Talk:History of the United States/Archive 5

Quality control
Concerning this edit Given the importance of this survey article in American history, it is necessary to replace poor quality citations to anonymous websites with references to high quality modern scholarship. I have been trying to do that. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quality control?? by a grade five student maybe.....POV statements added with no refs..bad grammar.. run on sentences...blanking of large portion of text including there refs.. new refs not in templates etc etc etc.......You have basically re-toned the article and have replaced info with what you think is of use. I will let other see this odd additions and get a third opinion and not revert again.   Moxy (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the main criteria is accuracy, precision, and fidelity to modern scholarship. The old references are to poor sources that need to be replaced with me RS. Perhaps the basic problem is that he the article became a hodgepodge of them statements, a sentence or two in length, added without respect to continuity, are the order the importance of particular topics as determined by reliable sources. This article does not use templates, and according to Wikipedia rules it should be maintained that way unless there is a definite consensus on this talk page otherwise.  Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What i find even odder is that even though we are in the middle of talking about your bad/odd additions you keep at it editing and editing or should i say blanking.Moxy (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * what I find odd is that neither Moxy nor anyone else has made a specific complaint about any specific addition to the article. This is the place to discuss specific issues, rather than wholesale erasure new material.Rjensen (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your additions in general are poor..As mentioned to you before by many others,,grammar- runons-punctuation.. then we have blanking of text with refs ..addition of new potentially POV material with no refs..Like i said i will let other review your massive changes and comment and let them revert if they think its needed. Me and you have had this problem before so i think its best someone else gets involved as i am biased towards your edits ingeneral. Even the bot thinks your blanking stuff perhaps fixing the link would have been better.Moxy (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Moxy seems primarily interested in issues such as formatting, grammar, templates, punctuation, and spelling. I am much more concerned with content, and with with making sure that articles reflect good quality reliable sources, rather than superficial clippings from anonymous or popular websites that are not based on reliable sources. In my opinion, both approaches are necessary for a successful encyclopedia, and I hope that Moxy continues his energetic efforts to copy edit and make specific improvements. As to the issue of POV, that should be discussed in terms of specific statements, and whether or not they are based solidly on reliable sources. In this article I have tried to add footnotes that link the information to good quality reliable sources. The Wikipedia rules do not say that POV should be eliminated, they say that all significant perspectives or POV should be represented. If an editor thinks a paragraph is unbalanced, the solution is to add balance by adding different points of view, rather than erasing it. Ignorance is not neutrality. Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides all the grammatical errors that will lead readers to believe the article was written by a 5 year old I will not talk about grammer after reading Wikipedia:Perfection is not required.... However the  rules say we need verification and must be-careful about giving undo weight to points  of views ...


 * The religiously-motivated struggle for the English crown, known as the Glorious Revolution, affected the Dominion of New England, a grouping of several colonies, as the governor, appointed by the regime of James II, who had been ousted in the revolution, was extremely unpopular with the people.
 * The colonists, knowing that the governor, Sir Edmund Andros, was a supporter of James, took advantage of the revolution to rebel and seize Andros. Afterward, the Dominion of New England was dissolved.
 * The French were defeated and turned all of Canada over to the British, and turned Louisiana over to Spanish. The British took control of Indian affairs, and try to prevent American expansion westward over the mountains in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It proved ineffective. In London, the Parliament, with no American representation, decided to assert its primacy by imposing taxes on the Americans. The Americans refuse to recognize the legitimacy of taxes that had not been passed by their own legislatures, with the result of a dozen years of escalating political tensions between the 13 colonies and the government in London. The Stamp Act of 1765 caused a firestorm of resistance, with the colonies organizing a coordinated boycott of the stamps that forced the British to cancel that tax.
 * Parliament was outraged and hit Massachusetts with the Coercive Acts, which stripped the colony of its cherished historic rights to self-government, and put Royal military officials in charge.
 * The British had severe logistical problems, and were short of manpower, because the Loyalists provided far fewer soldiers than expected.
 * American diplomats, led by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, negotiated a highly favorable peace treaty in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
 * As political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset observes, "The United States was the first major colony successfully to revolt against colonial rule. In this sense, it was the first 'new nation'." POV view by one person.
 * The Republic of Texas was annexed by Congress at the instigation of president John Tyler in 1845, over strong Whig opposition.
 * The addition of vast new territories in the Southwest and above far Northwest in 1846-1848, as well as westward expansion of the farmers' frontier into Kansas and Nebraska opened the extremely divisive issue of the status of slavery in the territories.
 * Following World War I, the U.S. was recognized as the world's leading economic and military world power.
 * The United States took the lead in naval disarmament, and in resolving the financial crisis in Germany and Europe as a whole.
 * reduced the total amount of drinking, but opened up opportunities for bootleggers and criminal gangs who used violence and bribery.
 * The desperate economic situation, along with the substantial Democratic victories in the 1932 elections, gave Roosevelt unusual influence over Congress in the "First Hundred Days" of his administration.
 * The term "liberal" now meant support for the New Deal, while "conservative" meant opposition to it. Roosevelt overreached in 1937, when he tried and failed to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been overturning some of his legislation.
 * Although many experts predicted a return to depression as the war ended, instead there was a new level of sustained prosperity, buttressed by high wages, rapid expansion of the suburbs, and a movement from low-paying farm jobs to better paying jobs in the towns, cities and suburbs.
 * The United States soon found large amounts of evidence that suggested that the terrorist group al-Qaeda, spearheaded by Osama bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks.
 * However the subsidies for ethanol caused a spike in food prices, and despite large-scale funding from the stimulus program passed by Congress in 2009, no major wind power or solar power projects were under way.
 * In 2010. Meanwhile, new technologies promised to reopen old oil fields in Pennsylvania in neighboring states, to produce natural gas. natural gas causes far less pollution than coal.
 * in 2010, the explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig poured 5 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and polluted large portions of the coast. the total cost of the largest environmental disaster in American history will take years to calculate.
 * The end...Moxy (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Moxy needs to explain why well-known facts need citations--the items he mentions are all covered in the main textbooks--that is not the Wikipedia rule. only quotations & controversial points need them. Lipset of course is not POV, he's a leading RS. If Moxy thinks Lipset's views are controversial he needs a RS that says so. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the problem ...You just dont understand the policies..The Burden of proof is on you the editor who is adding them... "Moxy needs to explain why well-known facts need citations-" ..all facts need citations dont assume the world is as smart as you are....This stuff is well know to who?..the people who lived during the time  or the people who have come here to learn..Even if YOU think its well-known that does not mean our readers do, our readers must be able to  verify all. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described here.


 * Ok this is out of hand now your deleting things at will and replacing with unverifiable refs...pls stop editing and talk our i will report you. I have restored the articles refs here Moxy (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, all the refs I have added are verifiable. Most are to books by famous prize-winning historians (as opposed to anonymous postings on websites); "well known" = if facts are reported in most history text books, they are well known and verifiable.  The statement that all facts need citations is not in accordance with Wikipedia rules, which we should follow wp:Cite: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered. and The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both. I suggest that websites by anonymous authors don't pass this standard Wiki test; books by famous historians do pass the test.Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There not verifiable...

and so on...this is what you have added in place of actual links or properly cited books with isbn #...So the question i ask you is what should prevent me from reverting your wonderful edits. Could it be the improper grammar Yes .. could it be the blanking of martial Yes..could it be unverifiable refs Yes..Could it be the removal of refs Yes..So if you could explain y your additions should be reinstated pls do so...Moxy (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alan Taylor, American Colonies (2001)...what page..what addition/volume..who published the book??
 * April Lee Hatfield, Atlantic Virginia: Intercolonial Relations in the Seventeenth Century (2007) .what page..what addition/volume..who published the book??
 * James Truslow Adams, The founding of New England (1941).what page..what addition/volume..who published the book??
 * Max Savelle, The foundations of American civilization: A history of colonial America (1953).... what page..what addition/volume..who published the book??
 * Patricia U. Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial America (2003)....what page..what addition/volume..who published the book??
 * Don Higginbotham, The War Of American Independence (1983) ...what page..what addition/volume..who published the book??
 * Let's assume good faith. And let's promise to abide the WP:CITE rules about using reliable published sources, with known authors and publishers--as quoted above. Moxy just re-added a citation that  I had  erased regarding Spanish explorers. The citation is to http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/spanish-explorers.htm  It is a self-published website dealing with Elizabethan England created by one Linda Alchin, and is not a RS. Linda Alchin has indeed published several books-- their titles are Baby Shower Ideas, The Ultimate Baby Boy Names Book , and  Bible Verses By Topic. On the other hand I have been adding books by Pulitzer prize winning historians.  Please note that by Wiki rules, ISBN numbers are optional. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well according to the evidence you actually just blank out the material with the ref and did not add any ref back..along with many other refs that were not replaced, that culminated in  a citation error in the ref section (your deleting temples that are affect many other refs). Well i am done here just cant keep doing this....hope the article is still legible in a few day..its off my watch list.Moxy (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck style US history
I think there should be some parts of American History that are not taught in todays textbooks. There are many parts of US history that has been proven by historians and been in older textbooks that has been erased since it didn't fit the standards of the liberal bias. We want all US history and the truth; and some of the Glenn Beck stuff will make US history make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.33.92 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia In Progress
Aprildwilliamson (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cold War & Containment
A discussion of the Cold War isn't complete without mentioning the policy of containment. It would also be helpful mention the document NSC-68, which greatly altered the course of containment and American foreign policy during the Cold War

Kmassman26 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
I think that we should move most of the introduction to the main article or into a new section titled "Summery of the United States of America". The introduction should be a short summery not one of its current size. I was hoping to have consensus on this before I made such a major edit to this article. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 18:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't agree with moving the current intro to a "summary" section, but yes, the lead needs major editing. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mrwojo. Tdslk (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * good point and I tried to fix it. Does anyone want to add a 500 word short-short-short history of the US to the lede? Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Re : Perhaps I wasn't clear. The last thing this article needs is another summary, of a summary, of US history.  —Mrwojo (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreeing again. One summary of the article should be enough. Tdslk (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Tdslk, do you think we should make the short history shorter while we're at it. I think the lead is ok now. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 13:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead should contain the only overview of this article. Keep in mind that this article itself is a summary of other articles (details are found in History of the United States (1789–1849), etc.; also see WP:SUMMARY). The former lead--which was at least twice as long as it should've been--was far too detailed, unbalanced toward pre-United States history, and in some places introduced significant information that was not present in the article it was supposed to be summarizing. The present lead--a single sentence--fails to provide an adequate overview of the article, especially to people who are unfamiliar with the topic. For a subject of this magnitude I'd expect a lead of about four paragraphs to include a concise overview of United States history to someone who is not particularly familiar with the subject, introducing fundamental, relevant concepts such as:


 * 1) Pre-Columbian America, Colonial America, formation of the U.S.
 * 2) Expansion, slavery, the Civil War
 * 3) Reconstruction, progressivism, emergence of the U.S. as an international power
 * 4) Great Depression, WWII, Cold War

These four points could be interpreted as four paragraphs I'd expect to see in the lead (with the current single-sentence lead at the beginning and a sentence at the end describing recent affairs). If the lead provided this overview, as it is normally expected to, then another overview would be redundant. (Once again, this article was split so we wouldn't be overwhelmed here.)

Certain sections of this article suffer from Main article fixation. It's only recently that the lead swelled in size (compare a year ago). Other sections also have outgrown summary style, such as those on WWII and 1991-present. Apparently not everyone is on the same page here. —Mrwojo (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to think of an audience for a 500 word history of the United State. Try summarizing the Indians in 40 words, colonial era & the Revolution in 150 words, the 19th century in 150, the 20th century in 150 words, leaving for 21st century just 10 words. Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider the audience consulting an encyclopedia for a history of the United States. By the choice of topics covered in the lead and the relative weight given to them, the reader gains not only a basic understanding of the topic but also the Wikipedia article (etc.).  Successful articles on similar large topics, such as at British Empire, history of biology, campaign history of the Roman military, are able to provide a summary within a 500-ish word lead without resorting to such minuscule sentences as you've suggested.  I can start taking a crack at this if you guys don't mind... —Mrwojo (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like Mrwojo's sock puppet, I agree with him again. Yes, it's hard to summarize US history in four paragraphs.  Nevertheless, that's what the lead should do, as per long-standing Wikipedia policy.  I also agree that we need to be mindful that the entire article is a summary of information to be described in more depth in more specific articles.  In particular, very recent history seems to have accumulated excessive detail.  While I don't argue that the Tea Party represents a significant movement in contemporary American politics, and likely one that historians will still discuss in 100 years, I doubt that it merits more text than, say, the Declaration of Independence.Tdslk (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I took a crack at it. It now conforms to typical lead expectations for size (about 500 words, 4 paragraphs) and other factors (e.g., no longer introduces significant concepts not mentioned in the article). Concision and relative importance are key to the intro so at this point I'd say replacing or removing text is better than merely adding more. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done! Pfly (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Climax of Liberalism"?
Is this a generally universally accepted term? There doesn't seem to be a citation backing up anything related to these events equating to a "climax of liberalism". The references cited seem to apply to other facts in the section, not the terminology used. I want to make sure we're not coining a phrase/inserting what amounts to original research, giving undue weight to a fringe opinion, or inserting POV here. Just thought I'd seek to clarify where this came fromJbower47 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of it being a widespread term. It's from the same source that supplies the quote in that section, Unto a Good Land: A History of the American People ISBN 0802837182. Also that section needs to be better integrated into the article. —Mrwojo (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

discussion of MAD in opening paragraphs
There is a line in the opening paragraphs;

The Soviet Union and the U.S. emerged as opposing superpowers after the war, and with mutually assured destruction of the Atomic Age discouraging direct conflict

This is a widely accepted view but it is being contested. There is an emerging view, derived from Soviet documents obtained after the collapse of the USSR, that the Soviets had absolutely no concept of MAD. The -West- did, and -assumed- the Soviets were thinking in the same way, and so believed MAD was deterring conflict. However, it seems that the Soviets rather viewed war as inherently nuclear and their war plans for any conflict involved massive use of nuclear weapons from day one.

The Soviet world view was ideocratic; they genuinely believed their ideology and viewed the West, being capitalist, as inherently aggressive. The Soviets however, post-Stalin, adopted what in their terminology was a "peaceful" approach to Communism, which is to say in our terms, the use of all means -except- war to promulgate Communism throughout the world.

An excellent source for this is William Odom's book, "The Collapse of The Soviet Military". I can provide the necessary references from that source and as such, I would like to modify this particular sentence, by removing the clause which claims MAD discouraged direct conflict.

Toby Douglass (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. The lead should probably focus more on undisputed events and trends than oversimplified explanations like this. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gilded Age and Progressivism -- confusing sentence
The following sentence is provided at the beginning of the second paragraph: "By century's end, American industrial production and per capita income exceeded those of all other world nations and ranked only behind Great Britain." Did industrial production and per capita income exceed that of all other nations, and in something else (GDP, perhaps) was ranked behind Great Britain? Or is the sentence just poorly written and "By century's end, American industrial production and per capita income exceeded those of all other world nations except Great Britain." Or "...income were ranked second in the world, after Great Britain." Shanedphillips (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's poorly written. The sentence is a close paraphrase from the Digital History reference found after the next sentence. —Mrwojo (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Typo in intro
The introduction to this article refers to "ethics in the North" instead of "ethnics in the North" as a component of the Rossevelt coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.174.3 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Further reading resource
A Renegade History of the United States by Thaddeus Russell Free Press (publisher) (September 28, 2010) ISBN-13: 978-1416571063 99.181.131.214 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Civil Rights movement
The Civil Rights movement, pre- and post-1960s, should get more coverage here in my opinion. It set precedents that had reverberations worldwide, not just in the USA. 198.103.184.76 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New External Link
The History Channel - http://www.history.co.uk/explore-history/history-of-america.html Articles, clips and image galleries from the first colonists right through to the 21st Century Hillsshaw (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction needed
Dear users/editors, The 1980s section mentiones that Ronald Reagan brought income taxes down from 70 to 28 percent; when of course they weren't 70% before. I don't know my way around wikipedia, but could someone edit this? Thanks, RvdH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.75.215 (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources to verify the inaccuracy of the statement, as well as correct it?--JayJasper (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done in two steps with (maybe) two different acts, but the rate changes were indeed 70% before. Student7 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf

It was 70% for only the higest earners, certainly not for all. Moreover, it was not reduced TO 28%, it was only roughly reduced BY 28% across the board, and generally not even that much. The same 70% earner (single) in 1980, which is what the article references, paid 55% in 1981, a reduction of only 15%. As is, the article is both wrong and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.78.59 (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Article needs lots of ref work
So lets go over what the problems are ...

....this goes on I can give more examples further down but I think the point is made clear by this point. I will be working on this after I am done with the main USA article history section. Would like to see tag here so that others may see the problem thus may help.Moxy (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pre-Columbian era - whole second paragraph has not one ref.
 * British colonization - whole last paragraph no refs.
 * Political integration and autonomy - Not one ref for the whole section.
 * Washington established a strong government - Only one refs for whole section + not one for last paragraph
 * Slavery - one ref for whole section
 * War of 1812 - not one ref for this section
 * Indian removal - no refs
 * Texas issue - no refs
 * Civil War - paragraph after paragraph no refs
 * Reconstruction - no refs last paragraph
 * Western expansion and Indian wars - needs refs
 * Progressive Era - are we to think the one ref is for the whole section?
 * Great Depression and New Deal - are we to think the two ref is for the whole section?
 * The Cold War begins (1945–1964) - huge sections with just a few refs
 * Climax of liberalism - huge sections with  just a few refs
 * the article has far more references than most, and every major theme is referenced. It covers all of US history in very summary fashion based on the more specific linked articles and on the many textbooks & reference books cited. Another 1000 footnotes would not help any reader -- readers should be going to the very good sources that are cited. Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has very few refs (only 150)- an article of this size and importance should look like Military history of Canada that has less text and more then double the refs at 329. This page is lacking in credibility because of the huge sections that are free standing. Not to mention many refs dont have the info needed to verify like page numbers, ISBN, publishers etc. The article needs lots of work that I will help with shortly. What helps our readers is verifiability - that cant be accomplished without sources to find. Moxy (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question - I see your being bold and adding refs - Your doing great as always with scholarly refs over web pages, but is there anyway to get page ranges for your refs - like with "David Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, Indian Removal (2006)" that is a 255 page book - ISBN 978-0-393-92725-2 edition right?.  I will find all the ISBN #s for the missing one. Just would be nice if we are going to add all the missing refs that they are usable by our readers. FYI? a book with no preview can still be  put into the Google book tool - to find publisher, ISBN etc.  I know your refs are fine just incomplete for easy identification by our readers. We should together get this done with real scholarly refs that are not web pages. Moxy (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not add isbn -- many of the books come in multiple editions and forcing one on our readers seriously limits their search -- eg a local library may have the same title with a different isbn and the reader will miss it. All the publishing details are easily available online via google books, amazon worldcat, etc etc. The purpose of citations here is to guide readers to useful books & articles; once they have them they can use the table of contents to find their specific interest, as in Indian removal (which covers many many events). Rjensen (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to know what edition the info comes from - as editions change - an edition from 1994 will be very different then on from 2004 - we also add ISBN and year of publication so our readers can find them thru our Special:BookSource tool. We add page range so our readers do not have to read thru a thousand page book to find where the source is located.  Adding the edition would be norm even at the academic level - you should know this.  If we give an edition they will understand there are other editions - but at least we can point them to the right book that was used - not a random book that was not used.   Pls see Citing sources. Thus far the refs would not pass a GA review. The refs make me question if the refs have actually been looked at closely and/or is a WP:ORIGINALSYN problem of OR from one book Moxy (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at all the items I cited; I often use the Kindle editions (which do not have page numbers). The Wiki rule is that when a book is entirely about an episode (such as Indian removals) specific pages do not have to be cited--they give the reader no help at all. We have to assume the reader has enough reading skill to handle a book's table of contents and index. In the case of major textbooks I looked at multiple editions (I have been reading & teaching with these textbooks for 50 years and the publishers send me new editions regularly), each with a separate isbn.  Some have over 100 isbn's as the contents change slightly (the publishers change illustrations & add a new chapter at the end covering recent history, and usually change the pagination.)  To repeat: isbn coverage is a mistake for articles of this generality. Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read our policy? I dont think you get it - we need to know the edition were you have gotten the info and what part of that edition holds the info. Not were they may find info of a similar nature that is older or newer. Come on man - at your age you should understand the difference between a source (that is specific) over  further reading material. I cant tell you how much more work this causes editors and readers to try and guess at what edition or section the source are  for. Took me months to fix these  problems at History of Canada. Can we get you to look over how our best articles use references. WikiProject United States/Recognized content. Anyways refs dont have to be easily verifiable - just be nice if you could add the info that is asked for by policy. Moxy (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see that adding a tag at the top is very helpful. It has more cites than most. Suggest tagging individual subsections explicitly. Everyone ignores general tags anyway, because they don't know what the tagger was referring to. Student7 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the talk has started more then 25 refs have been added...I agree with your assessment at this point that more spesific tags cant be implemented.16:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Spanish settlement
Erikson landed, if he did, in Canada, not the US. That part belongs to those pieces that really destroy Wiki credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.244.73 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * rm. probably added by some vandal and overlooked. Thanks for catching it. Student7 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

World Superpower?
I don't see how the title "World Superpower 1991 - Present" is still valid. America used to be a superpower but I think most if not everyone would agree the US has declined from that era.--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. The United States of America is still a superpower by any definition. There is much talk that it is declining, or will decline, but for the moment, it is still the world's sole superpower. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references
Regarding. Per Citing_sources: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the proposal will make it much harder for readers to follow what's going on since the footnote will seem like a mystery instead of a guide. A little bloat the few editors can handle to help our many users. :) Rjensen (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand what LDR are. The readers will click on the note and there will be a citation in the same place - at the end of the article; it's not like readers actually go to edit note for the reference. Nor should editors be confused, after all the ref name="abc"/ is common enough (I count many dozens in this article), adding some more and moving all full references to one place, where they are alphabetically organized, should make it more easy for editors to find the full ref. Currently they have to search for it or look for it, after LDR scheme is implemented, they can expect to find it in an alphabetical list in the bottom of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect this works better for mature articles, which this is. i guess that you know how to avoid us overwriting your changes inadvertently, as you are editing them. A lot of work! It does make the text easier to read, particularly when you get a google cite or multiple footnotes back to back. Kind of lose the train of thought when we read these inline.
 * Lazy editors, like me, can still use the old style without messing things up! Student7 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just now read Rjensen's reaction. I'm assuming that he's referring to newbies who try to add or change information. I agree that we do have a problem with new editors with this sophisticated approach. Bad enough as it is. Student7 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Improperly written and excessive lead
I'm going to start toning down the lead, which is poorly written based on Wikipedia style guidelines and is excessively detailed for a lead. It also uses far too many colloquialisms and its style is too informal. Just a heads up. Cadiomals (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been waiting for you to do this for a very long time... -- Jayron  32  01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people only read the lede so they need a capsule history that covers all the main points. The colobial history gets a sentence, and that is not "excessive." Stripping out all of Reconstruction and race relations is a disaster for readers. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term "bloody"
Civil Wars tend to be hard fought, to say the least. The American Civil War tended to be highly fatal, but most fatalities were caused by disease, both sides having poor or no understanding of hygienic treatment of wounds, or diseases common to the times. Pro rata, King Philips War was the most deadly, with 10% of all men being killed. I guess the number of fatalities was higher in World War II. I'm not in love with "deadly" as a substitute, but "bloody" seems inaccurate. And while not inaccurate at Antietam, it seems overstatement and informal. Also, this used to be a swear word in British English, a bit misleading here. Student7 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * there was a huge amount of blood--and for the first time nurses to bandage it up and hospitals to care for patients. It does not mean just death. The term works fine. There were far more wounds than the US suffered in all 20th century wars. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes for World Superpower
It seems as if the "World Superpower" section has become bloated with current events that don't belong in a section with this title. I think it would be appropriate if the information about what happened immediatedly after the end of the Cold War (1991-2000) be merged with the end of the Cold War under a subsection called "Aftermath". The "9/11 and the War on Terror" and "Obama and the Great Recession" subsections would then be turned into full section.

These changes seem more appropriate than continuously adding to a section with a title that seems outdated. --Joker123192 (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * the superpower status indeed still holds and shapes foreign policy. Rjensen (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Great Recession and Presidency of Barack Obama
1) This subtitle seems too long. 2) It violates the suggestion that we avoid "and" in titles, 3) it is only the third mention of a president in subtitles, Washington, Jefferson and Obama. Skipping Lincoln, Wilson, both Roosevelts, Millard Fillmore.... Student7 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * yes but the problem is that it's too recent--we do not have a neat short name for the era (like "New Nation", "Civil War," "Gilded Age," "Great Depressionm" etc-- that will come eventually. meanwhile there will be zero confusion for any reader in keeping it this way. Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Attempt at de-politicizing
An editor has changed "Democrats passed..." to "Congress passed.." This seems to me a step in the right direction.

Another sentence reads "The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress in 1972 was defeated by a conservative coalition mobilized by Phyllis Schlafly." Of course, Schlafly did not defeat the ERA. An insufficient number of states failed to ratify it. Schlafly could be mentioned as a follow-up to that very relevant, but absent piece of information. BTW, dozens, if not hundreds, of amendments have passed Congress and were never ratified by the states. Most of them no longer excite interest and are not documented here. An addition to this material might be that Schlafly suggested that liberals had another agenda (which turned out to be true) concerning the amendment, pertaining to LGBT (term not invented then). But this was passed anyway, just later.

Again, "Obama" has a titled subsection. It is the government (of the people!) that passes legislation, not presidents, not Congress, per se. I think that de-politicizing it (except maybe for Obamacare) helps to make the article more objective.

Also, there is confusion between "political movements" in the US and "electoral/election" movements. The Tea Party was electoral. They never achieved sufficient majorities in the house or Senate to actually do anything. That is the difference between elections and politics. You need a working electoral majority before you can enact "political" changes. Student7 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * why do we want to depoliticize politics???? why pretend that Dems and GOP are not central to passing legislation??? Our job is to follow the RS and NONE of the RS depoliticize --indeed just the opposite they emphasize the high polarity in recent years. When the RS say the Democrats passed legislation we say so too, Likewise credit for defeating ERA has been settled by the RS, and it did not happen at random. (all the RS say that Schlafly mobilized the last-minute opposition which turned the tide.)  There have NOT been hundreds of constitutional amendments that passed Congress but not the states (only a handful and they are well-known -- last one before ERA in 1970s was Child Labor in 1920s ).  As for Tea Party the RS give them a lot of credit for a) GOP landslide in 2010 b) Stopping spending they dislike. All you need for that is a GOP majority in The House. Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Surge" in Iraq continued under Obama
There was a sentence added in the "recent history" subsection which said "After his election, Obama reluctantly continued the surge by sending 20,000 additional troops until Iraq was stabilized.(ref)(end ref) Then he officially ended combat operations in Iraq on August 31, 2010..."

This was deleted since someone decided that CBS news was not a reliable reference. The sentence support the fact that Obama, in a well-publicized move, actually increased the maligned "surge" until Iraq was stabilized. The Democrats were unenthused about this since it had been a hallmark of the campaign. Then the troops were rm from combat operations til "only" 50,000 remained, considered "withdrawing" by the media.

It is true. I have worded it to appease Democrats ( use of the word "reluctantly" which appears in the citation). It should be replaced. It is accurate and important since it figured prominently in the campaign for president.

I hope this doesn't fall under the usual 1) it isn't true, 2) It's true but it's not important. It's okay if it falls under 3) It's important but we thought of it first. Student7 (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the topic of religion, as presented, really belong in this article?
Section 4.1 merely summarizes a bit of of the writings of Catherine L. Albanese, a professor at UC Santa Barbara in California. While any theologian would probably find her work of great interest, there is hardly the kind of detail needed to make this a worthwhile entry into an article so dependent on historical fact. I find that it rather stands out like a strawberry in a bowl of green beans. There is no information presented. There is simply the opinion that everything from George Washington to the Bill of rights has some clearly religious analog. And this, I would certainly argue. If one thinks that the role of religion in our history does belong here, which I will not argue, then should it not be in the same context as the rest of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.73.155 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there are two points to be considered here: 1) Does the history of religion, in some form, need to be covered in this article. I'd say yes, it does; the history of the U.S. is well tied to religion, with everything from the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England, the Danbury Baptists letter and the influence on the Bill of Rights, the Great Awakening, various uniquely American religious movements (Shakers, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc.) while they all don't need to be covered in exhaustive detail in this article, there should probably be some coverage of the influence of religion on American history, especially similar to what is usually covered in mainstream, wide-use materials like textbooks and other mainstream reference works like encyclopedias.  2) Does this article cover religion appropriately insofar as there's that odd section based on a single source?  No, it doesn't.  Woven into the chronological narrative, major events that were influenced by religion should appear as would be natural, and again should reflect what mainstream, widely used source also cover.  That section is an anomaly and doesn't fit.  I agree that the section needs to go.  -- Jayron  32  03:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * civil religion is a major topic of scholarship. The America History and Life index shows about 400 scholarly articles in history journals (plus others in sociology and American Studies and religion journals). Wikipedia reports what the RS have to say, and Albanese smmarizes a great deal of scholarship, which makes her book especially useful. Look at the evaluations it got in top scholarly journals: "Albanese's approach to the Revolution's 'deep structures' is persuasive and, indeed, exciting." [William & Mary Q]; Her analysis is "fresh, incisive and convincing" [Am. Historical Rev] Rjensen (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine enough, but it's anomalous in this article. Wikipedia articles should be well written, not just "a bunch of things individual editors wanted to highlight."  Wikipedia has an article about American civil religion, which is fine.  The issue is that, in this article, that section throws off the narrative flow and doesn't really fit all that well.  It's a fine, notable, and well regarded historiographical concept.  But in a general overview of U.S. history, it breaks the chronology and doesn't work well here.  Yes, Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources, but that doesn't mean that every single thing in every single reliable source is fair game for every single article.  Editorial decisions need to be made to ensure that Wikipedia articles are well written, and not merely random collections of vaguely related concepts.  The issue is not the reliability of the source, per se, its the use of the concept specifically the way it is used here.  -- Jayron  32  04:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it's not "random" -- it's about the American MEMORY of the Revolution--what Americans remember, what they honor, and what they in quasi-religious fashion revered about it. The people and events mentioned in the two sentences are not tossed in haphazard--they are very much the central images and memories--ie Washington, Jefferson, Boston Massacre, Valley Forge, July 4, etc. The role is to put these events in the context of 21st century memory. Historians these days are very interested in how the past is remembered and this is an example. Rjensen (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Mass shootings" unique to 2010s?
A statement reads "There were a number of mass shootings in the US, most notably those in Aurora, Colorado and in Newtown, Connecticut." I do understand why these are mentioned since the media goes on and on about nearly everything at great length to get you watch so they can sell time at a premium to advertisers.

But Wikipedia needs to be objective. Yes, they happened. Selecting them out of dozens, if not hundreds of other shooting cases makes it seem more unique to the 2010s than any other time in history. This is not true. As A Tale of Two Cities begins, "...it was the worst of times...In short, it was like any other time in history..." We seem to have skipped the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, Columbine High School massacre, Virginia Tech massacre, Amish school shooting, Edmond U.S. Post Office massacre which coined the term "going postal", to say nothing of more recent pressure cookers bombing, knivings, to say nothing of the Beltway sniper attacks which scared a lot more people for a much longer time than the Boston marathon killings ever did.

The reason for the need for a citation is not that it isn't true. But inserting it is WP:OR. It is your selection that makes it important and not the selection of a WP:RS, of which the media can't be considered because (while often reporting facts) they report it as hype. Usually hype. It either needs a reliable source for being "representative" of the era, or deletion. Merely rm the tag is not helpful and seems, in itself, OR. Student7 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hundred year gap 1630-1730
Did nothing of note happen during those 100 years? — PhilHibbs | talk 12:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Only two sections have presidential titles
Only Jefferson gets his own section in the early 19th century. Then titles jump ahead to the 21st century and "Obama." This seems WP:RECENTISM IMO. Bush also requested and got a trillion dollars, as I recall. Leader subtitles seem more appropriate IMO for dictatorships than democracies, where some concurrence by somebody else other than the President is required. Student7 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim Crow Laws
The Jim Crow laws are mention in the intro of the article, and once in the civil rights movement, but never talked about in the Reconstruction Era or anywhere else. JamesNicolasE (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I fixed the postwar section to include it: "After 1890 southern states effectively disfranchised black voters. Blacks were segregated in public places and remained second class citizens in a system known as Jim Crow until the successes of the Civil Rights movement in 1964-65." Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed
I've been trying to add a little to this article. But, we need citations, particularly in the lead section, which has none. I'm going to try adding in the next few days, but would appreciate help.Kude90 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * normally the lede does NOT have cites, except for quotes. It is a summary of material in the subsections, each of which is sourced. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WRONG. WP:LEADCITE. Same expectations for verifibility. Which means cite what needs cited. And as thus far, yes, I have seen things that need citing. So yes, I will cite things.Kude90 (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * the polic at WP:Lede says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." that means it should be decided here. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As shown by the south poor thing, they will be needed in some places. I wasn't going to put citations in every sentence. But, where needed, they should be added. Like in statements such as "the south was poor." Thus far, I seem to have noticed a left leaning theme in this article. That's why more citations are needed. Kude90 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * in the old days even high school students were all taught that the postwar South was poor. That's because it was so obviously true and important. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's true, you can cite it. It's that simple.Kude90 (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread your source. Read the last sentence of the second paragraph, and the third paragraph. it says that the perception of a poor south post civil war was wrong. So...Kude90 (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Southern per capita income was less than half the national average. that's poor. see Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you've solved it, so I guess everyone's happy. My thought would be to move the current 2 sentences in the lead, into the article itself. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary, say "The South never recovered its pre-war prosperity until the last half of the 20th century."(no cite) Never mind about the North and West. I would have said "first half," but what the heck. Student7 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do something about the lead already!
I had made quite a few attempts months in the past to shorten it and now that I come back to it, it is even longer than how I found it before. There is almost no other lead in this entire Wiki of millions of articles with a lead this long, with a blatant disregard for everything set forth in WP:LEAD. I'm not going to bother trying to make it more concise any more because it ends up going in the complete opposite direction. When I first found it, I thought having 5 paragaphs was long, now it has 7 and takes up two full computer screens. Who thought that adding two more paragraphs would be helpful? Is all the detail in there really crucial? How can the history of the United Kingdom which existed long before the US, have a lead that is less than half as long? I am actually astonished by the blatant disregard for guidelines and standards set forth by Wikipedia. Does anyone care? Cadiomals (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dred Scott
I think saying that Dred Scott legalized slavery everywhere is a bit of an exaggeration. If I'm correct, the ruling simply stated that a slave after being brought by his owner into a free state would remain a slave as well as stating that territories could not be divided up as 'slave' and 'free'. However, I don't believe that the ruling changed the distinction between free and slave states. Andrei Bolkonsky (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right! I tried to rewrite with a bit more accuracy but maybe too long for this article. And needs cite. So still needs work but more accurate. Thanks for catching that! Student7 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Spanish, Dutch and French colonization?
Are people here devoting the same space of the History of the US to the Spanish period as to the Dutch period? Do they know anything at all about US history? If I have to pose this question, I guess this article has no hope! Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree more needs to be added - I added Spanish and French colonies to the Lead, as they controlled more territory than the Dutch and they were outside the original Thirteen Colonies, but contemporary with them (and, in some Spanish settlements, preceding them) and sometimes approaching them from the continental direction.Parkwells (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gaps?
It's difficult to write an overall history, but given the continuing issues related to the colonists' takeover of Native American lands and displacement of people, and the entwinement of slavery in the US economy, culture and politics, it is striking that both are so glossed over in the colonial and 19th c. sections. After all the historical work that has been done in the last 40 years on these topics, as well as major civil rights movements, we ought to be able to acknowledge more here about these issues and peoples. As an example of one aspect, slave trade wealth contributed to important institutions in New England and the mid-Atlantic, not just the South. For instance, the New-York Historical Society's major 21st exhibits on "Slavery in NY" showed that cotton-related exports were half of shipping from NY before the Civil War. The New York mayor proposed secession because of the city's economic ties to the South.Parkwells (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Accessdate format
Until this 2013-JUL-01 edit, the accessdates in this article were predominantly or entirely YYYY-MM-DD. MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT specifically permit YYYY-MM-DD in accessdates, exempting them from other parts of MOS:DATEUNIFY. WP:DATERET advises us to keep the established format - established by the first user or by later explicit consensus. Per WP:DATERET, this 2007-NOV-06 edit established the default accessdate format for this article. Having all the accessdates in a YYYY-MM-DD format is actually a benefit to readers & editors alike, making it clear at a glance which date is an accessdate & which is a publication date. I propose that the accessdates in this article all be restored to YMD--JimWae (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Military/European format may be logical, but it is not standard for American articles. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

slurs to describe all supporters of Reconstruction Era Southern Republicans
Since when is it NPOV to use slurs to describe all supporters of a political party? The sentence below is in the Reconstruction and the Gilded Age section and it stinks of POV and racism.

New Republican governments came to power based on a coalition of Freedmen made up of Carpetbaggers (new arrivals from the North), and Scalawags (native white Southerners).

All white southerners who supported reconstructions era Republican governments should be called scallywags? What kind of racist POV history is this?

"a coalition of freedmen made up of carpetbaggers" That doesn't even make any sense. The newly freed slaves were "carpetbaggers"? Is it appropriate to use these slurs in this way in a wikipedia article?Lance Friedman (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the statement should read: "New Republican governments came to power based on a coalition of Freedmen, Carpetbaggers (new arrivals from the North), and Scalawags (native white Southerners)" -- a typo that is easy to fix. These are the terms used by scholars in the 21st century. for example some recent book titles from university presses: Bryant, Emma Spaulding. Emma Spaulding Bryant: Civil War Bride, Carpetbagger's Wife, Ardent Feminist; Letters and Diaries, 1860–1900 Fordham University Press, 2004; Twitchell, Marshall Harvey. Carpetbagger from Vermont: The Autobiography of Marshall Harvey Twitchell. ed by Ted Tunnell; Louisiana State University Press, 1989;  Wiggins, Sarah Woolfolk; The Scalawag in Alabama Politics, 1865–1881. University of Alabama Press, 1991. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of 11/7 3:30
See reversion. If the original editor accepts this, so do I. But I think rather the original editor was rather trying to summarize the paragraph than anything nefarious. I can't see that anything critical was omitted. IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Insatiable?
New material refers to "insatiable" demand for cotton, outside of a quote. I agree that the original material may have used that word. But the word is journalistic, not really suitable for an encyclopedia. It is an eye-catching word, but preposterous for an encyclopedia, dealing as we do, with facts. The current "demand" for illegal drugs may be high, but hardly "insatiable." A lot of people are doing what they can to "satisfy" the demand, regardless of what some reporter may have written. Student7 (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This unencyclopedic terminology has been removed from the lead altogether. Thank you for bringing it up. Cadiomals (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going to be trimming down the lead
It has been months since my last post to this talk page and no one has done a thing to shorten the excessive lead. In fact, only more has been added to it, so I will be taking it upon myself to cut it down paragraph by paragraph to remove the least salient details. The current length is in blatant violation of WP:LEAD and this will be abundantly obvious to anyone with a basic idea of WP guidelines. In the end I will be cutting it down by about half, to only 5 or 6 substantial paragraphs which WP suggests to be the absolute upper limit. This is just a heads up to anyone who might read this. Cadiomals (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great idea, thanks. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Introduction Suggestion
This is a very odd introduction for the first sentence. Referring to schools and universities doesn't quite sound right. Any suggestions? Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the reason schools and universities are mentioned in the lead is because there is a certain ambiguity in referring to "American history" considering the US as a nation is relatively young, mostly to what extent we discuss the thousands of years of (disparate and not well known) indigenous history before the arrival of Europeans. So mentioning how it is typically taught may give some clarification. Cadiomals (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, it also references the horde of standardized textbooks available. and it indicates that the teaching has changed its chronological scope to include prehistory (ie the Indians). Rjensen (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rm pov basis. Histories either start one way or another. Why do we have to say who reads them? This is not about readership. It is, or should be, about reality.


 * "The history of the electron begins in the university with the size of the Planck diameter or the findings of Ernest B. Rutherford." I mean, really! Student7 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the fact that most university textbooks have changed the starting date is important when Wiki editors choose their starting date for the article. We are telling readers a fact: the starting date has changed. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "formal history" of the United States. Wiki rules say we rely on the reliable sources, and the textbooks are designed to reflect the consensus of historians. That is especially true on issues of when to start.  Note that students do not choose textbooks, only history professors do that and we rely on the profs' judgments. Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this only true for national histories? Or all histories?
 * If true for national histories, then we should say, for Tibet (or whatever), "The history of Tibet typically starts, for school children, with the discovery by XXX, or the passage of natives whose bones have been found by archaeologists."
 * This seems like an odd, parochial start. Is there then no objective stance for national histories? Must it all be "relative to" someone curricula? Student7 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we just agree to remove that sentence altogether and start with the second paragraph "indigenous peoples..."? Cadiomals (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No -- the issue is how historians date the topic, and we tell readers this is how professors (using textbooks) date it. There are other ways to date it (as reflected in old textbooks = 1492 with a big emphasis on european background, or 1600 with emphasis on American frontier). The dating is contested territory and changes over time. The newer dating system emphasizes Indians and downgrades Europe & the frontier. Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Intro Declaration paragraph
To conform introduction to historical chronology and article narrative, I propose the following rewrite:

FROM the existing inaccurate: "'All 13 colonies united in a Congress that led to armed conflict in April 1775. The Patriots drove the royal officials out of every colony and set up state governments. On July 4, 1776, the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson.'"

TO the proposed sourced: ''The First Continental Congress petitioned for redress of grievances and reconciliation. The Second Continental Congress initiated state governments representing the people to replace royal governments and met with the authority from the people of the colonies to create an independent nation, which it did by the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.[n]''


 * Note: Morris, Richard B., President, American Historical Association, Presidential Address AHA December 28, 1976. Viewed June 6, 2014.

I’d like to hear from other editors before WP:BOLD. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the first text is accurate. The second one is dubious -- "with the authority from the people of the colonies" what does 'authority' refer to?? They were in July 1776 states not colonies.  Perhaps rewrite the last sentence of version 1 to read:

"'All 13 colonies united in a Congress that led to armed conflict in April 1775. The Patriots drove the royal officials out of every colony and set up state governments. In July 1776, the unanimous Congress declared independence and issued the Declaration of Independence drafted chiefly by Thomas Jefferson, thereby creating an independent nation, the United States of America.'"
 * I don't see the Morris essay as bearing on these alternative paragraphs one way or the other, except that he emphasizes the Patriots.  Our first version emphasizes the aggressive action on the street of the Patriots  while the second one ignores them entirely. Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Congress proposed to the colonial legislatures that they reconstitute themselves as states, four had complied by July 1776, three of them provisionally. The phrase “and set up state governments” is not in chronological order according to Morris. “Patriots” implies logically, “all patriots” which is not 1/13 of them as of July 1776, the statement as written is misleading.

"'All 13 colonies united in a Congress that initiated replacing colonial governments with state governments. Although armed conflict began in Massachusetts, Patriots drove the royal officials out of every colony and assembled in mass meetings and conventions. These empowered delegates to Congress to unanimously declare independence in July 1776. Congress representing the people in every state created an independent nation, the United States of America.'"


 * Maier also has a lot to say about urban people in the streets effecting the independence movement. They should not be omitted; this latest draft does not omit them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Congress represented the 13 colonies/states, NOT "the people in every state" so I would recommend: "'All 13 colonies united in a Congress that called on the colonies to write new state constitutions. After armed conflict began in Massachusetts, Patriots drove the royal officials out of every colony and assembled in mass meetings and conventions. The 13 colonies/states unanimously empowered their delegates to Congress to declare independence. In July 1776, Congress created an independent nation, the United States of America.'" Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we are pretty close to agreement, only at the Declaration, there were not states (governments) according to Richard Morris the historian, who references two Supreme Court cases. The mass meetings and conventions in the states (places) had not yet constituted themselves into states (permanent governments), save one. So the people in the places acted to empower their delegates in Congress.


 * a) The people in the states (places) empowered their delegates, and they in turn self-reported themselves as acting on the "Authority of the good People of these Colonies," the "one people" who must dissolve the political connection with Great Britain. b) The people's representatives in the States (governments) ratified the perpetual union in the Articles, and still later c) the people again, "We the people" in state (place) conventions ratified the Constitution into a "more perfect Union" than the earlier perpetual one. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * let's just say the "Patriot governments in the colonies" --there were no cases of people at large voting on independence. Morse I  think can be misleading here.  Rjensen (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good solution. Thanks. BTW also like your work at Ronald Reagan introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is the U.S. founded as a new nation in 1776 or not?
Should “History of the United States” restore narrative describing the Declaration of Independence as establishing an independent nation? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support The break from consensus is unsourced, but echoes Lost Cause analysis by Jefferson Davis that the present United States of America began at the Constitution, not before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support That was the entire purpose of the document, AFAIK. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Declaration of Independence did not establish a new nation. Just because one declares themselves to be independent does not mean that they are, in fact, independent: that came later.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Ealdwrítere makes the good point that independence has to be "in fact independent" --so when did that fact happen? It happened in spring 1776 when all 13 colonies/states had in fact thrown off royal control.  The British later did take control of some cities and much of Georgia and (for a while) much of South Carolina. But at all times after July 1776 over 80% of the population (and usually over 90%) was under American control. That seems pretty decisive by Ealdwrítere's criterion. Rjensen (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Rmay307 gives us a new edit, overturning the consensus here that the Founding Fathers established a new nation at the Declaration of Independence, --- that is, the dating found in the “fourscore and seven years ago” of the Gettysburg Address. He did this without discussion here, objecting that there was no political union formed between the states by the Declaration, then took it upon himself to strike “nation” in several places to conform to his unsourced POV and made additional edit supposing the ‘national' government was a ‘central' one, additional mistakes which should be corrected. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Cite for 1776. "By issuing the Declaration of Independence, [and…] declaring themselves an independent nation, the American colonists were able to conclude an official alliance with the government of France”. —U.S. Dept. of State, Office of the Historian, Milestones: 1776-1783, The Declaration of Independence, 1776. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Lincoln set it well at Gettysburg: in 1776 the fathers "brought forth a new nation" It behaved like a nation (diplomacy treaty armies, loans) and was treated like a nation by France & Britain etc.  In this part of the country (Montana) We still celebrate July 4 as the official birthday --What date should be celebrated?    Rjensen (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cite for 1776 From Gordon S. Wood, “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787” (1972). The nationalistic sentiments in 1776, a “feeling of oneness” assumed institutional form in Congress, which exercised "an extraordinary degree of political, military, and economic power over the colonists." (p.355). By the next year, Congress had made the league of states "as cohesive and strong as any similar sort of republican confederation in history — stronger in fact than some Americans had expected.” (p.359). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cite for 1776 From Richard B. Morris, President, American Historical Association, Presidential Address AHA December 28, 1976. "In adopting the Declaration of Independence, an act of paramount, sovereign authority, Congress acted for the people rather than for thirteen separate states, since only four state governments, three of them provisional, had been formed prior to its passage...Congress alone possessed those attributes of external sovereignty which entitled it to be called a state in the international sense, while the separate states, exercising a limited or internal sovereignty, may rightly be considered a creation of the Continental Congress, which preceded them and brought them into being." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, only a few state legislatures/burgesses met that might not have been under the Royal Governor watchful eye. So the US had a National Congress meeting, tiny recognition from abroad, no President, no integrated judicial system. Essentially just local town/city council meetings with careful attention to British "occupation." Tories really predominated in NYC and certainly had huge pockets of support in the South. Still operating as part of the British Empire as far as most other countries were concerned. pov that US was "an independent nation." Took eight years to hammer out that point! Kind of like the "Free French" in WWII. France was occupied and hardly free but with a government that claimed to represent it outside the country in their case. Inside the country in America. Ran like crazy when the British came close. Student7 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The free-French government in exile could not hold free elections in every province of France as the American Congress directed, nor could they obtain revenues from taxes paid by citizenry in France. A nation-state must control territory and population. I suppose by your analysis, Britain chose Indian empire over American, it all rested within the whim of the syphillitically mad king, people and parliaments representative of them are of no consequence. The historical record does not seem to bear out this unsourced pov.


 * Reference for 1776. From Gordon S. Wood, “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787” (1972). Beginning in 1777, the substantial Congressional powers in Article 9 “made the league of states as cohesive and strong as any similar sort of republican confederation in history." (p.359). It sort of depends upon whether you believe a) U.S. independence occurs when representatives of the sovereign people declare independence, or whether you believe b) independence occurs when their sovereign king officially relinquishes control. What is the source which supports a date other than --- July 4, 1776 --- as the U.S. birthday, or is this just a bit of original research by unsourced fringe pov editors?


 * What is the alternative date to be celebrated and who endorses the out-of-the-mainstream date proposed, what historical associations countenance an alternative history, and why should WP be fringe for these sources, unnamed as they remain to date? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per TheVirginiaHistorian. A "nation" in the broad sense of the term can exist apart from a constitution or federal law. Upon the declaration of independence a nation of Americans existed insubordinate to the Crown. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ealdwrítere above in his Oppose at the Survey echoes the objection of Student7, making the point as paraphrased and answered by Rjensen above, that independence has to be "in fact independent” — which was met by the Spring 1776 by the loss of royal control for 80-90% of the U.S. population for the duration of the war under the leadership of the Congress. Mostly British influence extended around a few occupied port cities. A declaration of independence is historically considered as de facto only if it is related to an independent state's national government with its controlling territory and population, sustained over time. The Declaration meets that criteria.


 * Since the independence of royal rule was substantially secured by thirteen states at the time of their unanimous declaration in Congress, even before permanent state governments were established, the declaration of the victors is counted — in this case, as July 4 by an unanimous act of Congress, cemented in “perpetual union” with the Articles of Confederation, and made a “more perfect” Union by the Constitution, it is still the United States of America in territory and population to the present. No alternative beginning date is proposed in a reliable source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2015
History of the United States → American history – The common name (WP:UCN) of this field in academia is "American history". Furthermore, "American history" is more concise. What's more, this article isn't just the history of the state entity formed post-revolution, but of the country itself, as governed by prior state entities. There can be no question about the ambiguity of "American", in this case, as there is no ambiguity of this sort in the English language, as was determined at Talk:America (disambiguation). The primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) of this phrase refers to the history described here. I think that Google Ngrams shows clearly that "American history" is the way to go. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Goes against consistency of other articles starting with "History of..." Why not turn "History of China" into "Chinese history" or "History of Taiwan" into "Taiwanese history"? Oh wait, that would look confusing. George Ho (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why one could not write "Chinese history", but that's neither here nor there. In this particular case, the common and concise name happens to be "American history". This also eliminates the present strangeness whereby the article includes history that predates the "United States" as an entity. "China" would have no such problem, as China isn't the name of a state entity, but of a land. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose WP:CONSISTENCY All the country history articles are "History of X", and this should remain so, since it is the current case, and much clearer for all countries involved, instead of using ambiguous adjectives all around, what with multiple counties using the same or confusably similar ones. We should not make an exception for the United States to move outside of this pattern. This article is not about the field of "American history" (ie. this article is not about researchers, professors and academic protocols), this is about the topic of history of the United States. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per George Ho and IP.60. History as it relates to the United States is not history of the Americas. The proposal seems too narrowly focused on usage in US academia versus usefulness to the general reader in an international context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the history of the United States, however. That's what I don't understand. If this article were about the history of the United States exclusively, that'd make sense. It isn't. It is about the history of America, including the colonial period, not about the state entity called the "United States of America". If the present title remains, then history pre-United States should be removed. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gloucester, can you just propose a removal then? George Ho (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for consistency. For example, English history, French history, and Italian history redirect to History of England, History of France, and History of Italy respectively. Regarding the claim that the article title doesn't fit because the article covers the time before the United States became a nation, I feel it's worth pointing out that those three articles also cover time periods before England, France, and Italy became nations, and after England stopped being a nation as well, so it is also consistent in that regard. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference, of course, is clear. "France", "England", and "Italy" are all names for regions, that is, lands. "United States" is not a name for a region or land, but the name of a polity that governs the region called "America". This is an incomprehensible situation. The scope of the article, as implied by the current title, implies a history of the polity rather than a history of the land, and yet, the histories of other polities that governed the land prior to the existence of the polity that is named in the title are included. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DALADU": From Coles Creek culture:  From Mazique Archeological Site:  From Plaquemine culture:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110610172558/http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/muller/SECC/sld008.htm to http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/muller/SECC/sld008.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102091400/http://www.america.gov/publications/books/history-outline.html to http://www.america.gov/publications/books/history-outline.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Swede addition
The edit adding information about the Swedish colonization was removed without explanation. Here is a 1938 stamp commemorating their 1638 founding of New Sweden. They are the source of the log cabin. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * yes they were there but it's hard to make a case for including them. we have VERY limited space in this article. Rjensen (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the explanation the good faith IP contributor deserves. The reverting editor left a message on the IP talk page saying the contributor was disruptive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has any right to say what doesn't contribute to history219.167.56.226 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"No nation ever recognized the Confederacy"
Not that I am personally or politically motivated to say so, but I have a feeling that this statement is false. I mean that I recall reading, somewhere, that some partial or de facto recognition occured. 219.167.56.226 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the Pope sent a letter to Jefferson Davis, but that did not constitute recognition of the Confederacy as an independent nation-state. Emperor Napoleon II considered it for Confederate support of the overthrow of the Mexican Republic, perhaps with cession of its northern states for re-enslavement of the Amerindians by the Confederacy, but he would not make the move without Britain. France had re-abolished slavery throughout its empire in 1849 after Napoleon had reinstated it. Many British nobleman investors were sympathetic to the Confederacy and its cotton plantation owners, but Parliament was too much under the sway of the abolitionists who had successfully ended slavery in the British Empire in 1833 to grant recognition to a slave holding nation. With the defeat at Gettysburg, international recognition of the Confederacy was a Lost Cause. By the beginning of 1864 over half of the territory claimed by the Confederacy was permanently Federally occupied but for occasional Rebel raids, and Union forces were advancing everywhere but immediately before Richmond - see Martis "The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Economic history of the United States
It is proposed to have a see also: hatnote link to Economic history of the United States for a vitally important part of the country's history.Phmoreno (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Trivial POV junk
Re. Look. A single poll, cherry picked to push a POV, is NOT nearly notable enough for this article. This is a general level article which means only the most important, most significant and general information should be in it. The basic question to ask yourself when considering adding something in is "is this something that a history book in 50 years would include?". And the answer here is no.

Come on folks, keep in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Very skimpy 1780s
''In the 1780s the national government was able to settle the issue of the western territories, which were ceded by the states to Congress and became territories. With the migration of settlers to the Northwest, soon they became states. Nationalists worried that the new nation was too fragile to withstand an international war, or even internal revolts such as the Shays' Rebellion of 1786 in Massachusetts.''

That all we're supposed to have from U. S. independence till Washington's election in 1789? Or have I missed something? Re: "national government": what national government? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The national government is the Congress of the Articles of Confederation. Once again there is a proof that the Founding Fathers opposed slavery on republican principles, and sought to extend the continental republic in an "Empire of Liberty" with citizens of new territory treated on an equal basis as those of the original thirteen. The state governments during this time continue to make international trade agreements apart from the Congress, an expanding development made by entrenched colonial era elites that undermines the Union and persuades nationalists to try for a more consolidated national government in the Constitution. What precise additions to the 1780s would you include that are not in some way simply laying the groundwork for the adoption of the Constitution? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You've answered my question, more effectively than you probably realize. I think I'll give up right away. Nothing whatsoever worth noting happened those years, except "laying the groundsectioicer corps who wanted to surround Congress and get their back pay, part of his redirection to them was to exhort them to return home and run for Congress and other public office, strengthening the republic, not overthrowing it. Washington's correspondence through the members of the Society of the Cincinnati, a nationwide network of former Continental Army officers, was instrumental in gaining ratifying majorities in later state conventions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not add that to the article, rather than arguing it with me? I'm asking for more substance re what went on with the U.S. Government (uh, was there one, or was everybody just setn arrayand waitn fer the Constutition?) in the late 1770s and 1780s, and that that should be added to the artcle, not to this talk page. The way it is now, the article looks censored on that decade. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. the section on "Confederation and Constitution" covers the short postwar period 1783-1788 pretty well -- it of course is a summary of other Wiki articles that go into more detail. 10:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Request protection
One or more users is removing valid content without consensus. Potentially evading edit war rule bu using different usernames. Also posting false reasons regarding edit.Phmoreno (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on History of the United States. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130408054229/http://www.america.gov/publications/books/history-outline.html to http://www.america.gov/publications/books/history-outline.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603155537/https://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/artifacts/rameyceramics.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/artifacts/rameyceramics.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102050914/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OS001.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OS001.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230203658/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/usdeath.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/usdeath.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/nai_cilh/servitude.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/text_1741502191___0/History_of_Colonial_America.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127032954/http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/769/entry to http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/769/entry/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223050216/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june07/divided_01-25.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june07/divided_01-25.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516192932/http://digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/gilded_age/index.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/gilded_age/index.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702202601/http://history.missouristate.edu/wrmiller/Populism/Texts/historiography.htm to http://history.missouristate.edu/wrmiller/Populism/texts/historiography.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012035636/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/progressivism/index.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/progressivism/index.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016105918/http://www.cnbc.com/id/40028600/I_d_Approve_TARP_Again_George_W_Bush to http://www.cnbc.com/id/40028600/I_d_Approve_TARP_Again_George_W_Bush
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402051948/http://www.karalahana.com/fotograflar/thumbnails.php?album=93 to http://www.karalahana.com/fotograflar/thumbnails.php?album=93

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the United States. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202142001/https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/47065/ttu_hfwc01_000001.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y to https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/47065/ttu_hfwc01_000001.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the United States. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301044717/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/18/9528197-the-war-is-over-last-us-soldiers-leave-iraq?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/18/9528197-the-war-is-over-last-us-soldiers-leave-iraq?lite

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
I think the opening paragraph as it is now is largely unnecessary and seems primarily to serve as a way to fit the article title into the opening sentence. Per WP:REDUNDANCY, an article with a title that's merely descriptive doesn't need to repeat the title verbatim in the lead. Forcing it in there this way also gives us a nonsense sentence: "The date of the start of the history of the United States is a subject of debate..." How can the date of the start of something's history be in debate? I say remove the entire first paragraph and then mention Columbus somewhere in the second (which would then be the first) paragraph. Discussing how school textbooks cover the U.S. is largely unimportant in the grand scheme of the history of the county. Lizard (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree very odd to see s historiography of time in the lead like this.--Moxy (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, textbooks may start wherever but this article starts from prehistory and so we should probably add and start with pre-columbian stuff; the article has quite a bit on that. Galobtter (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So I've implemented this and currently there is a passable start, but I think quick summary or something like that defining how the united states began/was defined (including declaration of independence/countryhood in 1776) would be good. I'm not sure how exactly a history article should start though. Galobtter (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A lead paragraph like that of History of India would be good I reckon. It summarizes the whole history in one paragraph. Galobtter (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not a fan of repeating the title in the open sentence. Strictly speaking, the history of the US goes back to when it broke apart from Pangea over 100 million years ago, perhaps even before that depending on how technical one wants to get. There's nothing wrong with an opening sentence like "The United States was first inhabited over 10,000 years ago by Indigenous people." Lizard  (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the word history can still be included: something like in History of India, who's lead I quite like:
 * Except replacing prehistoric settlements with native american settlements and cultures and so on. Galobtter (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also History of Japan, which gets straight to the point. Lizard  (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the United States. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101145605/http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm to http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161211103155/http://www.historicalhunt.com/ to https://www.historicalhunt.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The United states is a country not a place- pre colonial history is a history of North America
Pre-colonial history does not belong in this article. That would be more properly called some type of natural history of North America.Phmoreno (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Beginning of the history of the US
“The history of the United States began with the settlement of Indigenous people before 10,000 BC.” This is the opening sentence of this article - surely it’s nonsensical. The United States is a political entity that was put together by european settlers. There was no “United States of America” before these settlers arrived, and it took quite some time before the USA materialised after the settlement! The opening statement actually refers to the history of North America as a continent settled by various peoples, and is incorrect in this context. 2407:7000:9000:3203:8C47:77C5:351E:989D (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

revision 855386424
Please explain your reversal here.
 * 1) Adding one sentence of referenced claim with numbers regarding the trail of tears does meet standards.
 * 2) Your addition of "and South-Central Asia" regarding the Cold War, is an unsourced claim. Please provide source.
 * 3) Adding referenced content on the Trinity nuclear test is justified. It is the first detonation of a nuclear weapon. The statement from Oppenheimer that is associated with it is one of the most noted statements of the Manhatten project and Trinity test. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC))
 * Also, I don't mind taking portions of the statement out, I just put the entire statement to improve the flow and for the reader to have a clear understanding. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC))

To be more clear pls stop spamming the same thing in multiple artiles. The following is not so important to be placed here....it does not expand on readers knowledge of the topic. Having it on 3 othere pages is spam enought. Best rrad overy Single-purpose account --Moxy (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppenheimer later recalled that, while witnessing the explosion, he thought of a verse from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita (XI,12): "कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो लोकान्समाहर्तुमिह प्रवृत्तः। ऋतेऽपि त्वां न भविष्यन्ति सर्वे येऽवस्थिताः प्रत्यनीकेषु योधाः॥११- ३२॥

If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one ..."

Years later he would explain that another verse had also entered his head at that time: "We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."


 * I edit on various topics, how is Single-purpose account reflected on me? Also, if you clearly read my edit: I edited on the trail of tears and Japanese internment, and removed your unreferenced claim. I can care less on this quote, but Trinity nuclear test is an important part of American history. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC))


 * I never added anything.....are your sure adding Hindu stuff all over the place that is clearly undue (as indicated by many reversals by many editors ) is doing right by Wikipedia or by your deity?--Moxy (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding Audio Files
I have added audio recordings to emphasize key moments of the nation's history, this has included

1. -Christopher Columbus discovery of the continents (Though his travels did not go to the continental United States his discovery is still part of 'American History' (modern reading)

2. - President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Proclamation (modern reading)

3. -President Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war on Japan and his first fireside chat

4. -President John Kennedy's Cuban Missile Crisis address

5. President Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1964

6. President Ronald Regan's Brandenburg Gate Speech

7. President George Bush's Oval Office address of 9/11

8. President Barrack Obama's inauguration speech as the first African American President

I have added audio files to give another dimension to the article to delve into key moments/documents of the nation's history which are universally recognized in a manner that reflects America's history from an academically accepted and non biased point of view. I also hopes this helps visually impaired readers.

I am considering adding some additional files:

- Excerpt of President Harry Truman's speech regarding atomic bombing - Excerpt from the Apollo Mission to the Moon

I am also exploring off Wikipedia on Vox to upload public domain files that are not currently on Wikipedia including

1. A selected reading of John Smith's publications on New England

2. Reading of the Declaration of Independence

3. Possibly a reading from George Washington

4. Something from Martin Luther King (If anything that was public domain could be found, I think its not)

I would also like to place at least one audio file here about the Native American experience, if one could be found.

Sunriseshore (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added most of the objects on my list, including some I did not mention including a reading of the 1787 Constitution (No Amendments Read), as it turns out I could find no audio recording of a native american that was public domain (at least not yet) and most of Martin Luther King is copywrited.

Ill continue to search for a Native American recording as well.

There are some other sections which could possibly include audio but I should look through the article to see what might be appropriate to include. Sunriseshore (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Error in last paragraph of intro?
The first sentence of the last paragraph of the intro is: "After the Cold War, the United States stopped focusing on modern conflicts in the Middle East and nuclear programs in North Korea." I believe "stopped" should be changed to "began" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.28.147 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Baseball
Also, we have baseball. Liberty5651 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Date formatting
The article contains internal date format inconsistencies, with some dates using the archaic BC and AD suffixes. Should these be changed to the universally accepted BCE and CE formats?

BookFishy (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both are acceptable per MOS:ERA, but it should be uniform throughout each article. And please refrain from using POV language, even if it's just regarding dating formats. Cheers. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  15:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Italian explorer, Christopher Columbus
The article states that Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to arrive in the Americas, but then only goes on to mention Christopher Columbus explicitly. I think it is appropriate to clarify that Christopher Columbus was Genoan (Italian), and then perhaps mention Spanish explorers he brought with him such as Juan Ponce de León. One could assume that Christopher Columbus was Spanish with the current wording,
 * it's too well known that Columbus = Italian from Genoa. However he was a hired hand on a Spanish expedition --and Spain got the benefits and historical credit not Genoa. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From the Republic of Genoa. His place of birth is unclear, and there are several Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. In the Late Middle Ages, Genoa maintained a colonial empire of its own. :


 * By 1015 all of Liguria fell under the Republic of Genoa. After the First Crusade in 1098 Genoa gained settlements in Syria. (It lost the majority of them during the campaigns of Saladin in the 12th century.) In 1261 the city of Smyrna in Asia Minor became Genoese territory. In 1255 Genoa established the colony of Caffa in Crimea. In the following years the Genoese established further colonies in Crimea: Soldaia, Cherco and Cembalo. In 1275 the Byzantine Empire granted the islands of Chios and Samos to Genoa. Between 1316 and 1332 Genoa established the Black Sea colonies of La Tana (present-day Azov) and Samsun in Anatolia. In 1355 the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos granted Lesbos to a Genoese lord. At the end of the 14th century the colony of Samastri was established in the Black Sea and Cyprus was granted to the Republic. At that period the Republic of Genoa also controlled one quarter of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, and Trebizond, capital of the Empire of Trebizond. The Ottoman Empire conquered most of the Genoese overseas territories during the 15th century. Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please lock this page?
People keep vandalizing it with despicable me shitposts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longtime4321 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential bias
I am concerned about the sentence “The New Deal defined modern American liberalism.” This sentence is very opinionated and subjective and I don’t believe that it belongs in the article. Grahamevan05178 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering it's in the lead and not linked to any sources, I agree. This sentence is giving importance to the New Deal that isn't necessarily justified. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Get the cites for blue skies while you are at it. Qwirkle (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's consensus of reliable sources. -- see The New Deal and the Triumph of Liberalism ed by Sidney M. Milkis, ‎Jerome M. Mileur · 2002 · ‎Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Poor Management Style
At Rise of conservatism and the end of the Cold War in the third paragraph, it says "Reagan's Invasion of Grenada and bombing of Libya were popular in the U.S, though his backing of the Contras rebels was mired in the controversy over the Iran–Contra affair that revealed Reagan's poor management style." I think the part after "affair" needs to be dropped, as "poor" is a very subjective term and it shows bias. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"first nation whose most distant origins are fully recorded'
In the first paragraph it says "Most colonies were formed after 1600, and the early records and writings of John Winthrop make the United States the first nation whose most distant origins are fully recorded."

This wording is too sweeping to be meaningful. Could we not count the dawn of homo sapiens or the big bang among the "most distant origins"?

I just created my account this is the first time I've felt the need to address anything. I hope my post isn't problematic in some way.

Thanks. Dj1800boner (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Started with"
This editing between and  brings up the debate: Should the article begin "The history of the United States started with the arrival of Native Americans" or "The history of the United States was preceded by the arrival of Native Americans"? (emphasis mine) —GoldRingChip 20:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought the same. It sounds strange. I'd maybe expect that kind of sentence for the history of North America (i.e. a geographical area), but not the history of the United States (a sovereign country). Timtranslates (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

common knowledge
you have reverted my edit] and write drop common knowledge not needed here in US history overview. 99,6 % of the world population are not US habitants ... but many speak English and read en.wikipedia.org. Just an example: I, German, ~55 y., widely interested and history (incl. history of WW II) have read lots of books etc, seen many docu films etc - they all evoked the impression "Pearl harbour as a 'one-of-a-kind'-thing." Imo, I have just added historic context. --Präziser (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The WW2 story is better covered in other articles. This is the US article and is not the place to cover other countries. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

suggest: new topic, "Media" or "Mass Media" or "Media & Internet" or ...
Howard from NYC (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC) suggest: given the impact, perhaps a new topic, "Media" (better yet "Mass Media & Internet") to focus upon the effects of newspapers plus radio plus television plus internet... not just 'classical' journalism but the cultural sledgehammer that was radio (based in New York) in the 1930s; Hollywood-centric movies from 1920s onwards; television from 1950s onwards; Internet-as-publisher from 1990s onwards; also of cultural significance but unlikely to be loved, a sub-section upon the 'other Hollywood' and how every new technology was quickly exploited for erotica-porn-puerile: photography, video, film (16mm, 32mm, B&W, color, etc), podcasts, cable teevee, VCRs, pay-per-view, websites, PayPal, et al;

New Section Proposal
I would like to propose a new section in the article, and see if there could be some collaboration. Currently the later sections of the national history only cover political and social events, but to accurately summarize the United States there should be a section that talks about the technological/scientific changes in the past thirty years. Ideally this section will start with the rise of the commercial internet, about the .com bubbles, the rise of american designed social media and smart phones. There should be some sourced statistics and commentary for how this has shaped american life. It would also be important if possible to describe the recent medical advances which have taken place at a lightning speed. Finally, if there was enough space maybe this section could illustrate a bit, how the industrial economy in the United States was eclipsed by the information age. -Sunriseshore

Howard from NYC (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)hmmm... section on "STEM"? science-technology-engineering-mathematics laid out,

decade by decade and linking into societal effects of each key invention;

examples: you cannot have a 21st century New York state politician getting caught 'sexting' without mobile phones from 1990s onwards; you cannot discuss slavery without noting the introduction (and unintended after effects) of Eli Whitney's cotton gin in the 1790s; nor can you explain the rise of a neo-fascist POTUS without twitter;

Christopher Columbus
How old was Christopher Columbus when he died? 2601:249:8400:4E40:0:0:0:A573 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 54-years-old. Why are asking this here? Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

711Annnst
Community 96.81.203.129 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Animated Slides in "Territorial growth of the United States, 1810–1920"
The dynamic slide-show dipicting territorial growth in the U.S. is very interesting, but it would be much better to let the viewer advance to the next slide with a click of the mouse, rather than having a set time-period to view each slide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.128.55 (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)