - Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I made that post right after reverting, so I was bit miffed. :P--KrossTalk 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What's to be covered here?
This article should be thought of as a sub-article of History of the United States (1865-1918), right?&mdash;in which I'm going to make a section heading, "Gilded Age", with the familiar note that for the main article see Gilded Age. Then this article just need cover the subject of what was a "Gilded Age' about this period 1865-1918. Finally, a condensed version of this article will go at the appropriate section at History of the United States (1865-1918). That's how to bring these two overlapping articles into focus. --Wetman 10:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made a statement there, and I've repeated it here at the head of this article, in hopes that it will be expanded beyond this first repetitious text. Meanwhile, I don't see how the "War against the Buffalo" fits this particular subject. What's so gilded about that? --Wetman 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Labor unions
Eugene V. Debs is a person, not a court case. Someone should find the case or correct this wording. --The archbisquick 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The correct case is In re Debs.  --Blainster 08:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Compare these statements
A. The drastic increase in the diversity of the United States due to immigration, drawn by the promise of American prosperity, encountered increased prejudice and racial discrimination from the largely Anglo-Saxon majority.

B. There was a great increase in ethnic and racial diversity from immigrants drawn by the promise of prosperity. Social tensions grew as a result of a decreasing Anglo-Saxon majority, as well as a growing economic gap between rich and poor.

How would "Social tensions grow as a result of a decreasing Anglo-Saxon majority"? It's babble. Is "great" an improvement on "drastic"? Do "ethnic and racial' improve diversity, or are they simply duplicative? This isn't editing, it's fingerpainting. --Wetman 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The frontier
As far as I can tell, User:Rjensen removed the following without any edit summary beyond "tweaks". What's the problem with it? Why was this removed? "The contemporary mythos of the American West centers on the independent exploration of adjacent territory by frontiersmen, but in fact the exploration also involved a government-backed plan of expansion. This perception of individualism was the result of (or was expressed in) the political theories of Frederick Jackson Turner, who attributed the strong development of democracy in the United States to the open frontier." Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I though the passage was garbled. What does the first sentence mean? What does the second sentence mean? Maybe #1 means: The government helped sponsor the exploration of the trans-Mississippi west. (It did not sponsor exploration of areas east of the Mississippi that Turner focused on); Maybe the second sentence means: Turner argued that indvidualism and democracy emerged out of the frontier experience.' Maybe not. Rjensen 05:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I find nothing confusing about it except perhaps the use of the word "adjacent" (and, no, I didn't write it). I'll try to paraphrase (and expand slightly); I actually prefer the original though.


 * Today's master narrative of the American West centers on exploration by individual frontiersmen. According to this master narrative, those frontiersmen each, either individually or in small groups, independently explored the territory that extended west from the already settled portions of the United States. This master narrative is not entirely true. In fact, the exploration also involved a government-backed plan of expansion. The individualist perception found in today's master narrative was the result of (or was expressed in) the political theories of Frederick Jackson Turner. Turner attributed the strong development of democracy in the United States to the open frontier.


 * Turner's thesis centered on his assertion that settled U.S. cities and towns were spared some of the class conflicts of European cities because many among the "excess" population in the lower strata had the option of striking out for the frontier. Their equivalents in Europe, according to Turner, largely stayed put and became an insupportable burden and/or turned to radical revolutionary politics; for either or both of these reasons, their presence, according to Turner, was an impediment to the rise of democracy in Europe.

So, that's about three times as long, but I think it is what the author meant to say. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The frontiersmen Turner talked about were long gone by the time of the Gilded age. So it simply does not belong. The exploration likewise was almost over by this time. It's like having a discussion of the Mexican War -- it does not belong in the Gilded Age page. A few more specifics: "Today's master narrative of the American West" is meaningless. The lack of citations is revealing. Rjensen 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Robber Barons
Definition from dictionary.com: magnates who "who became wealthy by unethical means". Is that not corruption? --Blainster 23:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Corruption usually means suborning through bribery or favors. While the robber barons certainly corrupted legislatures, this was only one manifestation of their lack of ethics. They intimidated and attacked trade unions: Jay Gould said "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." Corruption is not the word for that. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You sound like my brother. No means yes, but--. The robber barons also built monopolies, which although not illegal at first, were also unethical because they destroyed the market pricing mechanism.  --Blainster 09:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Robber Baron seems to have been an insult at the time to anyone who was rich, if I'm not mistaken. Not everyone back then was corrupt. --Kafeithekeaton 00:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Robber baron" certainly did not embrace all of the rich. For example, it would never have been applied to old Boston money. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also a grouping of the Democratic/Republican/Populist parties and their presidential canidates would be helpful. I use this website a lot to study for history, but this article seems to lack some good information. Good introduction though, dates may be a little off. -Undergroundpirate strikes again!

Robber Baron as term
"robber baron" was rarely used in this context before about 1887 when Cleveland made the tariff a party issue. Some quotes:
 * 1892: "Meanwhile the Democratic organs and speakers go on denouncing every man who haa made a dollar by reaaon of our protective system as a robber baron."
 * 1892: "When, therefore, the robber baron demands [tariff] Protection so that he can continue to pay the higher wages to his employees, he is deceiving the public"
 * The historic usage re Middle Ages was well known: 1869: "New Granada is in much the position of some robber baron of the Middle Ages who levied toll for the transit of every- thing that passed his stronghold"  source:  Rjensen 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Doubtless correct. I didn't know it was Cleveland who made it so, but I'm sure the metaphorical use dates from about that time. - Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Immigrants
In the 1870 census there were 58,000 Chinese men and 4,000 women in the entire country; these numbers grew to 100,000 men and 4,000 women in the 1880 census.

Could someone check that statistic?

-- Mik 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't found a specific statistic on Chinese, but I've found one that shows at least the totals may be in the right rance. The first table in this Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals By Race… shows a total of 63,254 "Asians and Pacific Islanders" in 1870 and 114,189 in 1900. In that era, most Asians in the U.S. would have been Chinese. I can't find specific relevant numbers to answer your question after about 15 minutes of online searching, but these numbers should be available. Might not be online, I'm not sure. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I found those numbers of Chinese men and women in Census books, but am on the road and will get the pages next week. Rjensen 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholarship
Wiki should reflect the serious scholarship of historians and political scientists, and should not be afraid to use technical terms like "party systems." The term is not a novelty was introduced over 80 years ago: see The American Party System: an Introduction to the Study Of Political Parties in the United States by Charles Edward Merriam, Professor of Political Science in the University of Chicago (1923). Rjensen 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

proof Party system terminology was in use in Gilded Age
The idea and terminology of "party system" was certainly in use in the Gilded age. the leading textbooks of the era used it, such as James Bryce American Commonwealth (1888). Bryce wrote: "Part III. contains a sketch of this party system, and of the men who "run" it. " A leading textbook writer was Jesse Macy. Party Organization and Machinery (1904) p. xiv: "While our party system is without Old World models, it is strikingly in harmony with our other forms of political activity..." or p xvi: "Various references to party and faction found in The Federalist illustrate the type of American ideas which prevailed before the American party system appeared"; p. 198 there is a whole chapter titled: "CHAPTER XVI EFFECT OF THE CITY UPON THE PARTY SYSTEM". Macy published  Political parties in the United States, 1846-1861 in 1900 and has a chapter on the Origins of the American Party System. So we have proof requested. Rjensen 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Gilded Age <=> Edwardian Era outside of US?
Admittedly the era outlined here was gilded in the UK and its empire as well, but I remarked on the 1901 cut-off date because AFAIK the Edwardian Era is sometimes referred to as the Gilded Age in non-American, i.e. British/Canadian/etc contexts; also Europe, too, I think. Surely the term "Gilded Age" doesn't just refer to American culture/history?Skookum1 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gilded age in Britain/Canada?? we lack citations for that claim. Rjensen 07:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't with the dates it is the fact that the commonly accepted term by historians for this time period is almost wholly inaccurate. It is not in the scope of an encyclopedia page, what with original research and all, but a more accurate term would have been "The Inventive Age". --Jayson Virissimo 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Inventive Period
I have heard several historians say that the term "Gilded Age" is a very pessimistic term and is not all that accurate. For one thing real wages were raised continually and the rate at which new life-changing inventions were hitting the market was exceptionally high. Also this age saw the birth of mega-philanthropists. It might be wise to add a sentence dealing with the problems of calling this time the "Gilded Age". --Jayson Virissimo 08:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the meaning behind the term "Gilded Age" is a bit off. It was used negatively and a bit tongue in cheek by Twain. "Gilded Age" is a contrast to "Golden Age" in that, in the Gilded Age, the gold and polish and beauty was only on the surface, but it was a thin coating. In the American Gilded Age the super rich were extravagent and lived in opulence, but the much bigger portion of the population was living in poor conditions with little hope for success. In other words, it was kind of a false Golden Age, or one that only benefited a very, very small minority. --Caranfindil (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
I deleted the Shakespeare refernevce, that is the origin of "gilded lily" not "gilded age".216.2.193.1 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is incomplete and very uninformative
This article is incomplete and fails to give the reader any real understaning of the what the Guilded Age really was. This portrays the Guilded Age as a period of tremendous properity and ignores the very real problems that people were facing such as: The Rise of Monopolies Social Darwinism (began in this period) Conflict with Labor Unions Racism Populist Movements in the South and the West Lack of labor rights (Child labor, work hour, safety regulations etc.)

Thats just naming a few things. This was a very important period in which many people's lives were very very adversly affected. Wikipedia should mark this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.60.23 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Massive deletions: why?
This article has been subjected to massive removal of material over the last 19 days. There seems to have been no discussion on the talk page; there is no explanation in the edit summaries. It is possible that this is legitimate refactoring or removal of duplication of other articles. However, as far as I can see, this was done without even a "see also" that might direct people to those other articles. I haven't been a particularly active editor of this article, so perhaps I am wrong here, but if no one can explain this in the next week or so, I intend to restore the removed material (and would welcome someone more active in the article doing so sooner). - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Somebody has been naughty. I reverted back to the full article. Rjensen 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seams a little slanted. Building industrial cities would involve economic growth of some sort, yet a heavy emphasis is placed on the decadence of of the economic agents rather than economic conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.219.233 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation of Industrial towns
An IP editor has twice changed language in the second paragraph of the lede. The sentence as it originally existed read as follows:

"The businessmen of the Second Industrial Revolution created industrial towns and cities in the Northeast with new factories, and contributed to the creation of an ethnically diverse industrial working class which produced the wealth owned by rising super-rich industrialists and financiers such as Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan."

The IP replaced "created" with "funded the creation of", the intent based on his/her original edit summary being to make the case that "they didn't literally create them -- their wage slaves did." The POV aspects of this aside, the businessmen, obviously, did not simply provide loans and let the "wage slaves" have at it. The businessmen provided the leadership and planning, as well as the financing, to the development of the industrial towns. If the IP has a valid point to make, perhaps he/she would agree to discuss it here rather than accusing people of attempting to " obfuscate the reality of the situation". The article certainly needs work and, if there is a relevant POV missing from the article, the IP should produce a properly sourced narrative for the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Economy
The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879. At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_depression

One of the two articles is obviously wrong. Since the NBER stuff is sourced, I'd bet this article here is faulty. There were two strong growth periods, just before Twains book and another from the 90ies onwards. Probably for different economic reasons. (Maybe the Bessemer and the Edison boom...) In between there was a balance sheet recession. Hirsch.im.wald (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the NBER economists' definition is X consecutive months each being worse than the month before. Then it bottoms out and the "contraction" stage ends in X months. But for the historian the economy is still in in bad shape---depression--and (even if it goes up a little in some months) the depression continues until normality is reached, which may be months or years. A very severe depression began in mid 1893 and lasted (according to the historians) until 1897. Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Still needs fixing
It's been three years since anyone's weighed in on this page, and it still needs some fixing. For starters, "Gilded Age" needs to be contextualized better, and the Shakespeare reference is part of the literature (Cashman 1993). And what about the Chinese epigraph, with its reference to gilded?Fastenufslow (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge to here request
Requesting merge of Perception of Libraries in the Gilded Aged from New York Public Library 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that section is not as much about the Gilded Age as it is about libraries, so this is not the right place for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems like a bad idea. They're two very different articles.  --Coemgenus (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Immigration
I began looking at the immigration section of the gilded age and I feel that it is lacking a lot of crucial information such as why and where most immigrants flocked to. Also I thought that the contrast between new immigration and old immigration is not at all as defined as it should be. I think there is a lot more information that could be added here. Does anybody have any other suggestions as to what else could be added to this section to make it more informative to readers and researchers on this topic? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmadey1 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems unfinished
Seems still more social problems and injustices of the time aren't covered by the article. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion & voting
the section on religion & voting is taken from History of the United States Republican Party with new material & cites added. Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Time span, Late 1860's to 1896
I scanned the article for reasons why the GA apparently ended abruptly in 1896, but I didn't find any. Could an editor supply this? 24.0.113.90 (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the election of 1896 is often used by RS to mark the beginning of the next era (the Progressive Era). For example, Josephson, The Politicos, 1865-1896 (published back in 1938); Marcus, Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896 (Oxford University Press, 1971); compare Jackson, New Orleans in the gilded age: politics and urban progress, 1880-1896 (1969) and Haas, Political Leadership in a Southern City: New Orleans in the Progressive Era, 1896-1902 (1988). Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Labor Unions section
Seems pretty biased describing unions as terrorists shutting down commerce at every turn and bombing policemen, with no context at all about why they were striking, or the violent retribution strikers got from employers.70.238.130.173 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * the people who called for bombing the police were not labor union members, and were not striking, but their actions did give unions a bad rep. Rjensen (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oblique view?
Much of this article seems to be written from the perspective of a kind of revised socialist history that says the period was the peak of "self indulgence" for the rich or wealthy. Given that it was a golden (and not gilded) age for architecture, technology, and literature sponsored and patronized by the great fortunes of the day, one wonders if this article can be taken seriously with such a lefty slant. If one added that it was a time before america was troubled by the interference of socialist ideals imported from Europe it would be flagged.

99.232.35.26 (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC) J.F

Only it wasn't a time where the United States was "troubled" by Socialism. In fact, it was a time where Socialism began to grow rapidly. Then propaganda campaigns turned Socialism into a bad word (think McCarthy's Communism) in an attempt to keep workers submissive. This worked to some extent, but the ideology still existed. Due to this ideology remaining, the US saw a rise in workers pooling funds together to buyout their owner's factories to form co-ops or demanding better wages and conditions. Owners would often retaliate by hiring Pinkertons or local police to intimidate or kill the Socialist strikers. While the movement was severely weakened, we did eventually get unionization out of it. Other worker rights were not results of the Socialist movement, such as child labor (protections went in place because of school) and safety (caused by people finding out what ended up in their food, the people didn't care about the workers then anymore than they do today).

Also, I would say that the gilded age was a major reason for it being a golden age for literature. Many of the more famous authors of that age wrote about social matters directly related to poverty caused by the robber-barons and the reconstruction. The only golden ages for technology and architecture around those times wouldn't have occurred until the 1930s.

Feel free to look around today if you want to know a little about what it was like then. Statistically speaking, we've entered another gilded age, and there's already rumbles of another worker's rights or Socialist movement about to occur (directed at retail and food service this time, rather than manufacturing and farming like during the first gilded age). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.239.85 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Standard of living
Historian Peter Shergold (an Australian) has taken the economists' definition of standard of living and cost of living and compared two major cities (Pittsburgh and one in England). He first estimated annual incomes for skilled and unskilled workers in each city. He looked at actual family budgets in the two cities. He found the local prices for each basket item (pounds in England and dollars in US. prices were 65% higher in USA). The standard of living is what an average family could and did actually purchase every year (food, housing, clothes, leisure, etc). He found that American skilled workers could purchase about twice as much of a basket of these goods than their English counterparts, while the baskets for unskilled workers were about the same for the two cities. It's the standard scholarly work & is often cited. --as shown by google citations. Rjensen (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:YESPOV we should "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". Are there any? Citing a single author may not meet basic WP:V. FYI this source can be read on-line. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Shergold's scholarly reviews were favorable & he has been cited dozens of times by experts google citations. That means he represents the scholarly consensus.  Scholars have said of the book: 1) "The work contains a very large number of statistical tables which bear witness to the painstaking character of the author's research." (English Historical Review, 1985, p. 218); 2) "The result is the collection of a good deal of valuable information that will interest historians of both British and U.S. labour..... Importantly, he also shows that the families of the lower-paid male American worker were not much better off than their British counterparts while the higher paid were substantially better off." [Social History (Oct., 1983), p. 430]; 3) "If the test of a rigorous historical analysis is the cogency of its conclusions, then Shergold's book is an undoubted success" [labor historian David Brody in Business History Review 1983, p 286]; 4) "These two carefully crafted complementary monographs [Bodnar's book is the other one] in comparative labor and ethnic history reflect the farthest limits in methodological finesse and sophistication to be thus far attained by social and economic historians studying the lives of American workmen." [American Historical Review Oct., 1983 p. 1089]. Rjensen (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

RIDICULOUS BIASED ARTICLE
Where is the balance? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be at least 50% sourced from blogs at mises.org  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.14.252 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant "aren't", and yes, this article was clearly written by a Libertarian/Austrian economics group, which makes it questionable at best and mostly lies at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.118.57 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I called BS the second I saw "real wages" and "increased" in the same sentence. This article could definitely use balance, as Libertarians found the actions of corporations during the gilded age, such as hiring Pinkertons to murder labor movement leaders, as perfectly acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.239.85 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the bias in this article is to the Left. The left leaning historian Zinn and the left leaning economic popularizer Pikkety are quoted. Piketty??? Is he an important economist, or an expert on the Gilded Age? No, he's a guy who happens to have a best seller. That the GIlded Age was characterized by rapid economic growth, rising wages, yet persistent poverty with slums and crime (Gangs of New York etc) are facts. Why not just state the facts and move on? Why does this article talk about "inequality." That's a political football in the news now anachronistically projected into a historical topic. Are we going to discuss "inequality" in the Neolithic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.53.186 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, I am glad I wasn't the only one to notice how Zinn seems to have an inordinately loud voice in this article. WHY do liberals have to politicize EVERYTHING? It is so tedious and draining! DocHellfish (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Growth in farmed land 1860 to 1900 -- can these maps be added in place of what is there?
I know almost nothing about how to get an image into a Wikipedia article. That said, there are two images at http://landcover.usgs.gov/luhna/chap2.php that would highlight the change during the Gilded Age where the amount of farmed land increased dramatically, discussed in the section titled Rural. There is one map for 1860 and another for 1900, indicating percent of land by county that is farmed. The maps are a decent size for a Wikipedia article, and show the increase, and how so much of it was in the Midwest and central Texas and slowly across the West. They put some life into the counts of number of farms, number of farmers in the text, I think. But I have no clue what steps to do to move them here, with citation and proper sourcing. Does it make it easier that they are usgs.gov maps, in a USGS report on farmland in the US? The report says it shows, for those two years, improved farmland, the same definition for each map, and that term includes ranches  The images I mean are these two:  http://landcover.usgs.gov/luhna/images/fig2-5.gif (1860)  and http://landcover.usgs.gov/luhna/images/fig2-7.gif  (1900) which links I got by right-clicking on the image, and selecting Copy image location. I can copy the images to a Word document by a simple copy/paste, but I do not think that would work for Wikipedia. What would work? --Prairieplant (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Gilded Age as a play on 'golden age'
I noticed yesterday that text in the lead paragraph was removed which referred to the "golden age". The sentence had read like so:

The portion reading "(in contrast, of course, to the mythological Golden Age)" had been removed on the grounds that it was 'unnecessary'. This seemed peculiar to me, because the term "Gilded Age" as it was coined by Mark Twain sought to mock the notion that this era of economic growth was a "golden age". The term literally seeks to use the concept of a "golden age", but reframe it as instead having only a superficial veneer of gold. Mentioning the term "golden age" in the context of the invention of the term "Gilded Age" works to shed light on precisely why "Gilded Age" was something of a sarcastic term intended to ridicule the veiled excesses and inequalities of the era.

In short, the origin of 'Gilded Age' actually makes more sense if the term is explicitly explained as a play on 'golden age'.

Thus, I tried to re-introduce a 'golden age' reference in a more seamless way than it had been appended previously.

It has now been reverted on the grounds that it "introduced terms not found in the text". Note that "golden age" is not really a technical or topical term in this case and shouldn't really require usage elsewhere in the article anymore than "ostensible" ought to. Even still, I'm getting the suspicion that even if I did go back and add 'golden age' to the text, I would continue to get push-back on this. So I've decided to come here to state my case and discuss first. —Jgcoleman (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My previous edit to the lead along the lines described above had been removed on the grounds that the "lead is not the place to introduce terms not used in the article." I felt that this was a questionable justification for a reversion given the particulars in this case.  But nonetheless, I was prepared with supporting reference material to go into the article body, add mention of "golden age" to the sentences where Mark Twain's coining of "Gilded Age" was discussed, then go back and change the lead accordingly.  Interestingly, in venturing to do so, I discovered that the origin story of "Gilded Age" -Twain and all- is mentioned no where else in the article.  So if Twain himself can be mentioned in the lead without reference elsewhere in the article, I see no reason why an equally relevant and related and cited reference to "golden age" in that same context ought to be removed.  Since this is the only part of the article where the origin of the term "Gilded Age" is discussed, cited material belongs there. —Jgcoleman (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct, there is no mention of Mark Twain in the main article. Mark Twain is an important writer in the era. Perhaps you could make a short section, one paragraph or two, in the main article about Mark Twain's book, how it named the age aptly, and properly citing what you say (this part is essential or some historian editor will delete it without proper citations), mention that Twain knew about the Golden Age concept, influencing his book title. Links to other Wikipedia articles are useful, but they are not considered to be citations to support a point. What you have posted so far has no citation, from Twain himself or another author writing on Twain, to support what you say about the connection from Golden Age to Gilded Age, and that Twain made this link as well, or that "everyone" knew of the term Golden Age when they read his book. I maintain that the lead, the paragraphs that show up before the table of contents, should stay as it is, mentioning Twain's book title as the title for the age, because the lead is meant to convey a summary of the article, or its highlights. Twain's book title is a highlight, the Golden Age back drop is background information. Keep that extra information on how Twain comes up with his apt title in the main body of the article. The section could be titled How the era was named, or something similar, and placed either at the opening of the article or perhaps better, near the section on how the era ended. This article is long and well-referenced, watched by many editors who are historians themselves, and read by many readers of Wikipedia on a continuous basis. Some food for thought if you want to try your hand at the article itself. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I already reinstated the edit hours ago with a perfectly valid, non-Wiki citation. Please review and let me know if you feel it is lacking in some way.  Furthermore, I really do think you're being a bit dictatorial about keeping this simple clarification out of the lead.  If I was burdening the lead with several sentences on this point, I think you'd be perfectly justified in wanting to move it to a separate section.  But this addition is small, meaningnful and fits well into the lead sentence.  I don't believe, as you've suggested, that this useful and succinct clarification necessitates an entire independent section.  Furthermore, this is not obscure, "background" information.  The term "Gilded Age" simply doesn't make sense as satire unless it is seen as a mocking response to "golden age".  In fact, briefly introducing this golden/gilded duality in the way I have done arguably sets the stage well for the rest of the article. —Jgcoleman (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Edits are not a race against time. I saw your reinstatement after my post to the talk page. I think my points are clear enough and that you understand them. I did not revert your change as soon as I saw it, expecting that you would write that paragraph, and shorten the text in the lead to match. Twain's satire is pretty obvious to one who does not know anything about concepts of the Golden Age in many civilizations. Gilt is a surface layer, very thin. It was not obvious to you, which is startling. If you want to add the rest, add it in the article, please. There is no existing section on Twain, so a new one is needed, all of which is said above. You are putting in information that is your viewpoint, not a sourced explanation. Please add a source to support your view, and that source needs to be in the main body of the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, there is no ground here to be characterizing this as matter of opinion on my part. The correlation between "Gilded Age" and "Golden Age", with one being satire of the other, is a matter of fact.  Did you review my citation?  It states the case precisely.  Also, I think you're overstating the case tremendously in stating that the ordinary reader would find the correlation between "Gilded Age" and "golden age" to be obvious; if there's any opinion being discussed here, it is this assumption that "gilding" is common knowledge.  Now look: first it was "don't introduce terms not present in the body text".  Then it was: "there's no citation".  Now you are trying to characterize this as opinion and also insisting that it's too obvious for inclusion?  Look, I am being reasonable with this addition.  I've added a citation, expressed a clear case of relevance and a clear case why this minute addition does not (in and of itself) warrant a new section.  I'm not seeing any objective grounds for reversion.  To be fair, your points are clear and understandable... but that doesn't necessarily make them the better argument.  You don't have to be a huge fan of this addition, but I do not feel you've made a convincing case for why it ought to be removed. —Jgcoleman (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , I see that you've decided to force your desired change. You've kept the pertinent information in the article, at least, so I'm not going to keep reverting or pursue a dispute resolution here... though there is grounds for it.  I do want to point out, for the record, that I believe your insistence in preserving the current lead is without warrant in this case.  I expressed the belief that this simple clarification fit well in a lead sentence and did not necessitate an independent section.  Nonetheless, you've gone ahead and created an independent section and -as I indicated- it is indeed lean enough that one might well question why it occupies a section.  More than half of the new section is literally just a verbatim restatement.  You've essentially taken a perfectly reasonable sentence from the lead, split it in two and made a vacuous section instead... not because a section of this minute size was needed, but purely because you didn't want to see "golden age" in the lead for some reason. In that regard, I believe you've done the article a disservice, which is unfortunate.  I have no doubt that you're knowledgeable on this subject, but your insistence here seems to boil down mostly to an unfounded and unnecessary favoritism towards the precise language of the current lead. —Jgcoleman (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your text is there, in whole, untouched. You are still unhappy about it. Sorry to hear that. Articles about novels have short sections to explain the title of the novel, if it needs explaining. It seemed appropriate to have a short section to explain the title of an era, an important era in US history, whose name came from an author alive and writing in that era, who saw his times and named them well. I do not agree to any of your notions of what I believe. I have been straightforward, I think. There is no personal attachment to paragraphs. I hope you can be pleased with what is there and we can both move on. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that you're more or less simply dismissing my arguments out of hand. You entered this discussion from the beginning with an aire of condescension, albeit with a gilding of politeness, and you are very subtly continuing in that very thread even now.  For instance, the fact that my text is still there "whole, untouched" is not a concession on your part.  You have no reasonable grounds to remove it, so its continued presence means only that it is valid, cited material for which it was not your prerogative to remove in the first place.  With regard to your continued insistence on a separate section to elaborate on the origin of "Gilded Age", that would only be convincing if anybody actually wanted to write that section.  You didn't want to, nor did I.  I had nothing to add to such a section besides all of eight or nine words that otherwise fit coherently in a lead sentence.  Likewise, based upon what the section looks like right now, you clearly had nothing to expand upon there either.  So, for as much as you've championed this idea of a separate section, it is evident that this spare section was created for no other reason than to pluck a handful of words from a lead sentence which you found objectionable and tuck them away elsewhere.  And yes, I say you found them objectionable because my simple addition to that lead sentence was 1) factual, 2) properly cited, 3) directly related to Twain's coining of the term and 4) was a compact enough addition to the lead sentence so as not to be kicked out to a separate section for further elaboration.  You bet I'm unhappy, because from the very beginning your position on my edit has been that those words belong literally anywhere else besides the lead. And quite frankly, while you are doing your due diligence by engaging in discussion with me, you have nonetheless awarded yourself a level of authority over the lead contents that your argumentation here doesn't justify.  Finally, you seem strangely self-satisfied with your viewpoint merely because you've been "clear" and "understandable" in expressing it.  Be that as it may, those qualities do not speak to whether or not your case holds water in light of my own arguments, which were also expressed clearly and understandably and which you've failed to convincingly controvert over the course of our discussion. —Jgcoleman (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Coining redux
I agree with Prairieplant re:correlation between "Gilded Age" and "golden age" is poorly referenced and seems to be a minor aspect (not lead material). A bigger problem is there seems to be a claim Mark Twain named the period, very hard since, writing in 1873, he would have to be very psychic. Did a hunt since this time period had to have been labeled after it was over (after 1900) and found these sources. The sources seem to indicate that Van Wyck Brooks named the period followed on by Lewis Mumford, Charles Austin Beard, Mary Ritter Beard, Vernon Louis Parrington and Matthew Josephson. The change of this term from pejorative to descriptive with historical points of views changing over the years is covered in these sources and should probably be covered in this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I read through your revisions of both the lead and the 'Name of the era' section. I want to thank you for your sensible edits and further insight.  I disagree with you on the point that the juxtaposition to "golden age" is minor, but instead of just stubbornly displacing my words as  sought to do, you have actually put in the effort to expand upon the origins of the term to such an extent that the new section is now warranted and the mention of 'golden age' there is well-placed.


 * I want to point out that my desire to introduce the correlation between "golden age" and "Gilded Age" was spurred by a recent visit to Newport during which I toured the handful of Gilded Age mansions that are open during the winter season. With each tour, I found that the ordinary folks going along had no idea that "Gilded Age" was generally not coined as a term of endearment.  To many people, the idea of a "gilded carving" or "gilded book cover" sounds rather fancy, generally luxurious and -in essence- worthy of admiration.  This lead me to realize that 'Gilded Age', as a sarcastic reference to a 'mere veneer' of gold, isn't readily apparent unless it is introduced as a counterpoint to 'golden age'.  The connection is then made: "Oh, I see... not admirable, pure, solid gold... basically just deceptive gold-plating."  I really do think that this underscores why the 'golden age' correlation is more relevant to the ordinary, uninitiated reader than it might seem to those who are steeped in the topic. Anyhow, do with my anecdote what you see fit; even if you just keep it as a mental note.  You've demonstrated good judgement and insight; I'm content to leave further revisions in this area to you. —Jgcoleman (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * However,, I do need to at least briefly mention that your criticism of my addition as being 'poorly referenced' was something of an unfounded jab given that the citation points to a book which is literally titled "Historical Dictionary of the Gilded Age" and that my own words took almost no liberties with the ideas introduced there. This was particularly vexing considering that you then proceeded to mention the very same book (even the same page!) just a few sentences later as one of the sources "you found" in researching your subsequent point.  Look, this is not an especially big deal... it's just that it needs to be pointed out because it's part and parcel to a conspicuously dismissive attitude which I've thus far encountered while editing this article.  It's been a rather poor experience, really... one that isn't conducive to a welcoming, collaborative environment. —Jgcoleman (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for improving that section, adding the information when the title came into use. I did think Mark Twain had such insight into his own times, so you have added new information for me. His title is still good, for writing in that era. If this is 'not an especially big deal' to, I wonder how much will be posted in a talk page when he encounters a big deal. I repeat, there is no condescension here and I am sorry you are not happy how this unfolded. Simply doing our best to follow Wikipedia guidance on a good article, and what constitutes the right material for the lead. It is great that Fountains of Bryn Mawr found other sources. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "No condescension here"? That's pretty rich.  I took the time to elaborate upon an unfounded and even mildly hypocritical criticism that was leveraged against my edit (by an editor that I've otherwise praised).   What did you do with that? Pass right over the perfectly legitimate contents and, instead, extract a single sentence fragment for the purpose of making a condescending remark.  I have no doubt that your an industrious Wiki editor and that, on the level, you improve the articles you edit.  But you have become far too comfortable in packaging your judgement calls as objective fact... and far too comfortable with a passive-aggressive condescension that maybe you don't even realize you project. That's not the crime of the century, but you will have to deal with it when somebody such as myself refuses roll over to your dictatorial impulses. —Jgcoleman (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilded Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/Radhistory/radical%20history%20articles/Periodizing%20the%20Gilded%20Age.pdf
 * Added tag to http://chla.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=chla;idno=3070303
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216125013/http://www.thomasnast.com:80/TheCartoons/NastCartoons.htm to http://www.thomasnast.com/TheCartoons/NastCartoons.htm

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

Two permanent dead links, third link found on wayback machine. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

 * The South after the American Civil War remained economically devastated; its economy became increasingly tied to cotton and tobacco production, which suffered from low prices. Black people in the South were stripped of political power, voting rights, and left economically disadvantaged

As it reads it sounds as if Black people were "stripped of political power" after the civil war - which I assume is the wrong impression. Can someone fix please.Xiiophen (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is exactly correct, so there is no need to alter it as you request. After an initial improved situation for black people in the South (end of slavery, equal protection under the law and voting rights in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution), they were systematically stripped of the improvements in practice across the South. This is carefully explained in the article, accurately summarized in the lead. Here is one quote from the section of the article called the South so you can read more and understand the situation:
 * "The vast majority of American blacks lived in the South, and as the promises of emancipation and reconstruction faded, they entered the nadir of race relations.[88] Every Southern state and city passed Jim Crow laws that were in operation between 1876 and 1965. They mandated de jure (legal) segregation in all public facilities, such as stores and street cars, with a supposedly "separate but equal" status for blacks." --Prairieplant (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Above is one reason to delineate the Gilded Age from the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era, the change for the freed slaves when Reconstruction ended. Another is having some agreement between Wikipedia articles on the eras of American history. Outline of United States history says The Gilded Age began in 1869 -- does anything in this article, in the main text, support that starting year? As I read the article in its many sections, it seems to say that the Gilded Age followed the Reconstruction Era, so 1876-1877, when the Jim Crow laws began to be passed by states, seems more logical to me, but I am not a professional historian weighing in. I want this article to be consistent on what to me are the simple big aspects of the article -- when it starts, when it ends. Effects from prior eras are well explained in the article, in my view. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no actual starting point, it's an age not a book-ended line. It's the boom after the civil war, the novel that gave the age it's name was 1873, but sure some people like to say 1877, while others are more inclusive, especially as to the administration of US Grant (1869-1877), being the first president in the gilded age. The First Transcontinental Railroad, the technology of the age, was also completed in 1869.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)  See also, a book on the age form '69-'99 but there are some who also like to periodize: civil war, then reconstruction, then gilded age, but I think we have to admit its not so neat. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC


 * "Rebuilding the rundown railroad system was a major strategy, but it collapsed when a nationwide depression (called the Panic of 1873) struck the economy." Preceding is a quote from lead of the Reconstruction Era article, making it appear that 1869 marking the completion of the first Transcontinental Railroad is not a persuasive argument for the start of The Gilded Age. It is hard to be Gilded or try to appear Golden in a depression or panic. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Do you not understand what gilding is? There were expansions and contractions throughout the era. Depression of 1873-1879 1882-85 1893-1897, just to name a few.  That's one of its hall marks. That's partly what made for the thin gold gilding. 1877, the year you want as the start was in the middle of a depression. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sourcces in Reference or Further reading -- isbn for those published 1970 and later
You add so many good sources to this article. To make it easier for readers to find them, could the isbn be included for books published 1970 and later? The publisher's name would be of value as well. With the isbn, a reader of the article can click on the number, reach the Book sources page, and then find the book at a library using World Cat on that page, or find a place that sells it. I have looked up publishers and isbn for a lot of sources, but there are so many in this article! If those added from here on out, like the one you just added to Further reading, could have that information, that much less to hunt down later. Plus if a page number is cited, the isbn and publisher are important; if I search on line just to find an isbn, it may not be the same edition and same pages as the book you are using to support a point. If using a cite format, pipe followed by isbn= is the correct parameter; if doing it free form, the use the isbn template at Template:ISBN which is quite simple to use. Something to consider. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the advice! usually I do not have the isbn number. But if I have a link to actual text excerpts I will add that. Rjensen (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

New technologies in the Gilded Age
I think this page needs to have more information about the technical advances of electricity. There is not much information about what advances were made, who made them, and why they were useful. MikeInglin (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The Technological Advancements subsection barely scratches the surface of inventions and advancements from this age. The page could benefit from a detailed description of inventions from the Gilded Age; for example a subsection within Technological Advancements which describes Edison's incandescent light bulb and gives a brief history of its creation and its inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGurtner19 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree. A "detailed description" of the incandescent light bulb isn't really warranted in this article.  The place where said detailed examination of the light bulb belongs is here –Incandescent light bulb– the Wikipedia page for the incandescent light bulb.  That's where readers should go for anything deeper than a cursory mention.  The role of this article is simply to introduce the light bulb in the vast context of the Gilded Age, no more; readers more deeply interested in the light bulb can learn more about the invention on its own page. —Jgcoleman (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe there should be more information on the telephone, it one of the main inventions that made America what it is now. It sparked communication through out the world and was key towards other inventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayton (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

While I was scrolling through the "Gilded Age" article on wikipedia, I noticed that it leaves out a lot of important inventions that were invented in that time period. One of them being the typewriter, the typewriter revolutionized writing and typing as we know it. Important inventions that were invented during this time, like the typewriter, that influenced big inventions today should be added in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Sanchez28 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See the reply by above, a focus on each of the many technologies is not the focus of this article. There already is a fully detailed article in Wikipedia on the typewriter, covering the technology and its effect on writers, on women entering office jobs and the transition to keyboards connected to computers.  --Prairieplant (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Location of Breakers photo in the article
I really prefer that image of the mansion with the lead of the article. So I moved it back there. I do not mean to argue about it, but that image really describes the era, in one main aspect, in my view. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the connection to Linguistics?
what is the connection to Linguistics from this article? I understand history, US history, and economics, but not Linguistics. Plus C Class for such a grand article about a fascinating period of US history. Me, I would give it at least a B, but no one is asking me for the grade. Is it the references that need to be standardized in format, or something more challenging, requiring a team of well-read historians to do it? Curious. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The term started as a neologism in the 1870s and most such phrases are covered by the Linguistics project. If you wish to re-evaluate the article, you can. User:Rjensen has been expanding the article lately. Dimadick (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you. It is the very name of the era that attracts the interest, okay. Yes, Rjensen is continually keeping this article interesting and well-sourced. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Who will verify the sources highlighted for Verifiability by Internet Archive Bot?
–some recent editors on this page– The internet archive bot inserted the link to the book pages on line, in 7 references in this article, here. At the reference, the page number(s) are highlighted like an external link, so that one can read the material on the page to see if those are the correct pages, I suppose. The first one is in Section 2.3 Economic Growth, regarding the use of the term Robber Barons, with Howard Zinn's book as one of two sources. At this moment it is reference number 48. My glance at those pages says that Zinn's 2005 book, Chapter 11 Robber Barons and Rebels, the first two pages of that chapter, are a source to support that sentence. I am not a well-read historian. Now what? This bot is new to me; who is supposed to check that the source and the specific page numbers are correct? Can the page numbers go back to the normal format of page=x? I love Internet Archive Bot for finding dead links in the archives; this action is new to me and it is not clear if editors or the bot itself close the cycle. I am not really clear what started the cycle, come to think of it. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's useful. it makes it very easy for anyone to check it and anyone can complain on this talk page if it does not support the text.  Where can I get this internet archive bot ???  Rjensen (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The page that comes up when clicking on the user name that appears in the View History for this article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InternetArchiveBot . It does not say anything about blue linking, or explain the expected protocol as to saying, yes this is the correct page, or no, it is not the correct page. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks! i will try it Rjensen (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, But We Dreamed Great Dreams !
One of the better legacies of the Guilded Age (as it was originally spelled) was the "What If" phenomenon. In all fields of thought and endevour, Guilded Age Americans shed preceding eras' prohibition on challenging "what must be" as bequeathed them by pre-Jacksonian intellectual straitjacketers. Whereas even things like mechanical winnowing machines had been condemned as violations of the "natural order" (not to wait for God-sent winds being an act of impiety), by the mid-1880s they even dared dream of climate control ! In the October 1885 issue of Scientific American, John C Goodridge Jr proposed moderating winters in eastern US and Canada by filling in the Straits of Belle Isle, thus deflecting the Labrador Current. His supporting equations have since been accepted as accurate. While we "enlightened" folk may wonder, from the safety of our own age's knowledge, whether that would have been without unforeseen secondary consequences, you have to admire the brazen visions (and visionaries) of THAT age. . . the Age of Jules Verne and A.C. Doyle, dreamers par excellence. The "What If" ethos they left us lasted through the Americans' Greatest Generation, long after it had been forgotten by the rest of us in the West. In the present climate of PC's mandatory self-hatred ("species h. Sapiens is an abomination"), one is discouraged from dreaming great dreams like the Panama Canal or Moon Landing, much less bringing them to life. So thanks, Guilded Age -- we owe no small part of present reality to your "impossible" dreaming!

108.3.85.123 (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

i agree with this. people in 2019 talks about how our technology "rapidly advancing" yet they don't know that the period between 1870 and 1899 saw inventions that overwhelmingly outnumber any inventions between 1900 and 2019. Gilded Age's invention record is never surpassed by any other era.213.230.119.231 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest changing people > men
"African-American people in the South were stripped of political power and voting rights" This is utter nonsense. African "people" never had had any voting rights to begin with, it is the African American men that had done.--Adûnâi (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The voting rights were given and then they were taken away by the southern states. Even if men alone could vote for a brief while after the Civil War, men and women lost political power. The whole sentence in the lead is this: "With the end of the Reconstruction era in 1877, African-American people in the South were stripped of political power and voting rights, and were left economically disadvantaged." If you read the article, in the section title The South and the West, subsection The South, you will find this sentence: "In the face of years of mounting violence and intimidation directed at blacks during Reconstruction, the federal government was unable to guarantee constitutional protections to freedmen and women. In the Compromise of 1877 President Hayes withdrew Union troops from the South; "Redeemers" (White Democrats) acted quickly to reverse the groundbreaking advances of Reconstruction. Black political power was eliminated in the 1880s, and in the 1890s new laws effectively blocked over 90% of the Blacks from voting (with some exceptions in Tennessee; blacks did vote in the border states).[146]"
 * Please do not change the sentence in the lead, . This fact is one of the frustrations of the aftermath of the US Civil War. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

MARXIST PROPAGANDA, LEFTIST ARTICLE
Why lefties and liberals have to politicize everything? This article is just ridiculous. Pathetic. It seems like a page from a communist blog. That age was responsible for taking people out of poverty, maximizing profits, wages, United States’ global projection. What’s wrong with you? The hatred and the political activism are so deeply connected to your mindsets. Disgusting article. You should post that in your social media, this is not your FB page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.35.225.131 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly disagree with the above post. This article has thorough and well-cited coverage of this era in US history. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The start date of "1870s" in the first sentence is contradicted by the rest of the article
The first sentence says the age began in the 1870s, but I am concerned by how this is contradicted elsewhere in the article. The second image in the lede shows the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. The section "The name and the era" includes the phrase "...ranging from starting right after the American Civil War (ended, 1865)...". The article discusses the 1868 legalization of bribery in New York, the launch of the petroleum industry in the 1860s in Pennsylvania, the emergence of the American financial system by 1860 based on railroad bonds, the development of railroad management before 1870, and the launch of the Grange movement in 1867 to address high railroad transportation costs. Six of the dozen or so sources concerning the start date set it in the 1860s: Nugent (1865), Cherny (American Politics in the Gilded Age, 1868–1900), Edwards (New Spirits: Americans in the Gilded Age, 1865–1905), Schlesinger (History of U.S. political parties: vol 2: 1860-1910: the gilded age of politics), Smythe (The Gilded Age Press, 1865–1900), and Northern Illinois University (Illinois During the Gilded Age, 1866–1896). There has been no work yet to discuss and establish a consensus for "1870s" in this talk page. For these reasons, I propose a slight tweak of the first sentence to say "around 1870". This would be more inclusive of the whole of the content in the article. Replying to and anyone interested. KinkyLipids (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , the first sentence in the lead to this long article has been written and revised by historians. So many editors want to change this first sentence, it is quite tedious to watch this over time. If  or another who has been long involved with writing the long article thinks the lead should be modified, then let Rjensen modify it. The lead is not the article, it is the highlights of the article, to let a person know the main topic in very abbreviated form. I have never seen the conflict between the article and that straightforward opening sentence as to the start of the era; eras are a construct of historians looking over the past of the US, in this article. A discussion with multiple references on the start of the era does not belong in the lead. A simple start is required. I will leave it there.  --Prairieplant (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * different aspects of the Gilded Age began at different dates, and they mostly fall in 1870s. Unlike the Civil War there was no starting shot. 1870s is close enough for historians and readers. Rjensen (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies. There has been a misunderstanding. I proposed a minor change in the wording from "the 1870s" to "about 1870", not a discussion added to the lead. That's what I'm reserving for this talk page. The current wording was added back on June 3, 2013, and much has been added to this article since then. The wording is in need of an update. It must give due weight to the sourced material, regardless of contributors' experience or educated opinion (WP:PILLARS, 2nd Pillar). If there is trouble seeing the conflict between the article and the first sentence, I detailed it in my previous post. The desire for an unchanging first sentence is understandable and frequent, but there is no policy or guideline for it, and I suggest that we not sail too close to the WP:OWNER policy (See especially "Examples of ownership behaviour, Actions and Statements"). Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hiustorians have looked into the dating issue. see Richard Schneirov, "Thoughts on Periodizing the Gilded Age: Capital Accumulation, Society, and Politics, 1873-1898." Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 5.3 (2006): 189-224. on p 196 he agrees that "the standard years for the Gilded Age, 1870s-1890s " online also see p 201 last paragraph for "most scholars" and 1870s. also see p 203, 206, 207, 209, 211 for related discussion of 1870s. (I get cites note 48 on end dates).   Rjensen (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my frustration with changes to the lead, and most often the first sentence, is not clearly stated. Changes to the rest of the article are less frequent, and when made,usually made on the basis of sources. I know well that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article and am fine with that approach. I was confused about the link to Mark Twain in the lead paragraphs, which led to a new section in the article about how and when the name of the era came about, with contributions from several editors. The lead did not change, if I recall correctly. The edits must then survive review by other editors until agreement is reached. If the opening sentence of the lead has lasted for 7 years, perhaps that means it is a good way to open the lead, clear, simple, straightforward. My frustration about changes to the lead is that it looks like many folks never get past the lead, do not read sections or all of the article that the lead summarizes. I encourage people to read the whole article, as it is quite good. This era of US history was full of contradictions while the nation grew from immigraton and technology changed life dramatically. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Belle Epoque
It would be useful to add something to the effect that the Gilded Age should not be confused with the Belle Epoque (c. 1890-1914) in France. Some comment on the contrast with economic stagnation in much of Europe from c. 1873-79 and slow growth in the 1880s and early 1890s would also be of benefit. It was, above all, the Gilded Age that saw the rise of the U.S. to the status of a world power. JohnC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.57.234 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The War Against the Buffalo
"The American government declared 'war' on the buffalo."

What does this mean??

This intriguing yet baffling sentence demands greater explanation. It seems to hint at something that is an important topic in its own right--probably one that is outside the scope and focus of this article. But there should be a link at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.12.73 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a citation, but there was a systematic attempt, backed by the U.S. gov't and the railroads, to exterminate the Plains Bison to make the livelihood of the Plains Indians impossible. I'd have to make pretty much the same searches to substantiate this as anyone else, so I leave it to others to fill it in. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Opening
The introductory sections is overly specific and demonstrates the opinion of cited historians as opposed to providing a factual definition and brief outline of what the term "Gilded Age" refers to. I'm adding an overview section and moving much of the content there. Eternalmonkey (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am integrating the portions of the introduction into the relevant portions of the article. I will also try and cleanup as I work.Eternalmonkey (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The additions to the introduction still do not fit the purpose of an introduction. I will integrate them into the main sections of the article.Eternalmonkey (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * the lede summarizes the article & therefore MUST cover South, race, politics, religion, etc. Eternalmonkey seems to want to erase all summaries of the text, but that goes against WP:lede policy. Keep in mind that many readers only read the opening lede and we have to provide them a short, accurate overview. Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Acoording to WP:LEDE the lede MUST "define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The topic is defined. The term was specifically coined by Mark Twain etc. The context is given in that it is the period following reconstruction and the civil war, the south's "devastation" reads as amateurish and blunt. There is no evidence to support any claims made in the following sections and it mainly serves to weaken the whole article. This is not a high school paper term paper. Nothing in politics is so simple as to be explained in a sentence. I'm removing the section until I feel it fits in with the rest of the article. If you want to add it, open a talk section so it will be open for community discussion. Eternalmonkey (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * the main goal of the lede is to "summarize the most important points" and that includes lots of topics that have to be reduced to one or two sentences. The full coverage is in the text below. Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Explanation for the term
Greetings, Prairieplant. Regarding your revert in Gilded Age: I don't know the relevance to the edit of your comment that "few editors seem to get past the lead in this article." In any case, the edit was meant to explain that we're not talking about some widely accepted, scientific term about a certain time period, e.g. the Pleistocene, but that the term is one of many used by some people and from a certain perspective to denote that period. I believe that this nuance improves the explanation for the term. -The Gnome (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , I think the opening sentence of the article Gilded Age is clear and straightforward. It is the name accepted by historians and there are many historians who edit the article. The article is full of good information with citations, telling the story of an era in US history that saw enormous change, increase in the population, settlement of areas not previously with many immigrants or towns. Many people seem to read only the lead and not the article and have changes to the lead that do not improve the lead or reflect what is in the article; the lead is meant to reflect the article. That is what my comment means. There have been streaks of time with so many edits to the lead as if it were the entire article; if you look at the history of edits, yours is the second change to the opening sentence in March 2021, and each change was reverted by another editor. There is broad agreement on the lead now. The term Gilded Age is accepted as the name for the era, so I disagree with you there. The opening sentence needs to be simple and straightforward. I saw your changes as making the opening sentence less clear and less accurate. I encourage you to read the whole article. I am moving the comment to the article's Talk page. -- Prairieplant (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As it happens, I'm aware of the background to that period but thanks anyway. The point is that when historians, as well as lay persons, use the term "Gilded Age" they unfailingly mean the period in question. But when they use a term to describe that period they do not use that term exclusively. And when they use it, many of them use it critically, derisively, or otherwise. The term "Gilded Age" is not a purely descriptive term, by any stretch, and it is important that this is clear in the opening paragraph. (It is already clear, though indirectly, in the main text.) The "gilded" word's origins were satirical, then the word was used to denote rather admiringly that period, and now opinion as to whether the word "gilded" is objectively correct is divided.
 * Some supportive documentation: Historian Jon Grinspan calls the period 1865-1915 the "age of acrimony.” (See ) Columbia professor of journalism Richard John wrote abt the "reluctance of historians of business, technology, and political economy to conceive of the late nineteenth century as a 'Gilded Age'" on account of "their reluctance to characterize the people responsible for these innovationsas 'gilders'." (See ) It's indicative of the heavy weight carried by the term that the very academic journal that carries the term on its name hosted a forum under the title "Should We Abolish the 'Gilded Age'?" (See here) -The Gnome (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It strikes me that the main text would need more development of this topic to raise it up to changing the opening sentence. The last paragraph of the lead gives the origin of the name, and the first section of the article talks about the naming of the era several decades after the era ended and lists some names of people supporting the use of the term. Regarding the two references that you mention, there is a reference to Richard R John's 2010 book, regarding the extension of the telephone network, but not to the 2009 article and not to the discussion-and-response Richard R John, Rebecca Edwards and response by Richard Bensel in the Journal Of the Gilded Age, etc. A 2005 book by Rebecca Edwards is listed in Further reading. The 2021 book by Jon Grinspan is new, and not cited in this article. Nor do I find his name in the article, as Reference or Further reading, for any other publication he may have written bearing on this era. I do not have access to the full articles in that journal, but it was written a decade ago, and has not yet emerged to change the names of the main eras of US history. If historians and lay people unfailingly mean this period when they say Gilded Age, that sounds like huge support for the present opening sentence.
 * I hope you read the entire article to see if an expanded discussion on other terms, like acrimony, ought to be discussed in the text in some logical place. And it ought to be discussed on the Talk page before making any huge change based on one new book., have you opinions on this topic of acrimony, and the 2021 book by Jon Grinspan? --Prairieplant (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The Age of Acrimony: How Americans Fought to Fix Their Democracy, 1865-1915 by Jon Grinspan is scheduled for publication April 27, 2021, so it's not available to readers or editors. The term "gilded age" is standard in scholars and academic usage, as well as textbooks. GOOGLE SCHOLAR gives over 3,000 citations with "gilded age in the title.  That includes 400+ cites since 2017 with heavyweight scholarship like Richard White, The republic for which it stands: The United States during reconstruction and the gilded age, 1865-1896 (Oxford University Press, 2017) The term is used in literature, political science and sociology. --and yes even  by economists [Giocoli, Nicola. "'Love Me, Love Me Not'. The Complicated Affair between Classical Economics and American Corporations during the Gilded Age." (2017).]. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced. The term is not simple nomenclature, as I pointed out. It carries serious baggage. But I will defer to historian Rjensen's input and leave this for others to perhaps raise or debate. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)