Talk:History of the United States

Keep the images in this article
The images and diagrams, provide visual context into the broad and complex information of this article. Request, that current media be maintained without removal. The claim that the article is hard to read on mobile view is hard to verify, because different mobile browsers will have different overall compatibility with Wikipedia. The subject is also open to debate, as to whether images actually take away from or enhance viewing from mobile devices.

Furthermore Wikipedia, was founded as the largest encyclopedia in the world, and started as a desktop website. Further more, millions of users remain desktop/laptop viewers. The fundamental argument, that articles cannot reach their full media potential due to some mobile devices, detracts from the experience from readers as a whole.

In specific reference, to the mobile device concern, perhaps now is the time that a proposal be made within the larger wiki community, that mobile versions of Wikipedia be tailored for mobile users. That is, optimizing articles to be flexible, for personal computer and mac users, the fully illustrated version of the article is open for them, but that same article will show less images to mobile users. That discussion however, goes beyond the scope of the article, and should happen elsewhere.

-Sunriseshore

History of the United States
The history of the lands that became the United States began with the arrival of the first people in the americas around 15,000 bc. The history of the United States was preceded by the the arrival of the native Americans. 70.15.132.224 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The first people to arrive in the Americas were not citizens of the United States and this article should not pretend that they were. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 23:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Audio Files
I have returned to this artcle after four years, to add and also restore some audio files. The only file I did not reutrn was a recording of Capitan's John Smith description of Virgina. Christopher Colombus already provides a colonial perspective, and while he never visited the contiental U.S he frequently visited the territory of Pureto Rico. Given the broad scope of the article I think this about as many audio excerpts as the article can hold. I tried to include voices from women and people of color but also show the context of the time period. Of course these selections are far from perfect but all were selected not just for themselves but because they represent much larger concepts

We have as follows:


 * The first corn (native american folktale/Pawnee) (this folktale includes descriptions of hunting and corn cultivation that would have applied to many nations in what is now the Eastern/Central United States.)
 * Columbus's letter (colonialism)
 * Now removed but once was an excerpt from Captain John Smith (would represent English settlement/Jamestown/Ect but there is little space for this, Columbus might do the job here, or something about New England/Puritans/Witch trials could be here if a third pre-independence recording was needed

Founding of the United States:
 * Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson, Enlightenment Ideas, Independence)
 * U.S Consitution (Creation of the United States/Law/ect)
 * Washington's Faarwell Adress (traditional American values, foreign policy, founder of the nation, ect)

- Slavery and the Civil War: -
 * Federick Douglas's Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, chapter 6
 * Emancipation Proclamation
 * Lincon's Gettysburg Adress

Progressve Era/Gilded Age/Wild West
 * Excerpt of an 1869 newspaper article about the Trans Contiental Railroad (wild west, gilded age, technological development)
 * Excerpt of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (corruption/gilded age/progressive era) represented here
 * Excerpt of Susan B Anthony's speech in court while she was on trial

Depression/New Deal/War
 * I got the Ritz from the one I love (song)
 * FDR's first fireside chat (radio broadcasts, new deal, ect)
 * FDR's Declaration of war aganist Japan
 * Truman's Atomic Bomb Announcment

Cold War/Civil Rights/20th century America
 * Kennedey Cuban Missle Crisis (Cold War I)
 * Lyndon Johnson's passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
 * Moon Landing recording/sounds
 * President Reagan's Berlin Wall Speech (Cold War II, representation of neo conservatism)

21st century
 * George Bush's 9/11 Adress (War on terror)
 * President Obama's Inaugeration (Great Reccesion/First African American Presient/Return of liberalism)
 * ??? possible file about Covid/Trump/1.6.21 ?

END

As I said above I think is all the article can hold. Now one might want to include a post 2009 recording but that would be controversial and should likely be agreed upon by Peer-Review. I am temepted to use something Covid regulated or something that relates to the January 6th attack but again I think that should come about by peer-review.

I am going to ask that at least at this time that another editor does not slap the too many images template here, that is not construvtive we can discuss things here. In the modern era an article about the History of the United States should be filled with meaningful images and other forms of media to make the history more real. There are so many resources in the public domain that are avaliable to use that Wikipedia articles have just not caught onto yet.

Thanks for reading this post here and considering the files that have been uploaded. Sunriseshore (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Too Long?
In June an editor placed a too long template on the article. I am suggesting it be removed


 * Naturally a history of the United States will be long
 * To begin removing sections could disturb POV as it is likely that cuts could see areas about people of color/women/underseved communities being cut from the article.
 * In many casees the article already feels like a summary rather than prose, if one attempts to cut the article to 100,000 bites for example what the article will be left with is a skeletal list
 * Splitting the article into two parts would likely diminish both articles. Users come to this page looking for a broad yet comprhensive summary of the history of the United States. Attempting to make two parts would diminish the two (or all three articles) involved. I highly doubt that editors would seriously want to take a unifed history of the United States off of Wikipedia.

If it was to be split, I suggest an 1865 bench mark but I find a split to be highly problematic. If there are no objections in the next several days, the template will be removed.

Thank you. Sunriseshore (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What is the significance of 1865 for this topic? Does the end of American Civil War or the beginning of the Presidency of Andrew Johnson count as part of a different era? Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Good question! Usually, university/college-level courses (including High School Advanced Placement courses that are counted as college courses) are split in 1865 with the end of the civil war. Where one course or two courses in U.S History will be split at 1865. Now as to why its important I can summarize


 * The end of Slavery, which was a huge moral/economic consequence even though true civil rights would not come for over 100 years
 * end of plantations (and the industrialization that would mean)
 * The confirmation of Washington's supremacy over state power
 * The country was placed on the trajectory toward superpower worldwide

As for exact time of the split, I would say the Appomattox surrender or perhaps the Lincoln assassination that happens immediately after is the dividing line. The second U.S History course starts with reconstruction that takes place in the former rebelling southern states. Industrialization in the northern states and the development of the west. Now the South remains behind and reconstruction does not reach its goals but nonetheless, the late 19th century US sees the country on the trajectory towards its 20th-century superpower status.

I want to emphasize I am against article splitting, but if it must be split then it should be with the end of the Civil War

Some links/back up here: https://www.humanitiestexas.org/news/articles/before-and-after-civil-war MIT course description 1: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/21h-101-american-history-to-1865-fall-2010/ MIT course description 2: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/21h-102-american-history-since-1865-spring-2018/ 47.133.107.157 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

How to refer to Presidents of the United States
Shouldn't U.S. Presidents be referred to as "President [last name]" and not just by last name? 2603:8000:8F40:3B08:ADF8:4507:3C2F:1AB (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe they are to be introduced this way, but once their idenitty as president is established their last name is acceptable. Sunriseshore (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the United States article. 185.205.141.44 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Language Inconsistency
Noticed that these sentences have some language uses that are not consistent with the common Wikipedia language: "The issue was drawn: did Parliament have the right to tax Americans who were not represented in it? Crying "No taxation without representation", the colonists refused to pay the taxes..." Such as rhetorical question and different kind of tense used. I think it disrupts the flow of the passage. SpiciousS (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"The Important Steps of the American History" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Important_Steps_of_the_American_History&redirect=no The Important Steps of the American History] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Categorizing History
It is unreasonable that the post 1945 world be lumped into the present into an endless era. The present not in the same world of 1945. This would also be the longest era since 1800.

2000 is a good stopping point, however if the crowd cannot bear this then at least a new section should be made from 1980 onwards. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/modern-us Sunriseshore (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would like to discuss your reverts on this talk page. Usually, when we use the term Contemporary America, it usually refers to the period after 1945 although I did see your comment above. I like your suggestion on 1980 since the College Board uses that as a stopping point after 1945. Also, Postwar America appears twice in the article. It is not clear what period it actually is referring to. If you can provide your input, that would be helpful. Interstellarity (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reponse. From what I have seen Postwar America can refer to a shorter or longer period after WWII, since much of the economic structure of the country was defined by the New Deal/World War effects until the Reagan Presidency. However I admit this is a little clunky I have refered to the 1945-1980 period as simpily the 'Cold War' period. Even if the Cold War itself went on till 89, by the 80s the economy and demographics that would make the current state of affairs were taking shape. Sunriseshore (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sunriseshore: Thanks for working with me and sharing your opinions. I look forward to working with you throughout Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing topics
I realized it is hard to determine what of the massive history of the country to leave out and what to put in, but I find it disconcerting that searches for 'mass production,' 'assembly line,' 'Henry Ford,' 'Edison,' 'çomputer.' and 'artificial intelligence' all came up with no hits. One of America's biggest influences is in entertainment; while we do have jazz, there are no hits for movies/film/Hollywood/ nor for rock (music). I also wonder, given that the murder of JFK is included why, with many references to Lincoln, his murder is not mentioned.184.166.128.93 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Bias
Why is this "historical" page dripping with bias? For example, Biden's Supreme Court nominee is mentioned in two separate lines of 'accomplishments.' Whereas Trump had two Supreme Court justice nominees and neither are mentioned once. Biden's section also reads like a glowing endorsement. And Trump's doesn't list one thing positive at all. Considering half the population is voting for this guy, you would think the writers on here would have a more keen eye for understanding how to write the facts, both positive and negative to give a better understanding of historical events. 204.194.77.5 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article is a joke. It should not be possible to determine the political bias of the author(s) by reading an encyclopedia article. As has become commonplace on Wikipedia in the past few years, no attempt is made at presenting an unbiased view and the least charitable interpretation of American history is presented. The article also reads as though it were written by a high schooler. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 23:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * these complaints are pretty weak. The reliable sources are pretty unanimous about Trump's very poor showing in office--and many of Trump's top appointees agree. Rjensen (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article reads like it was written by Howard Zinn. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 00:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about framing...
 * "In 2016, following a contentious election, Republican Donald Trump was elected president.[314] The results of the election were called into question, and U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that associates of the Russian government interfered in the election "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process". This, along with questions about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, led to investigations by the FBI and Congress."
 * The intro to trump begins with words like "contentious election".. which, fine sure. But the next statement talks about questioning the results of the election, which is exactly what he is being blamed for doing later on in the article in 2024. Not saying he didn't call it into question. But it's interesting that this article also calls into question the 2020 election. Which by the way has since come out as completed been orchestrated by the Clintons through the Obama admin / DOJ. So that's an interesting place to begin without giving that context.
 * "After the 2021 inauguration, Biden's running-mate, then-Senator Kamala Harris, became both the first African-American and first woman vice president of the United States.[352]
 * The biggest mass vaccination campaign in U.S. history kicked off on December 14, 2020, when ICU nurse Sandra Lindsay became the first person in the U.S. to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. As of August 2021, 60% of the U.S. population has received a dose of the Pfizer BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.
 * Following Biden's election, the date for US troops to withdraw from Afghanistan was moved back from April to August 31, 2021.[353] In Afghanistan, the withdrawal coincided with the 2021 Taliban offensive, culminating in the fall of Kabul. Following a massive airlift of over 120,000 people, the US military mission formally ended on August 30, 2021."
 * And then there's the intro into Biden... First sentence is a fact. Then it starts talking about COVID vaccinations under Operation Warp Speed without mentioning OWS by name, which was initiated under Trump. But if we're also going to say things like "The results of the election were called into question" for Trump. Why not say "The results of the election were called into question" for Biden. Or how about "The efficacy of the COVID vaccinations were called into question." These are all facts. But the facts that are chosen are generally cherry picked here to create a particular narrative of positive for Biden and negative for Trump. 96.231.250.31 (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021; a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill that temporarily established expanded unemployment insurance and sent $1,400 stimulus checks to most Americans in response to continued economic pressure from COVID-19. He signed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; a ten-year plan brokered by Biden alongside Democrats and Republicans in Congress, to invest in American roads, bridges, public transit, ports and broadband access. He appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court—the first Black woman to serve the court. Biden proposed a significant expansion of the U.S. social safety net through the Build Back Better Act, but those efforts, along with voting rights legislation, failed in Congress. However, in August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a domestic appropriations bill that included some of the provisions of the Build Back Better Act after the entire bill failed to pass. It included significant federal investment in climate and domestic clean energy production, tax credits for solar panels, electric cars and other home energy programs as well as a three-year extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies. From June 2022 Biden went on a string of legislative achievements; with the signing of The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, a massive investment in the Semiconductor industry and manufacturing, Honoring our PACT Act of 2022, expansion of veterans healthcare and the Respect for Marriage Act, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and codifying Same-sex and Interracial marriage."
 * This is also extremely long for one president...especially for four years. And it reads like it came directly from the Biden website. Can we stick to the highlight here?
 * And why not include Trumps Supreme Court picks. That alone is one of the most generational changes he made in office. That, in addition to the massive tax bill reformation that occurred under his admin. 96.231.250.31 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , you recently added a POV tag to the article. Could you please describe some "specific issues that are actionable", as mentioned at Template:POV? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is written in a tendentious tone that is clearly presenting its subject in the least charitable interpretation possible. Where controversial issues are addressed, bias is evident. The first two sections are not even within the timeframe of U.S. history. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 08:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Every country's history should—and as far as I'm aware, does—include some history of the land it now occupies. See Australia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, and Canada for featured articles that include such a treatment. If this is the explanation for the tag, then I think it was improperly placed and I support removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The most recent history is surprisingly focused on the president and the federal government.
 * Most of the responsibility in this country is not assumed in these areas. StuckMuck (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the responsibility in this country is not assumed in these areas. StuckMuck (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

who wrote the u.s. constitution 2600:6C48:6CF0:6EF0:6146:3FA3:3968:63DA (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a bias toward 2000 and after. Cold War (1945–1980) is covered by 25,988 bytes, but Contemporary America (1980–2024) is covered by 67,393 bytes. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits / Length
18:44, 23 March 2024‎ Jkudlick  talk contribs‎  290,146 bytes +472‎   Reverted 1 pending edit by 96.231.250.31 to revision 1215184393 by 96.231.250.31: unexplained removal of properly cited information undo Tag: Manual revert [automatically accepted]

This is a timeline of highlights. Some of these more recent updates go way in the weeds. Why do we need a day by day timeline of the COVID pandemic. A lot of the information in there is repetitive too. Like it says the U.S. had the highest count more than once. 96.231.250.31 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it had to remain. I said the removal was unexplained. Removing properly cited information without explaining in an edit summary why it is being removed will likely be reverted. If you explain your edits in edit summaries, then editors reviewing those edits will better understand what you are trying to do. The article's length has literally nothing to do with why you were reverted.
 * I also note that you state in the thread above that the 2020 election was confirmed has having been orchestrated by the Clintons through the Obama administration (which, by the way, ended at on January 20, 2017) and the Department of Justice (which, by the way, was part of the Trump administration at that time). I would caution you against making such statements without any sort of verifiable evidence regarding contentious topics, even in talk pages. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm saying is that it's interesting that the article would say Trump questioned the 2020 election (which is true). But does not call out that Clinton did this same thing in 2016 after the Russian collusion (which she had orchestrated through the Obama admin in 2016, according to the Durham reports.) https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html
 * Which I added context about already in the site with an AP approved citation. And it went through. 96.231.250.31 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)