Talk:United States/Archive 52

Muslim terroism
Any objections to adding a section on Muslim terrorism in the United States? Here is source: Islamic Terror Attacks on American Soil Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not an acceptable source. TFD (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That, and there's no reason to dedicate any real estate in this article to the matter. Also, I can see one blatant factual error in the article that undermines premise, as I can list at least one other person killed by an American in direct "retaliation" (due to a mistaken belief that he was a Muslim) for 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no reason when infact America is continually being attacked by Muslim terrorists? The largest terrorist attack to take place in the United States was caused by Muslim terrorists. I believe this issue deserves a separate section. Wikipedia needs to keep in step with the times, especially in light of the two Muslim terrorists (one suspect) attacking at the Boston Marathon. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is another source: The New York Post Facing terror facts Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Homeland Security is now mentioned under the 'Military' section. Should the Military section be renamed "National Security" with an additional paragraph on terrorist threats, foreign and domestic? I'm not sure I can agree to any such thing as "Muslim terrorism". Muslim neighbors have lost family members to terrorists, the second generation now join the armed services. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Virginia Historian. I think Homeland security is best. I believe that the attacks by Muslim terrorists needs to be mentioned in the article in terms of an overall strategy to defeat the United States. This is an ongoing issue. The Muslim terrorists have not gone away. Yes. Wasn't a Muslim in the armed forces when he killed people at a Texas miltary base? We have to stop being politically correct, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your second source isn't about Muslim terrorism. It's about Jihadist terrorism. Also, citation needed on an "overall strategy". Really, Americans are a far larger threat against Muslims than Muslims are a threat against Americans. --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jihad is defined as the religious duty of Muslims. Please do not go beyond the scope of this discussion. I am not denying that the United States attacked Iraq and waged a "shock and awe" undeclared war for eight years from 2003 to 2011, if that is what you are refering too. I am refering to Muslim terrorist attacks within the United States. As far as I know there have been no Iraqi Suni Muslim terrorist attacks within the United States. Muslim terrorist attacks started in the 1970's and have been continuing today. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet your second source explicitly says that the vast majority of Muslims have and want nothing to do with this. So it is not a valid source to claim "Muslim terrorism." If you would like to specify radical elements, that's fine, but you've kind of gone out of your way to avoid narrowing your very broad statement of "Muslim terrorism," as if all 1.5 billion Muslims were out to get us. (and, actually, I was primarily referring to the terror hundreds of Pakistanis experience daily when they hear the signature buzz of an American drone fly over their towns.) --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The terrorist attacks by extremist muslim jihadists is already mentioned in the history section of this article. There is a place on Wikipedia for content about Islamists and/or jihandists but this article IMHO is not the place. Not everything that intersects the United States needs a section on this article. We have wikilinks for a reason.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On balance, agreed with Golbez and RCLC, a link will suffice; would like topic change from "Military' to "National security", though. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post article stated the United States currently is a target by the Jihad Muslims. The Boston bombings is a demonstration of this Jihad Muslim attack. Stating Muslim terrorism is not stating that all Muslims commit or sponsor terrorism. The United States has been attacked by Muslim Jihadist since the 1970's and has not stopped since there remain Muslim Jihadist out their to attack us. As for Pakistan, their government and people harbor muslim terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden. The Pakistan Muslims are not innocent in terms of sponsoring terrorism against U.S. troops. I believe the New York Article and any reliable source that states when Muslim terrorism began and that United States and Europe is on the target list for militant muslim Jihadists. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Post story is an opinion piece, hence not rs for facts. TFD (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. The Boston bombings are not an opinion piece, but a very real Muslim terrorism, with body parts being exploded, over 200 injuries, and 4 deaths. Wikipedia should not be apologetic for Muslim terrorism. That is POV. The Post article states that the US and Europe are being targeted by Muslim terrorists. TFD you have a double standard. You state the US is a federal republic on concensus of opinion, then you state that the New York Post article is opinion and can't be used in the article. Can you explain this contradiction? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." "Facing terror facts" is an opinion piece by a columnist, Benny Avni,  Neutral point of view however allows us to report consensus opinions in articles.  If you disagree with these policies, then you should argue about them on the policy pages, rather than here.  TFD (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The New York Post's article is supported by the Congressional Record in 2006. The Congressional investigation stated that Europe and the United States were targets by self radicalized Jihadists. Please refer to this source: Congressional Record Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to fact check sources.  Instead we use sources that are already fact-checked, hence the policy of using reliable sources.  If you disagree with that then discuss it on the policy pages.  TFD (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The situation may be relevant enough to merit a set of nationally funded, real-time observation cameras to be temporarily put in place at each olympics-sanctioned marathon (all NYC bridges are already covered).--- According to the NYC chief of police on the upcoming New York City marathon as aired on Charlie Rose. But it does not seem to me that the subject should be treated in the 'sports' subsection of 'culture'. Rather as Golbez and RightCowLeftCoast say, it merits a link in Military/national security to a more expansive article on terrorism, foreign and domestic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how we would word a link without affording it undue importance. And TVH, I'm not accusing you of anything here, but I checked my edits above and I don't see myself endorsing a link of any type. Where did I do that? I could be missing it and I don't remember every edit I make but I'm not seeing it. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] (a) One editor said domestic terrorism did not merit a separate section in the US country article, to that I agree. (b) Another said a possible way of accommodating CmGuy777s interest in US domestic terrorism for this article might be referenced in a link, to that I agree. Or (c) alternatively 'See also" - ? - It seems to me significant and meaningful, but it does NOT rise to the wp:significance level as a part of the US cultural and political landscape as terrorism in Northern Ireland during the "troubled times". You seem to be in a 'take no prisoners' mode, I've seen better from you. You can figure out how to edit collegially. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, not sure how that's a response to my request for you to justify me saying that I said it merited a link, but, okay? Welcome back, I guess? As for collegial, you can learn to provide a source of me saying something when I don't recall doing it (and, I point out, going out of my way to indicate I could be wrong and giving you the chance to back it up), because when I ask for it and you avoid providing it and insult me at the same time, it comes across as you avoiding being caught in a lie, and that is very uncollegial. --Golbez (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] begin Dft.2. (a) One editor said domestic terrorism did not merit a separate section in the US country article, to that I agree. (b) Another  said a possible way of accommodating CmGuy777s interest in US domestic terrorism for this article might be referenced in a link, to that I agree. Or (c) alternatively 'See also" - ? end.Drft.2 --- I gotta work on writing to my audience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Golbez. There was a recent Frontline television article on Global Terrorism and how the United States set up secret sites around the country to monitor terrorist activity. There is controversy on how effective these anti terrorist networks are since obviously this did not stop the Boston Bombings. However, the CIA and FBI and the Department of Defense are actively keeping track of terrorist activities within the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's nice. What does that have to do with this discussion? --Golbez (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The sights were set up by the Department of Defense 911 to counteract Muslim terrism. That means the U.S. is keeping track of Muslim terrorist cells. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See, you didn't specify "Muslim" in your previous paragraph, so it seemed to have no bearing on this discussion. And of course they're keeping track of terrorist cells, Muslim or otherwise. There's no point being made here. --Golbez (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia users. I have a question. Is this discussion about the number of people dying? Because if it is, we should spend zero time talking about Muslims and more time talking about Gun violence in the United States. Heck, don't even mention 9/11 if it is just about the number of people who are dying (you need to mention it because of its cultural and political effects though). To sum it up, if you want to provide a factual article about the United States of America, don't write about Islamic Extremism. If you want to cite, biased, right-wing propaganda text files on Wikipedia, edit this entry: fallacy. Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you linked every other word? --Golbez (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Golbez I made it to get your attention, not to distract you from the discussion!  What do you think of my comment though?  If I knew so many people would be reading it (I should have) I would have made my suggestion a bit more academic.  Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it. I had about a .5% chance of searching for those terms, but now I might be click-tempted into learning something I never would have known I didn't know. Those "unknown unknowns", in (former?) national security lingo. Want to know what anniversaries we have today? Click my timestamp! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You just torpedoed your own point by conceding "cultural and political effects". I haven't commented on this topic yet and I'm not advocating a change now, but, since you bring it up, the mortality rate approach to try and diminish the effects of terrorism is a vapid fallacy. It's not just about those actually killed so far. Terrorism threatens national infrastructure in a way that car wrecks or heart disease (both far better examples than "gun violence", which is already covered by the article anyway, though the fact that the US also sees many more crimes thwarted by privately owned guns isn't) don't, especially with modern technology that empowers the destructive potential of individuals and the ease of global transportation. Terrorism can also pose an existential threat to society when the eventual likelihood of NBC weapon use is considered. Plus, most deaths are due to natural causes or tragic accidents in circumstances that don't come as a complete shock. By contrast, even low lethality terrorism can dramatically impact a society with a scope and unpredictability that transcends routine crimes. People know they might be mugged when walking through a certain neighborhood or witness a robbery when at the bank, but they don't expect the crowd to be blown up when watching the Boston Marathon. So yes, terrorism is a very big deal, and the fact that there's a broad, international effort by Islamic jihadists to wage war against and destroy or convert the US (and other nations) is also a big deal, and would be even if polling didn't show that hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world are sympathetic to the goals and tactics of outfits like Al Qaeda to varying degrees (which it does). VictorD7 (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The general idea for the United States as a society in experiment is individual liberty in self-governing communities from as small as can be to a continental union. So in the same cul-de-sac, neighbors borrow one another's lawn mower, or share dessert from a holiday meal with another family (ah! the Greek Orthodox Christmas Jan 7 baklava!). And on Sundays one family turns left to a Protestant church, another right to Catholic, another only gets up to watch football. On Friday a family goes to synagogue, one to a Sunni mosque, another to Shi'a services --- and the punch line is, the girls and boys all survive the trip home from family worship to stand at the bus stop together for school on Monday morning sharing umbrellas when it rains. To paraphrase Jefferson, God is so Great, the blasphemy is for any mortal agency to presume to interfere between a man and his faith or his disbelief.
 * Of course all humanity has the same flaws, but our bombing of children at worship was Birmingham Sunday in 1963. While it may be true that in some places, repeat shopllfters walk around with one hand, colonial America branded a 'T' for 'thief' on the forehead so a shopkeeper could see him coming, and that brings order in a fashion, Would that the last Muslim community bombing of Muslim children going to worship were in 1963. Children returning home from worship alive is real law and order, not to be taken for granted in the world's perspective. Oh yes, and the US should work on its violent crimes, but first things first, let each child everywhere in the world go to family worship in multiple, diverse places, and return home alive. In that crime statistic, the US has the lowest rate of many. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

first paragraph
Come on, really? The first paragraph reads like an advertisement, like "we are the best and greatest.."

Especially "and is a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world, as well as a leader in scientific research and technological innovation.[26][27]". It sounds a bit like all of the other world is doing nothing, being completely dependent on the us. Not mentioning, that other countries in Asia are catching up fast in economics and production, its dependence on cheap Chinese imports and credits and I especially doubt its role as a cultural force. Who says that? Proof? Does the article mean by culture only the exported movies? It doesn't seem to me, like they are leading in music, art, religion nor anything else but movies.

The references also don't say, that the us are the best (26 and 27).

Oh, and the exact count of amendments is also irrelevant for a first paragraph IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.252.10.90 (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than the "first paragraph", it seems you're talking about what is called the lead, or lede, here on Wikipedia. I tend to agree with you on the detail on constitutional amendments. It does seem a little too much detail for the lead. As for describing the US as "a leading economic, political, and cultural force...", it is a little problematic. The US is certainly one of the biggest forces in the world on those fronts, but "leading" includes a connotation of top quality, and many would argue about that, forever. I am reminded of a time around 17 years ago when I first created a draft website for a company I worked for. I was told to change whatever wording I had chosen to say that our company was the leading company in its field. The word was definitely intended as advertising. Something more diplomatic would certainly be desirable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the US a "prominent economic ... force"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Opinions, even cited, I can see as not being sufficiently noteworthy given the subject of this article to be included in the lead. Rankings, of largest GDP, having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, being (for the time being) the sole superpower, and having great cultural influence are one thing, but leading may be under WP:WTW.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, if anything the lede is too watered down in roughly outlining America's role in the world by merely calling it "a" leading force in those spheres when it's actually the leading force (including music, art, and other cultural elements). That's not POV, it's the fact based reality of the situation as measured through any number of metrics, many of which appear in the article (especially economics, military dominance, and scientific research). And no, that doesn't mean "all of the other world is doing nothing". However, it does mean that the US is prominent enough on the world stage that people all over the globe consume news coverage about it, have opinions about it, often have anti-American chips on their shoulders, and sometimes come to the United States page (the most viewed page on Wikipedia) to discuss it, in a way they don't for other countries. VictorD7 (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have missed the point of several of the posts above. Yes, the US is powerful, with massive influence, but does that make "leading" the right adjective to use to describe it? Leading implies all positive influence. Many would obviously argue that some of the USA's influence is not good for the rest of the world. I'm sure that many Americans would take that view. I hope you can agree that that's at least partly true. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I just disagreed with you because you're wrong. "Leading" doesn't imply "all positive influence". The USSR was a leading power during much of the 20th Century. Nazi Germany was a leading power in the 1930s and early 1940s. Car wrecks are a leading cause of death among the young. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you read my post at 00:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC) above. We must use different versions of English. That's possible, but good manners would have meant you'd have said something like I just said, rather than "you're wrong". Arrogance built on ignorance is not a nice trait. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you read the post you just responded to? The one where I demonstrated that your claim was false by citing examples like "leading cause of death"? I could have added "leading problem", another commonly used phrase. If me pointing out that you're wrong seemed undiplomatic, you shouldn't have obnoxiously and erroneously stated in your previous post that I had missed the point. I clearly hadn't. The ignorance and arrogance are yours.  That your company may have wanted to use "leading" to bolster its prominence is irrelevant.  This article is supposed to be in American English (you're wrong about that too), not that it matters, since the word itself is neutral and used in both positive and negative contexts across English speaking countries.  It means "chief" or "principle". "Leading" doesn't refer to quality, but to global dominance and impact, for good or ill, and undeniably applies. The BBC page used as a source in the text says, "Given America's leading role on the international stage, its foreign policy aims and actions are likely to remain the subject of heated debate and criticism, as well as praise."  It seems like you and the IP address who started this section (but clearly doesn't speak English as a first language) are primarily upset with the reality of the situation, but Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of weakening itself by being "diplomatic" in appeasing those with chips on their shoulders who don't know what they're talking about. The goal is to accurately describe reality.  VictorD7 (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. You don't get it. Bad example of an American bully. (Most Americans are not. Those who are damage the image of the rest.) Even had a go at an editor because their English skills weren't "perfect". I shall cease now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you don't get it. I simply offered correction. It's not an insult to point out that someone's first language doesn't appear to be English, but rather a mitigating factor.  If raised in a non English speaking country it's impressive that he speaks English as well as he does, though both his and your visceral anti-Americanism is unfortunate. Regardless, the more pertinent point is that you were wrong on all counts. "Bully"?  Because I demolished your rant with logic, common examples, and a BBC link? You're arguing purely from emotion, not reason. An honest, open minded person would thank me for the education. VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would state that the United States is the leading corporate nation that has established military dominance throughout the world and has a semi-autonomous financial relationship with Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed 'leader' to "prominant", the US dollar being the major currency of international exchange. Members of the Arab League call on the US to internationally "lead" the nations of the earth to save Muslim Syrians from destruction as it did Muslim Bosnians. Can the US save Muslims from Christians? yes. Can the US save Muslims from Muslims? no. that is nation building, arrogance of power, over-reaching imperialism. The US is merely prominant in Syrian and world affairs, the Russians (Muslims?) currently dominant, rebel cities sponsored by Quatar and Saudia Arabia falling to the Russian-sponsored Assad regime at the moment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of your description underscores the reality that the US has a singular prominence in world affairs, a reality not adequately captured by "a prominent" or maybe even "a leading", though the latter gets closer to the truth since "leading" indicates a more exclusive club than merely "prominent". There are many prominent nations. There's only one with the largest economy, by far the most powerful military, that founded and clearly leads NATO, that founded and hosts the UN, that can influence every part of the world if it chooses, and that is involved to varying degrees in issues around the globe. English is the world's lingua franca, not Russian or Chinese. The combined western European powers couldn't even oust Khaddafi without American help. Even in a temporary period of "leading from behind", the USA is the indispensable nation. The article currently fails to convey this basic reality. VictorD7 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is true. First of all, it has the advantage of voluntary associations across an entire continent. Openness is the American cultural hallmark seen in finance, trade, most pronouncedly in the world-wide internet and social media phenomenon -- it's not just movies. It is intellectually dishonest to dismiss America, seizing on attendant evils as being the principle effect of liberty in society. Social evils such as crime rates or promiscuity are a necessary consequence of basing society on the individual internalizing self control, not depending on the state or established religion to impose social control. Most coerced social control in the US derives from contracts upheld in a rule of law, entered into voluntarily for lawful purposes based on initiative independent of the state. The result is greater personal development, creativity, innovation adoption and prosperity unmatched elsewhere, and in that we may agree. I just tried to tone it down a bit so it did not smack of triumphalism, a curse word in American historiography. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is intellectually dishonest" to suggest that anyone IS dismissing America. Please maintain polite discussion and don't misrepresent others' positions. That is always provocative behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] What? eh? That was not directed at you, or did I miss something. --- But did you not, dismiss the US as a world leader in anything because it might be the agent of something untoward? HiLo48 said, "", therefore your point was to dismiss the US as a "leader" in the narrative. Or was your point to keep the wording, the 'US is a world leader in ...' ? I regret any misunderstanding on my part, let's keep the US as "a world leader", and avoid intellectual dishonesty on anyone's part, by all means.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with you, though I don't think the BBC was engaging in American triumphalism. Indeed much of the "hyperpower"/"superpower" commentary like that related below comes from critics of the US (foreign and American), in some cases with barely concealed anti-American bigotry showing through. VictorD7 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Cultural exchange
Using two sources that Cmguy777 provided for us above (Ripper, 2008, Calloway, 1998) I have just added a fair amount of content that covers the cultural exchange advent, hitherto missing in the article/section for too long now.


 * Insert:There needs to be a time frame for the initial peace between the Puritans and Indians. I would state from 1619 to 1634. That would be fifteen years. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * pardon. housekeeping note: advent means "beginning of" cultural exchange, not event "instance of" cultural exchange. Everything is not in Boston, all American colonial is not Puritan. The first Thanksgiving was in Jamestown. Although at one time Harvard had Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in history, Henry Kissinger in government, John Rawls in philosophy, David McClelland in business, Talcott Parsons in sociology. I was impressed, can you blame me? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Body of text a mess
Just to give an idea of the relationship between the actual text and everything else in between I copied and pasted the first (and very small) paragraph from the  'Native American and European contact'  section to directly below -- and bolded the actual text only. (employing 'nowiki')

People from Asia migrated to the North American continent beginning between 40,000 and 12,000 years ago. '''Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, it is estimated that their population declined due to various reasons, including diseases such as smallpox and measles, intermarriage''' , and violence.

Three simple sentences of text mixed in with almost a page of templates, Url's and markup. Ridiculous! This stuff belongs in a bibliography, separated from the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem this passage could easily be cited with one or two book sources. One of the cite web sources is so old (access date 2007) that the Url address redirects to a Url generated by the 'Way-back machine' where the web page linked to doesn't even hint about being from the Smithsonian. Further, the lede says 15,000 years ago, this source, such that it is, says 12,000. Seems we should put more of our energy into scrutinizing, editing, sourcing and clean up and less of it into 'talk'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Date of arrival of 1st Indians to continent
The source used says:
 * The timing of the first appearance of humans in the Americas is debated. For many years, experts believed that people first migrated into North America 12,000 years ago. New finds have led some researchers to push for a first appearance date of 30,000 to even 40,000 years ago. (emphasis added)

The "new finds" claim is ambiguous, esp since it refers only to "some researchers". It really doesn't make much difference to me what the number is, so long as it's generally recognized. If there is a wide body of disagreement, with a RS that nails that claim, then we can relate that idea. The statement as it was didn't do that and asserted a wide range of numbers far from settled on by the majority of experts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian population decline
Does anyone know to what extent interracial marriages, or partnerships, between settlers and Indians occurred? It seems that because various sources have chosen not to include these people in population estimates we are writing off many thousands of, or perhaps one, two or more million people. When the US census counts the number of African Americans in the USA, do they exclude anyone who is mulatto? Do they use a different standard to count Indians? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. Why not mention that although Indian population declined, Indian population today has increased to the original pre Columbian estimates. The outlook on Native Americans is not always bleak. We must not deny that there were wars, that were in my opinion, bound to occur because the cultures and religion were very different. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My intention was and is not to deny Indian populations declined, but only to bring attention to those individual writers who look for ways to either exaggerate or underestimate numbers for reasons that by now should be obvious. Propaganda is one of the oldest forms of war. Btw, you avoided the question. I believe it's a fair one. If they can discount the numbers of Indians on the basis of 'intermarriage' it would seem this approach to ethnic population estimates would result in a drastic decline in the negro population in the U.S. -- but you know they don't do that for African Americans. Apparently they're doing it with Indians. i.e. We could reduce the African American population by more than half just by changing the standard by which we count them. Goodness. We could create a "holocaust". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers. We have to go by what the sources state on Wikipedia. All Indian depopulation is speculative. I am for a simple sentence that states Indian population declined. If historians count Anglo-Indian mescegenation as a way for depopulation, that is the historians responsibility. Disease seemed to be the primary factor for Indian depopulation. They did not have the immunity to combat such a harmful disease as small pox. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cm', don't be a rulz and regs bot. We must use RS's, yes -- this doesn't mean we regard a couple as gospel and ignore the rest. When there are many RS's, like with Jefferson and Washington, we should consider and scrutinize as many as possible and arrive at an average picture, asking questions when extraordinary claims are made. In the process the Finkleman's and the Russell's, along with their hyper-speak, will reveal themselves for what they are. i.e.Activist writers with a social and/or political agenda who look for ways to manipulate the picture. And you still haven't acknowledged the question. What standard is used to count ethnic peoples and does intermarriage exclude anyone from a group as seems to be the case for Indians? Apparently someone invented a way to 'erase' an entire segment of the Indian population. As for small pox, I have always known that diseases like this have taken their toll. However I'm still wondering how they tallied up the numbers to something that is comparable to the bubonic plague. Was there UN observers spread out across the continent back then?-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For myself, I believe the best policy is to be impartial concerning sources. I agree there is speculation on Indian decline in population. For now, stating depopulation is best, in terms of Amerindians. We must not underestimate the intelligence of the reader. This is a general article on the United States. Every historian or source is bound to have some bias. What matters is whether the historcal source is accurate. Authors maybe activists, but that does not mean what is written is untrue or false. Wikipedia editors can find other sources to balance out POV from the article. Every author I have read has some sort of bias in their works. That does not mean on a whole that these "activist" authors are making false claims. Personally, I think we are spending too much effort on deciding the "correct" method for determining Indian depopulation. Has there been concensus to remove the word "genocide" from the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : Be impartial with sources? Actually we should use sources that are impartial and not sling words like "holocaust" and "genocide" around, esp when they are unqualified and used out of context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] @CMGuy, thanks for bringing the discussion back to “genocide” delete issue. At -- Use of ‘genocide’ -- above section, 5 against, 1 not opposed. The count as of May 26 is Opposed: Hotstop, TVH, GWillhickers, VictorD7, Collect. Not opposed CMguy777, who has here shown himself to be collaborative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Insert: Gwillhickers. This is a discussion page and editors need to be able to freely submit their views as long as the views are constructive to the article. WHO IS TO JUDGE WHAT SOURCES ARE IMPARTIAL? The only way to be impartial is to admit bias. Everyone has a bias, wikipedia editors and authors. If one editor judges the impartiality of an author, then that would be ownership of the article. I have bias from growing up in a public school. I was never taught the founding fathers owned slaves. I was taught George Washington never told a lie and the only "bad" thing he did was chop down a cherry tree. Washington actually did effectively use deception during the Revolutionary War. Again, I am not sure why their is so much concern on miscegenation for the United States article in terms of determining Indian depopulation. TVH has given us a tally on removing the word "Genocide". Thanks TVH. I have been outvoted. Let's remove the word from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillickers, we do not consider and scrutinize as many sources as possible and arrive at an average picture, we pick a secondary source that has already done this and report what it says. TFD (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not me. I don't throw a dart at a list of books and use it as a reference. I scrutinize the work, and with good reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gwillickers, you have touched on a knotty problem in American sociology/politics. The term "assimilation" as "genocide" is nonsense, certainly and should not be used to describe population decline as it describes population increase by any objective measure. And the one-drop rule of the racists in the "eugenics" movement at the turn of the last century is also silly to adopt as linguistic convention calling persons "black" who are not. But I'm not sure how any WP editor belling the cat, discussing the merits on racial matters with the politically correct, gains anything. I would rather see the controversial, the problematic and the merely provocative all dropped as violating economic encyclopedic style: drop 'genocide' and 'assimilation' as population reduction.
 * In Virginia, home of the Loving v. Virginia case concerning interracial marriage, (yes, now we can), we have two interesting wrinkles on the topic. In the east, lots of the FFVs (first, finest? families of Virginia) who may be fairly characterized as ancestor worshippers, like to retell the story that they are direct descendants of Indian royalty -- Pocahontas. And, as her son was related to English royalty -- confusing the Rolfe in the novel Ivanhoe, so famous in the antebellum South -- they get a two-fer, counting royal blood from both maternal (Native American) and paternal (English) traditions. yuk.
 * In the west of Virginia's mountains live some tri-racialite communities from the 1600s. There are elementary schools feeding children into valley high schools with jet black straight hair, coal black eyes and copper skin, but no one claims any Native-American heritage there, they are all "pure white" on all sides forever, and some belong to organizations to certify to it; and you best not suggest anything other, need your tire changed? My favorite solution is the Puerto Rican: all are 'hispanic', and don't bother about what percentages of white black and red there may be -- is it the Brazilians with nine racial/ethnic/color categories? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwhillickers, one does not "throw a dart at a list of books." One seeks out the best type of source, e.g., an advanced level university textbook and find a section that says something like, "The estimates for the number of aboriginal non-combatant Europeans ranges from a to b, with x to z being the most widely accepted."  That is better than throwing darts at even dozens of the possible thousands of sources and then concluding, "The estimates for the number of aboriginal non-combatant Europeans ranges from a to b, with x to z being the most widely accepted."  Why?  Because people who study these things and publish articles that are reviewed by peers are more likely to come up with a better description.  What if they are wrong?  Then find a source that makes a different claim and find a subsequent source that says something like, "Most scholars accept the second writing on the range of estimates, and complain that the first estimate ignored x, y and z."  TFD (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with scrutinizing a work for accuracy or facts. There is no way to properly judge the bias or motivations of individual authors. That is not the job of Wikipedia editors. For example Finkleman. Yes, at times he is tough on Thomas Jefferson, however, that should not eliminate him as a source. I believe authors can be both over and under critical in their historical assessements of people. Again, why is miscegenation so important for the article interms of Indian depopulation? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with CMguy here, it seems to me to be straining into areas that are indeterminate now, but that will be interesting once the genetic mapping of contemporary populations and burial places along migration routes is complete. But that is probably a little far off in the literature, leaving us to rely on speculation. Sources I have read across the spectrum are careful to note they are extrapolating or making an educated guess whenever they venture into this area, so anything brought forward would have to be read into -- as Gwhillickers noted we must do for due diligence before posting a snippet out of context into the article narrative. And self-qualified speculation by a scholar cannot be read as the "predominant" view in the academic field, or even something for editors to "balance" with alternative self-qualified speculation. --- Unless the title of the article is speculation on genetic distribution of assimilated populations among US citizens living on their native-born American soil, as the US census puts it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD, I agree, "...one does not "throw a dart at a list of books". One seeks out the best type of source", and the only way to determine "the best type of source" is to scrutinize that source. If it contains factual errors, fringe theory, gross exaggerations and employs out of context and unqualified hyper-speak in every other sentence, then we need to look to more objective sources. The only way to do determine if a source is reliable is through scrutiny and discussion. Btw, books that win (highly visible and peer-pressured) awards are not automatically reliable. Like any other, they are not above scrutiny. Who decides what source is reliable? Editors decide . Who else? The 'God of reliable sources'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * TVH, regarding your comment: "The term "assimilation" as "genocide" is nonsense, certainly and should not be used to describe population decline as it describes population increase by any objective measure" Once again, thanks for your comment and the in depth analysis that followed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Cm' I agree and disagree with your comments. "I don't have any issues with scrutinizing a work for accuracy or facts." (agree) "There is no way to properly judge the bias or motivations of individual authors." (disagree) There are several ways to determine these things, in a word, scrutiny. You've done it, I've done it, and any active writer of history here at WP has done it. Or is there someone here who is using a reference with no idea about its reliability? Regarding POV. Any statement has POV, the issue however is whether the POV is factual and objective. How do we determine this? Scrutiny and discussion. We are not copy-reword-paste bots. We are editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillickers, "Who decides which sources are reliable?" Policy that provides criteria for selecting reliable sources, and our role is to choose the best sources based on that policy, not to conduct our own investigations of the voting record of each author.  Again you continue to confuse facts and opinions.  We should not choose sources because they reflect our pre-conceived ideas.  Also, when someone presents a source that meets reliability, it avoids argument if you present a high quality source that contradicts it, rather than using 1950s style ad hominem attacks against the writer.  Otherwise one could argue that since Einstein was left-wing, relativity is false, which is the position taken by Conservapedia.  TFD (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian population decline(2)

 * You have a way of agreeing with me while trying to disagree. You say "...our role is to choose the best". How does one chose "the best" without scrutiny and discussion? The rest of your comments were in fact ad-hom'. i.e.I advanced no "pre-conceived" ideas and any preferences for phrases used and sources chosen are and will be based on fair questions and discussion, and we have had much of it here regarding what "genocide" is and how population levels were arrived at by various individual writers. Again, there is no list of Reliable Sources from the 'RS god' or other such authority. We must use scrutiny to determine which sources are indeed "the best", an idea you stopped short of explaining, apparently because you didn't want to agree with me about scrutiny, in spite of your own advice. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
 * Gwillhickers, as TP section starter do you want to go ahead and delete "genocide" or do you want someone else to? VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : We need to select a RS to cite the passage as it reads without the word "genocide". If we simply remove that word using the same source we could be accused of misrepresenting what the source has said, and rightly so. I am in the process of selecting such a source. Any help you or anyone else can offer would be appreciated. -- Russell, 1985, is definitely out. He uses the word "genocide" at least seven times in the course of two paragraphs, (p.49) never qualifying the claim. Not once. He uses the word on a per item basis, never an explanation, yet this source/page is used as a cite for Indian-settler history overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No we don't, in part for reasons you cite.  While I support finding a better source, the text currently reads "including" various factors, so it's not like it has to be a comprehensive list, inappropriate POV terms included, from whatever source is used.  I believe the text previously just mentioned disease. We aren't required to use any source, though it's good practice if a claim can expect challenge. There's a consensus for removing "genocide". That said, if you want to wait then I'll wait for a while. VictorD7 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a definite consensus and you also make a good point. I would prefer to wait a day or so and get a different source first, but if you want to omit the pov word you have my support. -- Also, we need to give the readers the whole picture, that there's much more history involved with the meeting of the two civilizations. We need to search existing sources and account for what is being left out, and while we're at it search alternative sources as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field."  If we follow your approach, you would reject everyone who was critical of U.S. foreign policy, another editor would reject scholars who supported it, no one would agree on sources and we would wind up having long discussions.  In this case you have not even supplied an alternative source, and just made ad hominum arguments against their authors, or even authors that they quoted.  TFD (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] TFD, this is the pot calling the kettle black. At least this passage tells me you know what you are doing (I was worried about you for a while) when you assert Puerto Rico is excluded from the US by a seated territory Member of Congress, and you imply the Puerto Rican constitution expels it from the US when it makes themselves "US citizens" who are "loyal to the federal constitution". This last TFD posting is a keeper for future reference. We need to figure out a way to get sourced contributions into the article, to expanding knowledge available in modern reliable sources from primary, secondary government and scholarly sources, when they all say the same thing.
 * All modern sources over the last twenty years do not say USG adopted a policy of genocide. At best, scholars decry local, state and national actions which cost thousands of lives unnecessarily. That some fringe sources equate marrying into another ethnic group as self-genocide by having children is their dramatic statement for buzz in the faculty lounge, it is not USG intentional policy of an crime against humanity, it is too overwrought for encyclopedic style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you mention ad-hom' and in the same breath you embark on same: "If we follow your approach, you would reject everyone who was critical of U.S. foreign policy," My approach is simply to use objective sources that don't assert unqualified out of context blanket terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" to make general statements about 100's of years of history, per settlers and Indians. I am confident we can cite the existing statement, without the word "genocide", with objective reliable sources. Also, the entire Native American and European settlement section, which takes up about an entire page, speaks of settlement, disease and war overall. Not a peep about trade and the cultural exchange between the many settlers and Indians that got along. There is much history to tell there, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), so it would seem we need to give topics like these as much weight as the other topics, keeping all topics brief. IMO the entire section needs to be rewritten and due weight distributed equally. The section looks like it was written in the 1980s and 90s. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall for our purposes, Thornton gives us 5+ million Native Americans in coterminous US about 1500, and under Spanish, French and British policy, population reduced 80-90%, five millions to under a million by 1800, then after the establishment of the US, Indian population was reduced another 60% from about 600,000 to 250,000 by 1900, the nadir (Thornton 1987, p.43). Since population increase began, the 2010 Census reports “2.9 million people identified as American Indian and Alaska Native alone”, a total of 5.2 million “either alone or in combination with one or more other races.”

Reading into the reference RightCowLeftCoast gave us, Russell Thornton ‘s 1987 thirty-year-old American Indian holocaust and survival: a population history:since 1492. Thornton quotes the chief causes of decrease in order of importance according to James Mooney (1900): 1) small pox and other epidemics, 2) tuberculosis, 3) sexual diseases, 4) alcoholism, 5) removals and starvation, 6) mental depression, 7) wars. Thornton would add genocide somewhere below alcoholism [p.44]. “While warfare and genocide were not very significant overall in the American Indian population decline, they were important causes of decline for particular tribes.” [p.47] Even after the establishment of the United States, “During the 19th century the total North American Indian population was not reduced nearly as much from warfare and genocide as from disease and other causes, though individual tribes in some regions were reduced virtually to extinction by them.” [p.104].

Thornton confounds western hemisphere and north American data and vignettes, woodlands, plains and Spanish mission history in poor methodology which irks Gwhillicers. “Perhaps the best-known genocide of North American Indians occurred on December 29, 1890, at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota.” [accounting for Indian population decline of six-one hundredths of a percent (00.06%) after establishment of US constitution] – where the massacring commander was relieved for disobeying orders, and unauthorized gold miner immigrants are also said to perpetrate the governmental crime against humanity (?) --– which is clearly overwrought verbiage unsupported by Thornton’s own scholarship. But we can take the scholarship that is there without the political correctness and inept methodology, can’t we? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And the Wounded Knee "genocide" was a tragic battle involving firing in both directions that may have started by accident (it's unclear who fired first) and saw scores of Sioux survive, with the wounded being treated. In both scale and quality it's closer to the 1993 Waco catastrophe than the Nazi holocaust. VictorD7 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a trial baloon to replace existing text using Thornton:
 * At European trade and settlement, socio-cultural anthropologist Russell Thornton showed a 80-90% Amerindian population decline from over five million to under one million under Spanish, French and British policies, and under the United States, another 60% decline 1800-1900 from 600,000 to 250,000. Principle causes for the decline were from largest to smallest: smallpox and other epidemics, tuberculosis and sexual diseases, alcoholism and depression. Removals, starvation and warfare were not significant overall in Amerindian population decline, “though individual tribes in some regions were reduced virtually to extinction by them."


 * [note] Thornton, Russell. (1987). American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492. Volume 186 of Civilization of the American Indian Series. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 43-44, 104. ISBN 9780806122205. Thurston would add to Mooney’s list of population decline, “genocide” meaning virtual extinction, “or brought to the brink of oblivion” by whatever cause -- relocation or starvation, war or atrocities, but it would rank below alcoholism as a depopulator. [p.49]. Viewed May 30, 2013.


 * Since Amerindian population increases began in 1900, the 2010 Census reports “2.9 million people identified as American Indian and Alaska Native alone”, a total of 5.2 million “either alone or in combination with one or more other races.”


 * Thornton's categories of depopulators overlap in a way that a cliometrician or a political scientist would never allow, but the effort here is to collaboratively include a favorite socio-anthropological source in the text, using a portion of their scholarship which is mainstream for the article narrative --- while giving their slant a fair representation in the note by their publication as referenced, context supplied extending the note. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the sentiment and effort, I'm not sure we need that level of detail here. How about going back to just mentioning the big depopulation due to "diseases", along with, if people insist, something like "...,and to a lesser degree violence." ? Though, given your citation, it might be more accurate to mention that though there was violence, it wasn't a significant factor in the larger depopulation. Maybe also a clause or sentence somewhere (not necessarily that same depopulation segment) on intermarriage and/or assimilation (for example, most modern Amerindians are Christian and fluent English speakers). VictorD7 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me, the clause or sentence somewhere would be text in a note. It is a convention rarely used at WP, but often in American historiography, elsewhere? The advantage of placing links in extended notes is a powerful opportunity for WP to be a research platform for further inquiry enabled by links to reliable sources. That would hold true for the general readership, even at a moment of page-view which contained vandalism or wp:npov. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, I know you've taken a lot onto your plate, but I hope you don't forget to bring this issue you raised to a conclusion. As TVH points out, even the source currently used explicitly says that violence wasn't a significant cause of total Amerindian depopulation. The current text, listing various factors as equal, is still misleading. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sole superpower. - system erased my edit summary for some reason.
Here's what I said in the summary for the revert:

Text refers to the end of the Cold War, not now, though it's not clear that the situation has changed anyway. The US was widely described as the "sole superpower" after the Soviet collapse. VictorD7 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it refers to the time beginning at the end of the cold war -- up until now -- which I think is understood. Since it is a lede statement, unsourced as lede statements often go, I think we should specify 'greatest superpower'. This way we are not ignoring or coming off ignorant about countries like Britain and Russia -- and now China. I believe 'greatest superpower' not only defines the USA as such but acknowledges the existence of the other superpowers in an unspoken manner, which indeed do exist. On that note we should change it back to 'greatest'. Btw, the term 'superpower' is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Lede is supposed to reflect further content in body of text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Left" is past tense and specifically refers to the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it's not necessarily describing the time up until now. We could add a whole paragraph of post Cold War history without having to change a word in that sentence. The notion that the US was the "sole superpower" after the Soviet collapse was virtually universal. Also, my question needs to be addressed: wasn't the US already the "greatest superpower" even back when there were two? The proposed change would imply that wasn't the case until the Soviet collapse, a claim I'm not sure you intended to make.


 * Furthermore, the US is still the sole superpower, and usually described that way today. How is the UK a superpower? China has a large GDP (though there are questions about how accurate the statistics coming out of that nation's government are), but so does Japan, and yet Japan wasn't even typically described that way in the 1980s or early 90s. China doesn't yet have the ability to project force around the world or make itself a relevant player in any regional situation in the world if it chooses to.  Neither does Russia. Russia's only claim to superpower status is having nuclear weapons, but it had far more at the end of the Cold War when it was deemed no longer a superpower.  Russia is not anywhere near to recapturing the global power and influence it had during the Cold War. China may be on its way to becoming a superpower one day, but at this point the only nation with a massive global impact in politics, military power, economics, and culture is the United States. Indeed in recent years some have taken to calling America a "hyperpower".


 * Not every line in the lede needs to be duplicated and/or expanded on in the subsequent body, much less with the exact wording. That "superpower" is only used once underscores the lack of need for changing it to reflect a later development even if we were to agree it's occurred. Justifying such a change would require a larger expansion of the article to discuss "superpower" concepts (complete with the various views involved), and expanding the lede to cover post Cold War history. Maybe there's a place for the latter in some capacity (presumably it will happen at some point) if you don't think it should end with the Cold War, but we'd be getting into recent events where views are still in flux and descriptions can be dicey (see the latter History section Golbez has complained about). Another possibility would be to remove the term "superpower", but it would be absurd for the article not to mention the commonly word at all since the US essentially defines it. Other possibilities include linking to the "superpower" page, where various views up to and including the current situation are discussed, and/or adding a note about the various views on subsequent developments.


 * For the record I'll point out that the notion of a sole superpower and a multi-polar world aren't mutually exclusive. "Superpower" doesn't imply omnipotence, much less assume that a nation always chooses to exert its strength. It just means that one of those poles has a singular preeminence. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes no sense to call US a sole “superpower” in the 21st century. Robert D. Kaplan’s 2012 The revenge of geography uses the term “superpower” to describe nodes of expansive geographic influence in “early-twenty-first-century”. His seven regional giants with worldwide reach are and will continue to developing to be (in chapter order): 1) US-Canada-Mexico, 2) Europe, 3) Russia, 4) China, 5) India, 6) Iran and 7) former-Ottoman-empire. --- Any counter-source from a scholar looking forward into the 21st Century? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the argument is that the term "superpower" loses meaning when there is only one. The rest of the world no longer has to ally with one or another superpower.  Whether or not Kaplan's predictions come true, they certainly have not yet.  His school of thought has a bad record on predicting the future.  TFD (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] As opposed to the Marxist school? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, even though the Soviet Union is mentioned, the lede should also refer to the time occurring after that, which would include the present. Regarding the term 'superpower' (i.e.super and power) we are referring to military might. Large GNP is understood as this is required to produce nuclear weapons and the infrastructure to manage and deliver them. Since the UK, Russia and to a lesser extent China, all have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, it is no stretch of the imagination that they are superpowers in relation to the rest of the world. Again, by saying 'greatest superpower' we assert this idea while acknowledging that there are other, albeit not as great, superpowers. To say the USA is the "sole" superpower implies that countries like the UK and Russia don't possess superpower and makes the article come off as factually ignorant. Unless there is more than one RS that claims "sole superpower", qualified in no uncertain terms, we should say 'greatest superpower' As it is, there is no RS for this claim in the first place. Lede should include all time up until the present and 'greatest' refers to that time as much as 'sole'. Also, body of text needs to expand on superpower, be it the 'greatest', or the 'sole' superpower. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally agree with TVH and TFD. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * TVH - The lede's historical section doesn't cover the 21st Century. It ends with the Cold War. Got any scholars who claim the Cold War ended in the 21st Century? I don't necessarily oppose expanding the lede beyond the end of the Cold War, but that's a separate issue than revising the geopolitical impact of the USSR's collapse. Regarding the rest, while I agree that the world consists of regional power blocks (and for the record I predicted that a couple of decades ago), it doesn't make sense to pretend that the US is merely one of a group of great powers, without further qualification. Its singular dominance still puts it in another league.  Regardless, separate from the "superpower" issue, categorizing them by divisions like "US-Canada-Mexico" and "former-Ottoman-empire" (Seriously? Sounds shaky.) is the whim of a particular scholar, and it can be easily argued that its power bloc emphasis is a qualitatively different topic from the question of how powerful individual nation states are.  After all, even if one would prefer to knock down borders, diminish nationhood, and/or just finds it worthwhile to examine the world from a somewhat different angle,  the US, Canada, Mexico, Syria, Turkey, etc. all do still exist as independent nations, each with its own foreign policy, agenda, power, scope of influence, etc., and this is still the United States page, not the North America page.


 * Gwillhickers - To clarify, before I invest time digging up sources to prove the obvious, are you claiming that the UK, China, and by logical extension France, Israel, etc.. have been "superpowers" for the past several decades, including during the Cold War? Because there are plenty of reliable sources referring to the US and USSR as "superpowers" over the years, and to the US as the "sole superpower" since the Cold War ended. Ignoring that dumbs the article down; making it seem factually ignorant to those who know better and misleading those who don't by presenting an unnecessarily obtuse picture. In recent years various types of dissenting views have been raised (some of them politically driven by myopic anti-Iraq War hysteria), but the most you can say is that current opinion is fractured. As the Wikipedia superpower article points out, the last and still only nation that's a consensus superpower is the United States. Updating that to include the current state of affairs, and presumably multiple opinions, will require more than changing a word or two. VictorD7 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] Non-sequitur alert: -- The history section -- but then Kaplan's observation belongs in Contemporary era? A Wikipedia country-article is bounded by the present day, --- another reason for including present day geographic boundaries of the US to include five organized territories of US citizens with Members of Congress as explicitly provided for by current law. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your alarm was false. As I've already said, I'm not opposed to updating the lede's historical section to include assessments of the more recent past (though, since opinion is fractured, we'd probably have to include more than one view, and be wary of recentism). However, this discussion began over an attempt to revise the past tense, long established sentence relating how the end of the Cold War and the Soviet collapse "left" the United States. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the United States being the 'sole' superpower is not anything but "obvious" and would have to ask, what makes it obvious. We don't have to differentiate between all the countries that possess nuclear weapons, all we have to do is ask -- 'what makes the USA a superpower and the UK or Russia not a superpower'? UK and Russia have all the things that make the USA a superpower. i.e. A large military, nuclear weapons and a sizeable GNP. Again, what is it that makes these countries not a superpower? By asserting that the US is the 'sole' superpower we are assuming there is this giant gap between the USA and the likes of the UK and Russia. Indeed, there is a gap, but nothing that even suggests that these countries are not superpowers in relation to the rest of the world. And after all, the term 'superpower' is an analogy or comparison of one such country to the entire world, not to just one or two other countries that also have nuclear capability and a significant GNP. We can't say the UK or Russia are not a superpowers simply because they don't have quite as many nukes or quite as large GNP as does the USA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, again, to clarify before I start digging up sources, your contention is that countries like the UK, France, China, and maybe some others were superpowers all along, or at least once they acquired nuclear weapons? Plus my original question still hasn't been answered. Do you mean to imply that the act of Soviet collapse "left the US as the greatest superpower" because it wasn't the greatest superpower prior to that?  (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is that countries like the UK and Russia are superpowers in comparison to the rest of the world because like the USA they possess a formidable military and nuclear arsenal. Again, simply because the USA may(?) have more nukes does not mean these countries are not superpowers. If you happen to find a source that makes this claim it would be interesting to know how they actually qualify it.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sole superpower (2)
Is that a "yes"? Or are you challenging the term's very presence in the article? Since you made a sudden and unilateral edit, I figured you had a clear position. I multitask, don't have a ton of free time, and would prefer to clarify the lines of discussion before I invest time to dig up sources. What precisely is it that you're suggesting? That the UK, France, and other nations should be considered "superpowers" even during the Cold War? That they became superpowers at some point after the Cold War and the article should be expanded to reflect this later development? Or that the very notion of "superpowers" was bs to begin with and the term should be struck from the article? Also, do you dispute my contention that saying the Soviet collapse "left the US as the greatest superpower" implies it wasn't the greatest prior to that event? In case I'm coming off that way I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I really think we need to clarify this stuff to have a productive discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I was being clear. The US is not the "sole" superpower for reasons stated. In relation to the rest of the world countries like the UK and Russia are superpowers, regardless of the state of affairs Russia was in after the cold war. The cold war did not strip Russia of their nuclear arsenal. They still had, and have, a huge military and nuclear arsenal and comparable GNP as does the UK. Again, what makes the UK and Russia not superpowers? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe I haven't been clear enough. The article doesn't say anything about who is or isn't currently a superpower. It only has a past tense reference describing the end of the Cold War. The lede doesn't update history beyond that, which is why my timeline questions and comments are relevant. Since the cart is hopelessly ahead of the horse anyway, I'll answer your question by saying that, while precise definitions sometimes vary, superpower status has always indicated a step (or more) above great power status.  It's always reflected conventional military strength, particularly the ability to project decisive force around the world, as well as second strike nuclear capability during the Cold War (and presumably since), the latter ultimately characterized by massive arsenals delivered by a "triad" of platforms consisting of ICBMs, strategic bombers, and submarines. It essentially grew out of WW2 to describe the British Empire, United States, and USSR.  The British Empire soon collapsed (though the US had already surged into its own league, having eclipsed the UK in naval domination and achieved a nuclear monopoly), and then a few decades later the USSR dissolved, leaving just the US.  Even if one wants to argue that "superpower" should be a 20th Century term only, the current article is fine.  However, the word is still commonly used to describe today, and for good reason.


 * As the superpower article I linked to earlier pointed out, scholars assess superpower status by measuring influence along multiple axes, notably military, economic, political, and cultural (Lyman Miller). In a 1999 Foreign Affairs piece, Samuel Huntington wrote that (some of this is quoted on Wikipedia)..."There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system would have one superpower, no significant major powers, and many minor powers....A bipolar system like the Cold War has two superpowers, and the relations between them are central to international politics. Each superpower dominates a coalition of allied states and competes with the other superpower for influence among nonaligned countries. A multipolar system has several major powers of comparable strength that cooperate and compete with each other in shifting patterns. A coalition of major states is necessary to resolve important international issues. European politics approximated this model for several centuries.


 * Contemporary international politics does not fit any of these three models. It is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers. The settlement of key international issues requires action by the single superpower but always with some combination of other major states; the single superpower can, however, veto action on key issues by combinations of other states. The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power -- economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."


 * Huntington goes on to classify Russia, China, India, the "German-French condominium", Iran, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, and "potentially Japan" as "second level...major regional powers that are preeminent in areas of the world without being able to extend their interests and capabilities as globally as the United States." To the third level he assigns "secondary regional powers whose interests often conflict with the more powerful regional states", and lists Britain, Ukraine, Japan (in relation to China), South Korea (in relation to Japan), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (in relation to Iran), and Argentina.


 * While Huntington did think the US would eventually decline and become just another great power (declinist predictions for the US have been a recurring phenomenon for a long time, btw, most recently in the 1970s), that same year political scientist Kim Richard Nossal disagreed, pointing out that the US had actually increased the power gap in the decade since the Cold War ended, and argued that "hyperpower" better described the reality of the situation, due to a combination of factors including defense spending reductions by most of the major powers, continued rapid US technological advancement, and much of the world becoming increasingly economically tied to and dependent on the US.


 * That covers the immediate post Cold War period, and it's not clear the situation has decisively changed since then. The US has had economic problems, but so has most of the rest of the world.  Trendy mid 2000s talk of an emerging European superstate has vanished amid economic and political upheaval. It's not certain the EU will even exist 20 years from now. Influential Brits are expressing withdrawalist sentiment more openly than before. The European coalition needed American help to oust the pitifully weak Khadafi regime on its own doorstep.  European troops fighting in Afghanistan rely on American transport and often air support just to operate. Russia has benefited from high oil prices, but it still lacks the power to project conventional military strength around the world, and has only managed significant influence in its own backyard (like Syria recently). China has the most potential to become a superpower through its sheer size, but, as political scientist June Teufel Dreyer said in 2007, “China is not a superpower now. A superpower must be able to project its power, soft and hard, globally. China currently cannot, though it is certainly a regional power. Will the PRC become a superpower? The economic gains of the past 25 years have been hugely impressive, but there are doubts about how long they can continue.”  And no, neither Russia nor the UK have a "comparable GNP".  Russia's nominal GDP is around $2 trillion, around eight times smaller than the USA's, and the UK's is only slightly larger than Russia's. The order flips on a PPP basis but neither is in the ballpark of the US.


 * Regardless of what terminology one prefers to use, essentially the USA is still in a league of its own due to the combination of its ability to project hard military power to any region of the world, its economic preeminence (and the dollar is still world's reserve currency), political influence, and cultural supremacy (music, cinema, food, language, etc.). The US is the only nation with a significant aircraft carrier fleet, and it probably has more daily global soft power influence than it did 20 years ago.  The most recognizable corporate brands in the world are US icons like Coca-Cola and McDonalds, and US ventures like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter drive global internet culture. China did recently become just the third member of the exclusive spacefaring club, though no other nation or group of nations has come close to matching the technical achievements of NASA, as exemplified by the moon landings, Mars rovers, and other projects. Even now, when describing the US, if "superpower" is discarded for some reason, a new term would just have to be substituted to capture its singular full spectrum preeminence lest reality be obscured by obtuse language. VictorD7 (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This string began with a reference to the lede? The characterization of the US as a "superpower" belongs in the history section concerning the Cold War, does it not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Along with the "paleo-indians", "13 colonies", and "vigorous expansion"? The lede has an historical section, one that currently concludes with the end of the Cold War. There was widespread common and scholarly agreement that the US was the sole superpower after the USSR collapsed. Of course just before that the text also mentions that the US emerged from WW2 as a "global superpower". Should that reference be removed from the lede and erased or moved to the History section too? As I've said elsewhere, I'm not opposed to expanding the lede's historical section to include more recent events, including newer assessments of current superpower status, though since opinion is fractured on the latter we'd have to include multiple views while being wary of ascribing too much weight to overly recent opinions (like books published in 2012 with a speculative opinion advertised as "startling" and "new"), hopefully all the while not losing sight of the big picture and wrecking the forest for some trees. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery beginnings
Slavery needs to be discussed in terms of when slavery began. When was slavery first officially sanctioned? What tribes practiced slavery? Did the Spanish import slaves into North America such as the Carolinas? The Purtians sanctioned slavery in the 1640s. Slavery was also practiced by the French. There is also the Sugar plantations in the West Indies triangle that the colonies supported by trade. When did slavery begin in the North American continent? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This level of detail can be found in a subsidiary article Slavery in the United States. I added . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If Indians practiced slavery then what tribes practiced slavery prior to the European invasion? Who were the first Europeans to bring slaves into the Pre United States? Remember the United States was part of the British empire that included Canada. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many tribes practiced a form of slavery well before Europeans, only different from hereditary slavery. Amerindians kidnapped wives and slaves. Slaves were a sociological category of 'third sex', but that could be modified by adoption, adoption subsequently qualified the individual for marriage by a woman's choice (pardon the pc expression - stay off it, you flat-earthers).
 * Virginians first bought from Dutch traders, African-Americans and Africans via Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. For the first 50 years, 1620-1670 or so Christians with Portuguese names mostly from Angola, or Spanish names mostly from Cuba, were freed after 7-years indenture, just as white servants. (see Ira Berlin's Many Thousands Gone: the first two centuries of slavery in North America). Those with animist or Arabic names where held in slavery for life, as animist Africans and Muslims held Christian slaves. The freed in Virginia mostly settled on the Eastern Shore, and maintained family farms there until the 1800s.
 * By 1670-1700, British colonial law had made hereditary slavery by the mother, whereas the French colonial law allowed free children from mixed unions. By 1750-1770, Amerindian tribes such as Cherokee and Creek had begun to use hereditary African-American slavery on the British model. These distinctions continue down to today. African-Americans can be full tribal citizens of Seminole tribe -- they adopted many runaways in 'maroon' communities. But African-Americans cannot be tribal citizens of Cherokees, because they adopted the British model of slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the article
The article should say something more than  'settlers arrived -- Indian population declined' . Again, much more occurred between the two civilizations and equal weight should be given, in summary, to all pertinent aspects. We can cite Indian decline but we should also relate the cultural exchange, as this advent greatly impacted both Indian and American societies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers. The Puritans were not into any culture other then to be in their view godly. They endorsed slavery and war. They were extremely intolerant group. You had to completely accept Puritanism or you would suffer the consequences. Just ask the people they burned at the Salem witch trials. They destroyed the Merry Mount colony because of a May Pole. They did not trust Indians even Indians who had converted. They were called praying Indians. Oh yeah, the Puritans chopped off the head of Charles I. These people hardcore. One only needs to look at the photo on Jonathan Winthrop to understand you did not mess around with the Puritans. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "endorsed slavery and war"? You mean like the Indians did? Given the entirely one sided account and narrow wording you offer here, typically, I'll hold out for a second opinion. In any event, the Puritans are one group at one point in history and don't represent Indian-settler relationships overall throughout 100's of years of history. Most peoples were intolerant of other peoples, esp Indians. This doesn't mean that they didn't exchange things in terms of culture. Was your account here your way of saying that no culture, trade, religious views, etc were exchanged and that the section should only give weight to small pox and "genocide"? If we're to accept that intermarriage occurred between settlers and Indians to the extent that it greatly effected the population of (pure bred) Indians, I think we can also safely assume that the cultural exchange amounted to much more than your Puritanical account will allow for here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The culture of the Purtians was to be successful. That was proof that one was save by God. The Puritans followed Calvin doctrine. Yes. The Puritan elite did want to evangilize the Indians, but that ended in failure by King Philip's War. The Purtitans believed that art work was idolitry and any secular culture was outlawed. One could not even celebrate Christmas under Puritan rule. The Puritans viewed Indians as slaves and did not trust Christianized Indians. There was an exchange of food by the Pilgrims at Thanksgiving, but the peace was not long lived. Intermarriages may have been an exchange of culture. Possibly the term "chief" was borrowed from the Indians as in "Commander in Chief". I believe there would need be examples given of cultural exchange. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Salem witch trials were in 1692-93 was a rare in the New World, many more witch trials and torture deaths in contemporary England and Europe of the 1600s-1700s. Wonder if there is a quick comparative line from a reliable source? In Virginia dunking resulted in a few horrific deaths in the Norfolk area.
 * Missionary work was never abandoned entirely, especially in New England, the Indian School at William and Mary was abandoned relatively early as I remember. See the work of Eleazar Wheelock and Samuel Kirkland. Good survey pairs Kirkland and Joseph Brant in Alan Taylor’s 2007 The Divided Ground: Indians, settlers and the northern borderland of the American Revolution a Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winner, -- it has been the source of much of my discussion on this topic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cm' you're stuck on the Puritians in the apparent attempt to justify that relationships between Indians and settlers isn't worth mentioning other than to point out that war="genocide" and disease occurred. Please help us in relating the Indian-settler cultural exchange that occurred between these two civilizations over 100's of years of history. As TVH and myself have pointed out/linked, there is much history to tell there, the likes of which needs summary representation in the section. Thanks for your cooperation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. Gwillhickers, I don't understand. What specific examples are there of this culture exchange between English settlers and Indians? Intermarriages has been mentioned in the article. Beyond that I am not sure what cultural exchanges were. TVH has pointed out the Indian School at William and Mary. Was that a cultural exchange school or a school to deculture the Indians from their "paganism" forcing the Indians adopt European faith, language, and fashion. Where was the cultural exchange? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I like Amerindian adopting an economics beyond the self-reliant to more interconnected, adopting iron pots for cooking, firearms for hunting and clapboard houses for shelter. I like Euroamericans adopting more self-reliant mixed crop plantings, varied meat-centered diets and village self-government. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * TVH. Has the above been documented? There is also the culture of drinking whiskey that was brought to the Indians, in addition to eating sugar that has brought on obesity issues. Indians are more self reliant today because of slot machines, black jack and Texas Hold-Em tables at their respected tribal casinos. However, Indians today may be investing their money into other non gambling industries and possibly are involved in elected politics. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the breadth of your reading: no account of Indians moving from smoking food over an open fire to cooking in pots? Or Virginians curing tobacco and hams in the Indian manner? No documentation of Indians using firearms instead of bows? Or Virginia rangers using trees for cover in ambushes? No documentation of Indian adoption of clapboard houses? At the removal of Cherokees, they were marched from their houses with or without any moveable possessions, and the white squatters simply moved into their farm houses. Non-sequitur alert: there were no slot machines in cultural exchanges of colonial america. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In order to put the above in the article there need to be documented sources or author references. What you referred to TVH is good, but there needs to be sources for these accounts. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cm' the many items TVH has outlined for you are nothing amazing and should not be difficult to include in summary form in the section. Also, there were no horses on the American continent until the Spainish introduced them. 'Whiskey' aside, most of the things "whites" introduced to the continent helped the Indian way of life. Before settlers arrived Indians were still dragging their belongings around on foot using a stick drag-sled and were using stone axes and arrows, etc. Otoh, Indians introduced the settlers (many from England with its rocky terrian, few farms) to the idea of fertilizer (using dead fish) to help crops grow, among other things. Please help us find sources. It shouldn't be difficult. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is one source on Indians teaching pilgrims to use fertilizer:
 * Jason Ripper (2008} American Stories: To 1877 p. 5 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Indians taught Eurpeans how to hunt and fish:
 * Colin G. Calloway (1997) New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America, p.55 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is more on Euroamericans and Amerindians sharing farm techniques:
 * Jayme A Sokolow (2003) The Great Encounter: Native Peoples and European Settlers in the Americas, 1492-1800 p. 157 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

However, the Puritan goal ultimately was to push the Indians off their lands. Hunting would soon be restricted except for killing Indians and wolves. This led to the Pequot War starting in 1634. The peace with the Indians only lasted a decade. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Indians and the Puritans were trying to push each other of 'their' lands. An earthly legacy. From what I've gathered the Puritans, like most Indians, were pretty stirct all the way around, even amongst themselves. In any case we are discussing cultural exchange between Indians and settlers throughout American history, across the country, but for reasons of your own apparently, you keep coming back to and harping about the Puritans. What is your point in terms of what we're trying to accomplish here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course there was a cultural exchange, however, this had to do with the survival of the English colonists. Once learned how to survive from the Indians, the Puritans took over the land. The Pequot War started in 1634. That would mean that the Puritan peace only last for 15 years, starting in 1619. Each race had suspicions of each other. The Puritans enslaved the Indians. That, in my opinion, ended the cultural exchange era. African American slaves were also brought into New England. Maybe this is what is bugging me, Gwillhickers, the Indians help the Puritans survive and then the Puritans turn around and enslave the Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, we're discussing the cultural exchange between settlers and Indians across the continent over 100s of years. This occurred voluntarily and in the midst of war. Thanks for repeating your opinion about the Puritans for the 'tenth' time, as if their actions were all unprovoked. i.e. Indians goooood. "whites" baaaaad. Your view is very narrow imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The good is true, the bad is true. A balanced narrative shows how things work and how things fail over time. The focus of the US article is a narrative which comprehends the process and outcomes aggregating into a reasonable representation of the US as it exists today. There is no end of "the cultural exchange era", trade and exchange continued between cultures, the legacy of good Indian contributions continue to enhance US life today, and some are re-discovered, such as an emphasis on conservation, the soil was a treasure which the plantation and corporate systems extracted to exhaustion, it should be a treasure again, likewise water tables, but I digress into wp:soapbox.
 * Some of the areas of our interest are addressed in subsidiary articles. Euros no longer hold Indians in slavery, Indians no longer hold Indians in slavery. Euros no longer kidnap Indians for wives, Indians no longer kidnap Indians for wives. However interesting, even compelling these facts are and true, they may not be relevant to an encyclopedic style addressing the US as it exists today for the modern, international, general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian policy changed under Ulysses S. Grant's Peace Policy. Grant was the first President who thought that Indians were worth studying and set a good precedent for other Presidents. Indian wars decreased under Grant's policy from the 100's in 1869 to 15 in 1875. However, the Black Hills Gold rush increased the Wars to the 40's in 1876 having started the Great Sioux War. I understand there were cultural exchanges. That does not mean that Indians and Whites always lived in peace. TVH is correct that there was "good and bad" concerning Indian and White acculturation. The Indians kept being pushed Westward and were kept from living a hunting and gathering lifestyle. They were forced to adopt farming methods and stay on their respected reservations, yet, the Indians did manage to remain semi-autonomous. The acculturation process was very slow and frought with many acts of violence. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to the article (2)
Matters like this (among things you fail to mention) are already understood, and you continue to avoid the idea about including summary coverage about the cultural exchange between Indians and settlers that occurred over 100's of years of history. Overall, you have only used this talk page at every opportunity to talk about your view of 'injustices to Indians'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers. I cited three sources of cultural exchange that I believe can be included in the article. Was the cultural exchange sincere on the part of the Puritans or only for survival purposes? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you go to the Puritan page and discuss that. We are speaking of the general history between Indians and settlers over 100s of years of history, which you continue to avoid. You came up with a few sources, thanks, but then went right back into 'Puritan mode', as you're still doing here. Please help us in the effort of giving summary and general coverage of this general topic without dragging the discussion into a particular episode of your choosing. Otherwise we can get into other specifics, like how the Europeans were using wheels, gears, levers and pullies at a time when the Indian hadn't even developed a wagon wheel for themselves. Both civilizations had their good points, bad points and short-comings, etc, but let's keep the discussion general in terms of cultural exchange, shall we? Enough has been said about war and disease at the hand of "whites" (with only cursory mention of wide spread Indian atrocities) -- now it's time (ala the 21st century) to give the readers the entire picture. Ya' think? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I don't have any issue with mentioning culture. In terms of English settlement I would say that Puritan is a general term for people who were not Catholic. As far as I know there was no Catholic English Colony. There were Catholic French and Spanish colonies. I also say Puritan in the sense that there was a Puritan Age that was replaced by the Enlightenment. The Puritan age was part of the Counter Reformation, somewhat of a conservative movement, to stop the advancement of art and philosophy that was viewed by Puritans as being anti-godly or heritical. Giving more context on the Indian and Euroamericans aculturation would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the big three of the thirteen, Massachusetts is Puritan then Congregationalist, Pennsylvania Quaker and Anglican, Virginia Anglican and Presbyterian by 1700. Maryland is Catholic and Anglican, New Jersey Anglican and Presbyterian, South Carolina is Anglican, New York Anglican and Dutch Reform. Then by mid 1700s the First Great Awakening you add Methodists and Baptists north and south the whole extent of the Piedmont and interior. They were integrated white and black, slave and free, men and women elected to leadership, embracing the unchurched and also taking away from the established churches in every region: New England, Middle and Southern colonies.
 * Social historians believe that large numbers of voluntary organizations joining together without official sponsorship, making inter-colonial connections along the entire North American east coast, --- that First Great Awakening --- was a prerequisite to American Independence. People who established their own unauthorized church and elected their own independent leaders, then came to believe they could establish their own government and elect their own rulers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TVH. There was a Catholic English colony then, Maryland. All of the above with the exception of the Catholics were influenced by Calvin doctrine and had seperated from the Catholic Church. I believe for the first 100 years the Puritans dominated New England and in a sense they were the alpha religion in America for first 50 to 70 years. Their influence spread throughout America. I will correct myself. Not all Americans were strictly Purtitan in practice and there was a Catholic English colony. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the "Great Awakening" a purification of the American churches? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wasn't George Whitefield, an Anglican, basically a Puritan preacher who wanted to purify the American Churches? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think you are right...I may have been confusing First and Second Great Awakenings, a little. First Great Awakening says it "had a major impact in reshaping the Congregational church, the Presbyterian church, the Dutch Reformed Church, and the German Reformed denomination, and strengthened the small Baptist and Methodist denominations. It had little impact on Anglicans and Quakers. Unlike the Second Great Awakening, which began about 1800 and which reached out to the unchurched, the First Great Awakening focused on people who were already church members." --- Existing church congregations divided into "New Light" congregations --- it is to those newly invented, -- "purified" as you correctly put it, -- congregations to which I was referring. - Don't let administrator Golbez see this admission on my part, it could chill the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What's with the bit about old world diseases killing native populations post 1500?
Why is that in the introduction? It's not even particularly true for northern native Americans. It occurred much later... while the US was around. I presume it is to belittle the position that the US committed genocide of many native American cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammondtr (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to recommend you read several of the sections above, such as, and .Kude90 (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Key is, westward migrating colonists found abandoned clearings among 200-year old trees which had been villages nearby fish habitat and well drained land which had been farmed by the Amerindians before them. Surviving tribe members only returned to these areas for hunting, so the squatters were tolerated for 'rents' of occasional shelter in an ice storm, or stealing a beef during the occasional bad deer hunting season. -- It is the epidemics taking 20%-50+% of Native American populations which makes Daniel Boone characters possible. They do not make a place "under the dome", they find places away from the major rivers of Amerindian commerce and population centers abandoned on the fringe territory of both cultures: population receding tribes and population expanding colonists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Vikings
Shouldn't the Vikings be mentioned as the first recorded Europeans meeting the Native Americans? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno. We know they had seasonal fishing camps along the shore line in a couple of places for some years, and the Chinese built a lighthouse in Rhode Island. Not sure a summary encyclopedia article can support that level of detail, in that it was kept secret as were the visits from Irish monks. The article should focus on the development of the US as it came to be. The Viking fishing villages were not germane mostly because the information was not shared in the way the English joint-stock companies promoted immigration, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no Chinese lighthouse in Rhode Island and the Vikings never reached what is today the U.S. TFD (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are agreed no Vikings, Chinese, or Irish monks need appear in this article? Anyone with that interest could place a link to Exploration of North America, I suppose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I feel the need to double up on this: the Chinese built a lighthouse in Rhode Island?? So, wait, they sailed east to America, then went all the way around the southern tip and all the way back up, and then built a lighthouse? I enjoy Gavin Menzies' theories as much as the next guy, some may even have merit, but to state one of his theories as plain fact as you just did is beyond the pale. Especially when our own article on the matter states the Rhode Island theory has been debunked. (And, while the Vikings may have been the first Europeans to come to America, they didn't cause any mass migration, unlike Columbus. The Vikings discovered it, but Columbus is the reason the continent was colonized. He's vastly more important to the story of the Americas and to the United States than the Vikings. Furthermore, the Vikings never stepped foot on what is today U.S. soil.) --Golbez (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] yeah, me too. Vikings are beyond the pale. you did indeed double down, clever fellow. Pale. The area enclosed by a fence or boundary. The medieval dominions of the English in Ireland. Whitish in complexion; pallid., clever but unclear. No Irish monks appeared up the Hudson River either. Chinese ships were one-way square sailed, following monsoons out, following monsoons back. We are agreed no Vikings, Chinese, or Irish monks need appear in this article -- unless it's via 'see also' link? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're remotely suggesting the Chinese be included in a 'see also', absolutely not. --Golbez (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] You are again absurdist, making the page a joke. Did you ever restore your animated map taken down for Golbez proprietary reasons? That ship sailed when you published it on Wikipedia. Your response here is just as silly as your excluding US territories which are included in the geographic extent of the US by US law. Get off it. I said, [and Chinese fleets and sailing monks] . You continue to see this page as some sort of private Canadian Flat Earth Society joke, you cannot distinguish serious contribution from fable, like the Insular Cases 100 years ago make sitting Congress incompetent to legislate on US geographic extent today. Are you putting in anything about junks, monks or vikings? I am not putting in anything about junks, monks or vikings for the reason I clearly stated, regardless of your Flat Earth facts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Essays could be written on the progression of single paragraphs written by you. Also, I would ask what the map has to do with this article (ps I responded on commons) but I don't want to encourage you. --Golbez (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] You are again unhinged by unthinking unsourced bullying. I posted no map. You are loosing it, buddy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you a moron or just a bad troll? You said, literally, two paragraphs above, "Did you ever restore your animated map taken down for Golbez proprietary reasons?". I asked what the map has to do with this article. Now you say you didn't talk about a map. What the fuck is your problem? (also, "unsourced bullying"? Do you have the capacity to comprehend the bullshit that pours from your fingers?) --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a descendent of those noble seafarers who arrived in North America a thousand years ago (and I have Vikings disease to prove it) and while it is not agreed by all that they never set foot in what is today the USA, I agree that this is not place for them. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a Swedish settlement up around NJ/NY where Americans learned to get out of the English thatch huts and into log cabins -- better, more durable, less vulnerable to attack or brush fire, warmer against the more severe winters of the 1600s, distinctly unlike the 'balmy' British Isles amid the Gulf Stream with fewer survival requirements. balmy. (of the weather) Pleasantly warm. Extremely foolish; eccentric. But 'Double Dutch' is something else, I think, were we to double down here, so to speak. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Americans?" Carptrash (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] oops. EuroAmericans and farming Amerindians in permanent settlements, such as those found among Seminole, Creek, Cherokee, Algonquin and Iroquois, for instance. . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * TVH seems to be suffering from a bad case of Poe's law. At least, I hope so.  -- Jayron  32  16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The United States was part of the British Empire that included Canada. The Vikings landed I believe in New Foundland that would become part of the British Empire. That is why the Vikings need to be included. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Australia was part of the British Empire too, but we do not mention the arrival of the first people there. TFD (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jamaica was part of the British Empire, how much of their history should we include here? --Golbez (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Australia is not part of the North American Continent TDF. New Foundland is. Here is a map that showed the British Empire extended to New Foundland. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)




 * I thought this was the article on the United States, not on the British Empire or North America or areas that are not part of the United States. Columbus should be mentioned because he's the reason, ultimately, that the British came. The Vikings were not consequential to the United States. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert] As on the Vikings question, Golbez and I are agreed here, unless he flips CFES - Canadian Flat Earth Society - on us again. I said, [explorations of the British Empire]  [to what would become the United States], . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Golbez, the Vikings landed in New Foundland, not Jamaica, that was originally a Spanish colony. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't take personal insults lightly Golbez. Your personal assualts on my character are unwarranted and demand an apology. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * fine, whatever --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Golbez, its one thing to disagree with an editor, but another to attack an editor's intelligence. I never claimed that I know everything. This was implied by the "certain editors" response. I put this in the discussion page to be discussed and in good faith and believed improve the article. I am not a troll trying to cause trouble and I believe we can work together. I apologize for any words or statements that were out of line. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise for me, CMG. Golbez is just a 'fine, whatever' kind of guy and I apologize to you for him, our administrator, salute. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not speak for me, sir. --Golbez (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * fine, whatever. Mr. administrator, there is no apology for you, your actions are unexplainable. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My status as an administrator is 100% irrelevant to this. If it were less irrelevant than that, then I would have sacrificed it for the good of Wikipedia and blocked you myself. I will thank you to not bring it up again. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You create chaos and confusion attacking me for another editor's interest in Vikings, you are overwhelmed by an impulse to bully me attacking me for a map I did not post. Your administrator status is precisely what is relevant, or you would not repeatedly refer to me and my contributions as "fucking" over the course of months, no other editor seems to share your virulence. You are biased, unsourced, POV and bullying. There is no reasonable explanation for your actions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrator Golbez, will you not abandon your proprietary claim on a map I was using, and restore the animated state-secession map to my homepage. I regret you do not agree with my titling a legend. That was your omission. I built on the Wikipedia code you wrote, you now withdraw it as "unnecessary", but I was using it on Wikipedia, and you have no proprietary claim to wiki code on wikipedia on my page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight: I responded on commons about this map issue, that had nothing to do with your legend. I told you here about that response. You have chosen not to rejoin the conversation on commons, about a map that has nothing to do with this article so why did you even bring it up here. How about this for a deal: You don't communicate with me on this page, I don't communicate with you on this page. Period. You can spout your paranoid, repetitious ramblings, and I'll do my actual work to improve Wikipedia, and never the twain shall meet. Everybody happy? --Golbez (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that we agree to no monks, junks or vikings, in the article narrative, the point of contributions on this page in this string. This is another of your sideshows - a blowup over nothing - whenever I point out we agree. You are losing it, bubba, take a wiki-break. --- The commons page is starred for my watchlist, nothing shows as of this time stamp. I will continue to show good faith on my part and now go searching on commons. Thank you for all the good work you do on this Wikipage. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, let me help: shouldn't be that hard. as for "we agree", yes, we agree that there is no place for them in the narrative. However, you suggested they could have a place in a "see also" which I disagreed with. And when I disagreed, you brought up something from another article from another project that has no bearing on this, because you wanted to gain some upper ground with me or something. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

British North America
Why was this removed? There is no set up for the American Revolution. America was more then the thirteen colonies. There were more provinces or colonies then the thirteen colonies. British dominion was from the Floridas to New Foundland. The reader is led to believe falsely that the only North American British colonies were the Thirteen Colonies. This is not true. What else can you call British North America when there is an article called British North America on wikipedia. The term British North America means that the Crown controlled the Provinces or colonies. Certainly this was not Spanish North America or French North America. These were colonies or provinces with laws and religious faith more then rudementary settlements. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, there was no need for a tiny one-paragraph subsection. If needed, it could be included in another section. Yes, there is an article called British North America. Did you miss the part where it said the term only came into use in 1783? You know, after our little revolution? Also, what is with your insistence on Newfoundland being two words? --Golbez (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I concede that the term British North America was used after the Revolutionary War. However, the article stated that the Thirteen colonies was part of "British North America". Maybe the article was a bit confusing. However, I believe more needs to be mentioned that British control extended from the Floridas to Newfoundland. That is where the Vikings made there first European settlements in what would be part of the British empire on the North American Continent. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BNA was not a political entity, merely a geographer's way of referring to British colonies that happened to be in North America. TFD (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with TFD. British North America versus French North America or Spanish North America. Always remembering -- that is shorthand for "British-claimed N. Am.", since the geographer tinted map areas overlapping other European claims, and all Europeans were making claims where Amerindians had never been subdued or negotiated into confederation with European crowns. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the American Revolution (1775) the British had 20 colonies in North America north of the Spanish territories. The article, in my opinion, is misleading the reader to believe that there were only 13 British colonies in North America. The article needs to state that the British Crown had claims on America from the Floridas to Newfoundland including the Thirteen colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to mention that only 13 of the 20 colonies rebelled might warrant a discussion, though I don't see it adding more than a sentence fragment. However, whether or not there were more than 13 colonies has nothing to do with your proposal that we include viking contact because it happened on land that was later part of the British Empire but never part of the US. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Golbez. Maybe we can find agreement. I am for the mention in the article that the Thirteen Colonies was part of the British Empire's 20 colonies in North America prior to the American Revolution as either a sentence fragment or a complete sentence. The Viking colony was not part of the U.S. nor part of the later British empire. There is no direct corrolation with the Vikings and the British, I suppose, other then they had ruled Britain briefly after the Romans vacated Britain. King Knut was a Viking British King I believe. I believe the Vikings need to be mentioned because they were the first Europeans recorded to have to set up colonies in North America. The British followed in succession. The succession of colonization I believe warrants mention of the Vikings in the article. I had started a discussion in the Viking section and I believe further discussion on Viking colonization belongs in that section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not "part of" the "20 colonies", since no such state existed. Why include the island of Newfoundland,  but not the island of Bermuda, the Bahamas and British lands in the Caribbean or elsewhere in the world for that matter?  TFD (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * TFD. The Vikings did not land in Bermuda, the Bahamas, nor the Caribbean. They landed in Newfoundland and were the first recorded Europeans to colonize America. Like it or not, the Vikings beat Columbus almost 400 years and beat the English by over 500 years. OK, how about this. The 20 British colonies in America included the Thirteen colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CMG. or, ''"The 20 British colonies in America included the original thirteen colonies making up the first U.S. by the Declaration of Independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, why do you include the island of Newfoundland as one of the colonies in America but exclude other islands? What does the Viking's landing on one of these islands have to do with anything?  TFD (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, the Vikings were the first Europeans to discover America. This is not mentioned in the article. However, the article mentions that Indians came from Asia to the American continent, but skips the Vikings and Lief Ericson. From reading the article there is confusion as to who discovered America or there is no mention of any Europeans discovering America. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a question whether one can say the Vikings "discovered" America, because other people had arrived before them. None of the territories they visited is part of the modern day U.S.  When we write about Israel, for example, we do not talk about the settlement of Vietnam, just because they are in the same continent.  TFD (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Then take out the part of the Indians settling the American Continent because not all Indians settled in current day U.S. Time is is series of progression that starts in the past, stuck in the present, and hopefully continues in the future. You can't apply U.S. borders prior to 1776. There was no U.S. from 10,000 B.C. to 1775. The current U.S. borders do not apply prior to 1776. That is the whole faulty thinking in terms of applying present borders prior to American Independence. The reader deserves some sort of discovery time frame in the article. England was ruled or controlled by Vikings or Denmark at the time of Lief Ericsons discovery. At the time of Viking American discovery Ethelred II paid tribute to the Danish King Danegeld. King Cnut was King of England from 1016 to 1035. Now if the Vinland colony existed during Cnut's reign, then Vinland was actually the first English colony in America. I am not exactly sure how long the Vinland colony existed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Indian immigration was relevant to the history of the United States. Some Indians settled in what is now the USA, and they're still there today. Similarly, Colombus was very important for the beginning of European exploration of the Americas, which led to the establishment of the colonies that would make up the USA. The Viking exploration and settlement had no impact on the history of the USA. It's not just about borders, it's about relevance. The Viking settlement has none. As far as I know, it's still unknown if they had much impact at all. CMD (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... Here, let me put it in simple terms: The Vikings were inconsequential to the history of the United States. The Indians were very consequential to the history of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Columbus first attempt to get to the New World was through Iceland in 1477, possibly Greenland. Did Columbus know of Leif Ericson's discovery of Vinland and was that why he sailed to Iceland knowing of previous discovery? The Vikings left Vinland in 1013. I suppose Ericson's loyalty would have been to King Danegeld or the Denmark. More accurately, the first colony in America was Danish, rather then English. There had been records of Ericson's discovery prior to Columbus's 1492 journey. King Ethelred did pay tribute to the Viking King Danegeld. I agree Columbus "rediscovery" had more impact then Ericsons. With that stated, the Viking contribution was signifigant and I believe deserves to be noted in the article. Why does Wikipedia have to behold to the Genoese school and downgrade the importance of Lief Ericson's "rediscovery" of America. Remember, the Indians that met the Vikings fought each other. Did the Indians spread the news that there were Viking Americans? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Leif Ericson's father was Eric the Red and he was Norwegian. The Vinland colonists would have been Norvinlanderans or Noramericans. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Significant how? You've given no reasons it was significant and no sources to back up this point. That's because it wasn't significant. Wikipedia's not downgrading Lief Ericson's actions, it's noting them where they're appropriate, which is not this article. For example, History of North America mentions it. CMD (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, Cmguy777: Would you propose including Leif Ericson in Belize? This was also a British colony in North America, and based on your rules as stated above, Leif Ericson should be included. --Golbez (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you are attempting to make a mockery of the Vikings and history. Leif Ericson never landed in Belize. He landed in what is now Newfoundland. I am not in the business of lying, promoting lies, nor enticing people to lie, Golbez. I don't need your permission to make any edits according to Wikipedia policy. This is suppose to be a good faith discussion on the Vikings Discovery of America. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "He never landed in Belize" He never landed in the United States, either! --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: For once we agree Golbez. The Pilgrims did not land in the United States. The Jamestown colonists did not land in the United States. The Native Americans did not migrate to the United States. The Spanish and French did not land in the United States. There was no United States to land in or migrate too. The Vikings were the first Europeans to have been recorded to land on what is now called the North American Continent. They fought the Indians and killed the Indians. That is signifigant. Columbus was second and others were trying to find the "New World" before Columbus. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CMD, during the 1960's there was scientific archeological evidence of the Vinland colony discovered. That is evidence the Vikings reached America before Columbus. Signfigance in the fact that Indian blood was shed for the first time by Europeans when the Vikings arrived. Signifigance that others before Columbus attempted to follow Ericson's "rediscovery". Signifigance that Ericson's discovery was written down and the Columbus could have had knowledge of Ericson's discovery of what is now Newfoundland. Signifigance in terms of global warming that permitted Ericson to find North America. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article does not even mention Columbus' voyages. The vikings landing in Newfoundland and the Arctic islands is irrelevant to this article.  TFD (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Both Columbus and Lief Ericson need to be mentioned in the article even though none of them reached what would be known as the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And why shouldn't they be mentioned on Belize? CMD (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CMD, Columbus founded La Navidad as the first Spanish colony. That is why. Lief Ericson established the Vinland colony almost 500 years later earlier. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Greenland is part of the North American continental plate. One could say the Eric the Red discovered America when he discovered Greenland. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CMG. To repeat, if we can stay on topic without another circus, Vikings are too detailed for this summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian 9:15 am, 4 June 2013, last Tuesday (3 days ago).  That is, we can rely on the scholarship sourced for Vikings at Exploration of North America, without adding to the narrative here, as Golbez, TFD and CMD are sorta caustically trying to communicate. "It's all in there." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TVH. What foundation then is there for the European explorations. There is no beginning period. There is no mention of the beginings of the slave trade, or who and when were the first European explorers to reach the North American continent. The article is misleading to the reader in that all of a sudden Europeans showed up without any rhymne or reason and that there was no slavery instituted in 1493 by Christopher Columbus. The Vikings rediscovered the North American continent. They fought and killed Indians changing the dynamics of the Indian peoples culture. Columbus rediscovered North and South America in addition to the Carribean. In my opinion these are signifigant events in the discovery and colonization of America. The article fails to address where slavery came from. Mentioning Columbus and the Vikings, including Leaf Ericson would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your points are significant, in addition to the North American survey of exploration including Vikings, there is more specifically, Norse colonization of the Americas. There are several related venues, active articles and inactive stubs. But the focus of this article is the United States. So the narrative has to be narrowed, curbed and cribbed in a summary, encyclopedic way to restrict the narrative to an overall view of the US now and how it came to be.--- btw, I have had an interest in Scandinavia since reading Ibsen plays, "An enemy of the people" (here linked to Penn State's electronic edition), should be read by everyone who files to run for US state, territory, municipal or county legislature. I do not want you to think this thread should turn into Vikings-as-punching-bag joke.


 * The interest in slavery can be accounted for by an item in an expanded see-also section, including Slavery in the United States. Somewhere I have read multi-linking of articles is actually a WP policy goal. But as to expanding coverage of slavery in this article, --- At first, mention of slavery faces a wp:significance issue. Slaves in the 1/3 region, the South, will not be half the agricultural workers there for the first one-hundred years, only after 1700. They will become important as the white indentures are phased out. Promising land to the 50% survivors at their 7th year caused Bacon's Rebellion, and the problem was never really solved, George III's Proclamation Line of 1763 was meant to halt westward settlement at the Appalachian Mountains to foster peace and Amerindian trade for crown profit. Family farms on free soil supported substantially larger populations of free families in the country, than slave plantations could support slave families -- by the numbers, slavery is less significant than the free family farm, with the sole exception of cotton 1820-1860. Again, by time constraints of slavery's greatest importance, --- 40 years out of 400 --- cannot command much ink, in the balance overall of what the US will become. It's tragic legacy continues today, which is why the contemporary and civil rights era does try to address some of that sadness.
 * The article also cannot touch on my interest in workers' history, the revolutionary tradition, or vigilantes in American history per se. Golbez and Gwhillickers have each noted the need to re-consider the entire article. Let's see where they want to work. Don't go anywhere, there is lots to do here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edits
I beleive we are getting of track and I appreciate everyones comments. In the best interest of this discussion I am proposing the following two edits in summary. These edits will set a foundation for the slavery section in the United States and for further European discovery and colonization. They are straight forward and could be done with two to three sentences. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the Vikings rediscovery of North America (c. 1000) and mentioning Christopher Columbus who rediscovered North and South America and the Carribeans (c. 1492-1500). Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that European slave trade of indigenous peoples began in 1493 and that African slaves were imported in 1502. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a brief article about the U.S. with a short section on its history. It does not need information that is at best tangential.  Slavery btw (I assume you mean that not the slave trade) developed independently in the English colonies, and for the most part included Africans, not aboriginal inhabitants.  TFD (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Vikings strongly. There's no relevance, and as noted every argument presented would apply to every other former British colony in the Americas. Oppose the others as well, although they're more relevant. Columbus was important, but I don't see the need to specifically mention him instead of simply noting the start of European exploration (a section which could definitely use rewriting). As for slavery, it wasn't exactly unusual at the time. TVH makes interesting points about periods when it was important for the United States. The history section as a whole is extremely long already, we should be looking at making it concise rather than adding more. CMD (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Favor The edits only state when slavery in the New World began, not that Spanish and English slavery were dependent on each other. However, both the Spanish, French, English, and Americans participated in the African slave trade. The Puritans enslaved Native Americans by the thousands and sanctioned slavery during the 1640s. Whether slavery was "unusual" of not is irrelevant to the proposed edits. Remember, there was no United States prior to 1776. Neither the Vikings, Puritans, English, French, and Spanish arrived in the United States because there was no United States to arrive in from circa 1000 AD to 1775 AD. The sentences would add conciseness to the article because there would be a foundation for slavery, exploration, and discovery. There seems to be a bit of a favor from CMD on mentioning Columbus. CMD also mentioned the section needs a rewrite. I agree on the rewrite. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Slavery in the New World likely began with people arriving in the New World. It definitely existed before either of the two dates you propose. CMD (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For that matter, from what I know, slavery existed in America before the Europeans ever got here. The Aztecs were one prominent example. Kude90 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kude90. Various Indian tribes were notorious for enslaving other tribes, esp the Sioux and the Navaho. Thanks to 20th century activism and the many racist hypocrites who fostered it, slavery automatically implies "whites" to many people who don't know history, except maybe for that 'one chapter'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources on the first Amerindian tribe(s) who practiced slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For your reading pleasure, Slavery among Native Americans in the United States and Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas. No more off topic, I swear.

We are getting off subject with Amerindian slavery. Is there any compromise to the above edits or are there any solutions? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This topic isn't the only one getting derailed. This is an article about the history of the United States, not the history of the Americas. While some pre-US history is not just wanted, but necessary to the history of the United States, we can't have every little thing like Eric discovering the US in this article. Maybe a link to his page in the "See Also" section?Kude90 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Lief Ericson's sailing to Newfoundland on a ship almost 500 years behind in technology in c. 1000AD is not a "little thing". There is apparently way to much opposition for any edits to get through this Iron Wall of resistance. Is Christopher Columbus off the table as far as being in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this has everything to do with the direction this article is taking. This is an article about the history of the United States. One viking discovering Greenland, while important, is NOT important to the making of the United States. Columbus was. He caused the colonization of the "New World." Erikson did not. Hence, he is not important to this article.Kude90 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If Columbus got word that Ericson made the trip to Newfoundland, then that may have influenced Columbus to sail across the ocean. There is a good chance he did since he attemped to reach the New World through Iceland, most likely Greenland in 1477. Columbus also got the New World slave system started in 1493, having enslaved 1500 indigenous native peoples. I am for Columbus being mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Columbus was trying to reach the far east - not the new world. And the English colonists developed slavery independently of the Spanish.  TFD (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for reasons stated above. 'Slavery' is already mentioned several times, in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Slavery is out. Leif Ericson is out. Does Christopher Columbus get in the article? Columbus would at least give minimal foundation why other nations, including France, Spain, and England came to the New World. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * England and Portugal came to the new world because they were trying to reach the far east. TFD (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeeeah, 'but' -- Columbus needs to be mentioned with a least a sentence, even though he did land in the Caribbean. Ya' think? Currently Columbus is only mentioned in relation to the 'District of Columbia'. Frankly, I'm surprised that Columbus is not mentioned hardly at all in the U.S. article. I have just added this to existing text in the Settlements section


 * Following Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 others were soon to follow. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Spain set up settlements in California, Florida, and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. (new text in bold)
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. At least Columbus got in the Settlements section of the article. Columbus, if you go by the playtechtonics maps, rediscovered North America, the Caribbean, and South America. The Bahamas are on the extreme southern edge of the North American continent plate. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography work
Have been replacing web page sources, which are generally unstable and are subject to change or disappearing altogether, with published RS's, using the 'Cite book' template. Have already replaced several lengthy 'Cite web' sources, lumped in with the text, that were used to source basic info about the Constitution, Amendments, etc. There are numerous published RS's for the Constitution, so I don't quite understand why this wasn't done initially. Am also keeping any Url's separate from the 'Cite book' templates ( |url= ) which when employed turn the title of the book into a link. However, since url's inevitably change, rendering the title of the book into a dead link, I have listed these separately and last using 'Book' as the handle for the url. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

British North America
Why was this removed? There is no set up for the American Revolution. America was more then the thirteen colonies. There were more provinces or colonies then the thirteen colonies. British dominion was from the Floridas to New Foundland. The reader is led to believe falsely that the only North American British colonies were the Thirteen Colonies. This is not true. What else can you call British North America when there is an article called British North America on wikipedia. The term British North America means that the Crown controlled the Provinces or colonies. Certainly this was not Spanish North America or French North America. These were colonies or provinces with laws and religious faith more then rudementary settlements. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, there was no need for a tiny one-paragraph subsection. If needed, it could be included in another section. Yes, there is an article called British North America. Did you miss the part where it said the term only came into use in 1783? You know, after our little revolution? Also, what is with your insistence on Newfoundland being two words? --Golbez (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I concede that the term British North America was used after the Revolutionary War. However, the article stated that the Thirteen colonies was part of "British North America". Maybe the article was a bit confusing. However, I believe more needs to be mentioned that British control extended from the Floridas to Newfoundland. That is where the Vikings made there first European settlements in what would be part of the British empire on the North American Continent. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BNA was not a political entity, merely a geographer's way of referring to British colonies that happened to be in North America. TFD (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with TFD. British North America versus French North America or Spanish North America. Always remembering -- that is shorthand for "British-claimed N. Am.", since the geographer tinted map areas overlapping other European claims, and all Europeans were making claims where Amerindians had never been subdued or negotiated into confederation with European crowns. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the American Revolution (1775) the British had 20 colonies in North America north of the Spanish territories. The article, in my opinion, is misleading the reader to believe that there were only 13 British colonies in North America. The article needs to state that the British Crown had claims on America from the Floridas to Newfoundland including the Thirteen colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to mention that only 13 of the 20 colonies rebelled might warrant a discussion, though I don't see it adding more than a sentence fragment. However, whether or not there were more than 13 colonies has nothing to do with your proposal that we include viking contact because it happened on land that was later part of the British Empire but never part of the US. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Golbez. Maybe we can find agreement. I am for the mention in the article that the Thirteen Colonies was part of the British Empire's 20 colonies in North America prior to the American Revolution as either a sentence fragment or a complete sentence. The Viking colony was not part of the U.S. nor part of the later British empire. There is no direct corrolation with the Vikings and the British, I suppose, other then they had ruled Britain briefly after the Romans vacated Britain. King Knut was a Viking British King I believe. I believe the Vikings need to be mentioned because they were the first Europeans recorded to have to set up colonies in North America. The British followed in succession. The succession of colonization I believe warrants mention of the Vikings in the article. I had started a discussion in the Viking section and I believe further discussion on Viking colonization belongs in that section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not "part of" the "20 colonies", since no such state existed. Why include the island of Newfoundland,  but not the island of Bermuda, the Bahamas and British lands in the Caribbean or elsewhere in the world for that matter?  TFD (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * TFD. The Vikings did not land in Bermuda, the Bahamas, nor the Caribbean. They landed in Newfoundland and were the first recorded Europeans to colonize America. Like it or not, the Vikings beat Columbus almost 400 years and beat the English by over 500 years. OK, how about this. The 20 British colonies in America included the Thirteen colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CMG. or, ''"The 20 British colonies in America included the original thirteen colonies making up the first U.S. by the Declaration of Independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, why do you include the island of Newfoundland as one of the colonies in America but exclude other islands? What does the Viking's landing on one of these islands have to do with anything?  TFD (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, the Vikings were the first Europeans to discover America. This is not mentioned in the article. However, the article mentions that Indians came from Asia to the American continent, but skips the Vikings and Lief Ericson. From reading the article there is confusion as to who discovered America or there is no mention of any Europeans discovering America. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a question whether one can say the Vikings "discovered" America, because other people had arrived before them. None of the territories they visited is part of the modern day U.S.  When we write about Israel, for example, we do not talk about the settlement of Vietnam, just because they are in the same continent.  TFD (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Then take out the part of the Indians settling the American Continent because not all Indians settled in current day U.S. Time is is series of progression that starts in the past, stuck in the present, and hopefully continues in the future. You can't apply U.S. borders prior to 1776. There was no U.S. from 10,000 B.C. to 1775. The current U.S. borders do not apply prior to 1776. That is the whole faulty thinking in terms of applying present borders prior to American Independence. The reader deserves some sort of discovery time frame in the article. England was ruled or controlled by Vikings or Denmark at the time of Lief Ericsons discovery. At the time of Viking American discovery Ethelred II paid tribute to the Danish King Danegeld. King Cnut was King of England from 1016 to 1035. Now if the Vinland colony existed during Cnut's reign, then Vinland was actually the first English colony in America. I am not exactly sure how long the Vinland colony existed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Indian immigration was relevant to the history of the United States. Some Indians settled in what is now the USA, and they're still there today. Similarly, Colombus was very important for the beginning of European exploration of the Americas, which led to the establishment of the colonies that would make up the USA. The Viking exploration and settlement had no impact on the history of the USA. It's not just about borders, it's about relevance. The Viking settlement has none. As far as I know, it's still unknown if they had much impact at all. CMD (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... Here, let me put it in simple terms: The Vikings were inconsequential to the history of the United States. The Indians were very consequential to the history of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Columbus first attempt to get to the New World was through Iceland in 1477, possibly Greenland. Did Columbus know of Leif Ericson's discovery of Vinland and was that why he sailed to Iceland knowing of previous discovery? The Vikings left Vinland in 1013. I suppose Ericson's loyalty would have been to King Danegeld or the Denmark. More accurately, the first colony in America was Danish, rather then English. There had been records of Ericson's discovery prior to Columbus's 1492 journey. King Ethelred did pay tribute to the Viking King Danegeld. I agree Columbus "rediscovery" had more impact then Ericsons. With that stated, the Viking contribution was signifigant and I believe deserves to be noted in the article. Why does Wikipedia have to behold to the Genoese school and downgrade the importance of Lief Ericson's "rediscovery" of America. Remember, the Indians that met the Vikings fought each other. Did the Indians spread the news that there were Viking Americans? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Leif Ericson's father was Eric the Red and he was Norwegian. The Vinland colonists would have been Norvinlanderans or Noramericans. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Significant how? You've given no reasons it was significant and no sources to back up this point. That's because it wasn't significant. Wikipedia's not downgrading Lief Ericson's actions, it's noting them where they're appropriate, which is not this article. For example, History of North America mentions it. CMD (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, Cmguy777: Would you propose including Leif Ericson in Belize? This was also a British colony in North America, and based on your rules as stated above, Leif Ericson should be included. --Golbez (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you are attempting to make a mockery of the Vikings and history. Leif Ericson never landed in Belize. He landed in what is now Newfoundland. I am not in the business of lying, promoting lies, nor enticing people to lie, Golbez. I don't need your permission to make any edits according to Wikipedia policy. This is suppose to be a good faith discussion on the Vikings Discovery of America. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "He never landed in Belize" He never landed in the United States, either! --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: For once we agree Golbez. The Pilgrims did not land in the United States. The Jamestown colonists did not land in the United States. The Native Americans did not migrate to the United States. The Spanish and French did not land in the United States. There was no United States to land in or migrate too. The Vikings were the first Europeans to have been recorded to land on what is now called the North American Continent. They fought the Indians and killed the Indians. That is signifigant. Columbus was second and others were trying to find the "New World" before Columbus. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CMD, during the 1960's there was scientific archeological evidence of the Vinland colony discovered. That is evidence the Vikings reached America before Columbus. Signfigance in the fact that Indian blood was shed for the first time by Europeans when the Vikings arrived. Signifigance that others before Columbus attempted to follow Ericson's "rediscovery". Signifigance that Ericson's discovery was written down and the Columbus could have had knowledge of Ericson's discovery of what is now Newfoundland. Signifigance in terms of global warming that permitted Ericson to find North America. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article does not even mention Columbus' voyages. The vikings landing in Newfoundland and the Arctic islands is irrelevant to this article.  TFD (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Both Columbus and Lief Ericson need to be mentioned in the article even though none of them reached what would be known as the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And why shouldn't they be mentioned on Belize? CMD (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CMD, Columbus founded La Navidad as the first Spanish colony. That is why. Lief Ericson established the Vinland colony almost 500 years later earlier. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Greenland is part of the North American continental plate. One could say the Eric the Red discovered America when he discovered Greenland. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CMG. To repeat, if we can stay on topic without another circus, Vikings are too detailed for this summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian 9:15 am, 4 June 2013, last Tuesday (3 days ago).  That is, we can rely on the scholarship sourced for Vikings at Exploration of North America, without adding to the narrative here, as Golbez, TFD and CMD are sorta caustically trying to communicate. "It's all in there." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TVH. What foundation then is there for the European explorations. There is no beginning period. There is no mention of the beginings of the slave trade, or who and when were the first European explorers to reach the North American continent. The article is misleading to the reader in that all of a sudden Europeans showed up without any rhymne or reason and that there was no slavery instituted in 1493 by Christopher Columbus. The Vikings rediscovered the North American continent. They fought and killed Indians changing the dynamics of the Indian peoples culture. Columbus rediscovered North and South America in addition to the Carribean. In my opinion these are signifigant events in the discovery and colonization of America. The article fails to address where slavery came from. Mentioning Columbus and the Vikings, including Leaf Ericson would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your points are significant, in addition to the North American survey of exploration including Vikings, there is more specifically, Norse colonization of the Americas. There are several related venues, active articles and inactive stubs. But the focus of this article is the United States. So the narrative has to be narrowed, curbed and cribbed in a summary, encyclopedic way to restrict the narrative to an overall view of the US now and how it came to be.--- btw, I have had an interest in Scandinavia since reading Ibsen plays, "An enemy of the people" (here linked to Penn State's electronic edition), should be read by everyone who files to run for US state, territory, municipal or county legislature. I do not want you to think this thread should turn into Vikings-as-punching-bag joke.


 * The interest in slavery can be accounted for by an item in an expanded see-also section, including Slavery in the United States. Somewhere I have read multi-linking of articles is actually a WP policy goal. But as to expanding coverage of slavery in this article, --- At first, mention of slavery faces a wp:significance issue. Slaves in the 1/3 region, the South, will not be half the agricultural workers there for the first one-hundred years, only after 1700. They will become important as the white indentures are phased out. Promising land to the 50% survivors at their 7th year caused Bacon's Rebellion, and the problem was never really solved, George III's Proclamation Line of 1763 was meant to halt westward settlement at the Appalachian Mountains to foster peace and Amerindian trade for crown profit. Family farms on free soil supported substantially larger populations of free families in the country, than slave plantations could support slave families -- by the numbers, slavery is less significant than the free family farm, with the sole exception of cotton 1820-1860. Again, by time constraints of slavery's greatest importance, --- 40 years out of 400 --- cannot command much ink, in the balance overall of what the US will become. It's tragic legacy continues today, which is why the contemporary and civil rights era does try to address some of that sadness.
 * The article also cannot touch on my interest in workers' history, the revolutionary tradition, or vigilantes in American history per se. Golbez and Gwhillickers have each noted the need to re-consider the entire article. Let's see where they want to work. Don't go anywhere, there is lots to do here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edits
I beleive we are getting of track and I appreciate everyones comments. In the best interest of this discussion I am proposing the following two edits in summary. These edits will set a foundation for the slavery section in the United States and for further European discovery and colonization. They are straight forward and could be done with two to three sentences. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the Vikings rediscovery of North America (c. 1000) and mentioning Christopher Columbus who rediscovered North and South America and the Carribeans (c. 1492-1500). Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that European slave trade of indigenous peoples began in 1493 and that African slaves were imported in 1502. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a brief article about the U.S. with a short section on its history. It does not need information that is at best tangential.  Slavery btw (I assume you mean that not the slave trade) developed independently in the English colonies, and for the most part included Africans, not aboriginal inhabitants.  TFD (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Vikings strongly. There's no relevance, and as noted every argument presented would apply to every other former British colony in the Americas. Oppose the others as well, although they're more relevant. Columbus was important, but I don't see the need to specifically mention him instead of simply noting the start of European exploration (a section which could definitely use rewriting). As for slavery, it wasn't exactly unusual at the time. TVH makes interesting points about periods when it was important for the United States. The history section as a whole is extremely long already, we should be looking at making it concise rather than adding more. CMD (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Favor The edits only state when slavery in the New World began, not that Spanish and English slavery were dependent on each other. However, both the Spanish, French, English, and Americans participated in the African slave trade. The Puritans enslaved Native Americans by the thousands and sanctioned slavery during the 1640s. Whether slavery was "unusual" of not is irrelevant to the proposed edits. Remember, there was no United States prior to 1776. Neither the Vikings, Puritans, English, French, and Spanish arrived in the United States because there was no United States to arrive in from circa 1000 AD to 1775 AD. The sentences would add conciseness to the article because there would be a foundation for slavery, exploration, and discovery. There seems to be a bit of a favor from CMD on mentioning Columbus. CMD also mentioned the section needs a rewrite. I agree on the rewrite. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Slavery in the New World likely began with people arriving in the New World. It definitely existed before either of the two dates you propose. CMD (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For that matter, from what I know, slavery existed in America before the Europeans ever got here. The Aztecs were one prominent example. Kude90 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kude90. Various Indian tribes were notorious for enslaving other tribes, esp the Sioux and the Navaho. Thanks to 20th century activism and the many racist hypocrites who fostered it, slavery automatically implies "whites" to many people who don't know history, except maybe for that 'one chapter'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources on the first Amerindian tribe(s) who practiced slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For your reading pleasure, Slavery among Native Americans in the United States and Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas. No more off topic, I swear.

We are getting off subject with Amerindian slavery. Is there any compromise to the above edits or are there any solutions? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This topic isn't the only one getting derailed. This is an article about the history of the United States, not the history of the Americas. While some pre-US history is not just wanted, but necessary to the history of the United States, we can't have every little thing like Eric discovering the US in this article. Maybe a link to his page in the "See Also" section?Kude90 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Lief Ericson's sailing to Newfoundland on a ship almost 500 years behind in technology in c. 1000AD is not a "little thing". There is apparently way to much opposition for any edits to get through this Iron Wall of resistance. Is Christopher Columbus off the table as far as being in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this has everything to do with the direction this article is taking. This is an article about the history of the United States. One viking discovering Greenland, while important, is NOT important to the making of the United States. Columbus was. He caused the colonization of the "New World." Erikson did not. Hence, he is not important to this article.Kude90 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If Columbus got word that Ericson made the trip to Newfoundland, then that may have influenced Columbus to sail across the ocean. There is a good chance he did since he attemped to reach the New World through Iceland, most likely Greenland in 1477. Columbus also got the New World slave system started in 1493, having enslaved 1500 indigenous native peoples. I am for Columbus being mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Columbus was trying to reach the far east - not the new world. And the English colonists developed slavery independently of the Spanish.  TFD (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for reasons stated above. 'Slavery' is already mentioned several times, in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Slavery is out. Leif Ericson is out. Does Christopher Columbus get in the article? Columbus would at least give minimal foundation why other nations, including France, Spain, and England came to the New World. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * England and Portugal came to the new world because they were trying to reach the far east. TFD (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeeeah, 'but' -- Columbus needs to be mentioned with a least a sentence, even though he did land in the Caribbean. Ya' think? Currently Columbus is only mentioned in relation to the 'District of Columbia'. Frankly, I'm surprised that Columbus is not mentioned hardly at all in the U.S. article. I have just added this to existing text in the Settlements section


 * Following Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 others were soon to follow. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Spain set up settlements in California, Florida, and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. (new text in bold)
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. At least Columbus got in the Settlements section of the article. Columbus, if you go by the playtechtonics maps, rediscovered North America, the Caribbean, and South America. The Bahamas are on the extreme southern edge of the North American continent plate. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography work
Have been replacing web page sources, which are generally unstable and are subject to change or disappearing altogether, with published RS's, using the 'Cite book' template. Have already replaced several lengthy 'Cite web' sources, lumped in with the text, that were used to source basic info about the Constitution, Amendments, etc. There are numerous published RS's for the Constitution, so I don't quite understand why this wasn't done initially. Am also keeping any Url's separate from the 'Cite book' templates ( |url= ) which when employed turn the title of the book into a link. However, since url's inevitably change, rendering the title of the book into a dead link, I have listed these separately and last using 'Book' as the handle for the url. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery
There needs to be some mention of when slavery began in the article, Indians included. I would state the Pequot War, of the first war between the Indians and the Puritans. In my opinion, leaving out slavery is a disservice to the article and misleading to the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a paragraph of information and references on the slavery of Amerindians by the colonists. Next what is needed is to establish the enslavement of African Americans by the colonists. Slavery needs to be discussed in order to give a foundation as to what preceded before the American Civil War that ended slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a sentence on the Golden Triangle and the enslavement of Africans. This adds a beginnings of slavery by Europeans and establishes the main focus of the Civil War and Reconstruction. I believe my edits have been very limited and void of commentary. My only intention was to establish slavery in the colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added some context along with a source (Gold, 2006) and citation to back it up. I condensed the four refs you used for the Pequot slaves, etc. Also, if it's within your ability, could you put new sources in the bibliography and use ref tags in the text that link to them? -- Btw, regarding the 'Golden Triangle', do you know why the triangle was referred to as the "Golden triangle"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little unclear on where the Native American slavery in mentioned.Kude90 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually we need more clarity, and perhaps other sources to establish a couple of issues. First off, Indians were for the most part not used as slaves as they were very difficult to manage as such, which is why African slavery became the norm. Secondly, slavery is mentioned in relation to 'the colonies' implying that all colonies used them and that all colonists owned slaves. This is not even close to true so we need to be clear on that also. Remember, owning a slave required that you were able to afford and purchase one, or more, and that you were also able to provide food, shelter, clothing etc. Since most colonists had all they could do to feed, cloth and shelter themselves this needs to be made clear also. As usual, slavery in the U.S.is most often related in out of context form and in overly generalized terms. Apparently 20th century habits are hard to break, even at this late date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you misunderstood. I meant slavery as it was used by natives, not slavery of natives. The way it was taught to me was that a big reason Natives weren't used as slaves was because of their lack of immunity to European diseases, so they died easily. When I read it, I understood it as "Europeans brought slavery to the 'New World.'" Which, is incorrect.Kude90 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why there is the term "Golden Triangle" other then that was what the Rausch source stated. The Indian slavery has been moved to the "Settlement" section. The article does not state that all Indians were enslaved. I am not so sure that Indians were "out of the norm" in terms of slavery. The primary purpose was to establish slavery in context concerning the Civil War and Reconstruction. If there is a source that states not all Indians were enslaved, that is fine, and could be put in the article. I have no issue with that, however, remember, Indians were not citizens until 1924 and had no constitutional protections. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Indian slavery" had nothing to do with the Civil War. In fact tribes tended to support the South over the North. If the new text is to remain then it will have to include the fact that slavery had existed among Amerindians long before European colonists arrived, as others have pointed out.  VictorD7 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The word slave or slavery occurs ten times in the Settlements section, seven times in the Independence and expansion section, eight times in the Slavery, civil war and industrialization section.
 * Regarding the name of this last section, how is it that 'slavery' takes a front seat to both the Civil War and Industrialization? Under that section name there is a 'See also' for Slavery in the United States rather than a link to it in the text. Why is there not a 'See also' for the Civil War or 'Industrilization' here? In total, slave or slavery occures 37 times throughout the entire article and almost always in relation to "whites".
 * Btw, the article also says that "African American males are jailed at about six times the rate of white males and three times the rate of Hispanic males" but fails to point out that black males, who are in the minority, account for most of the violent crimes, in total, or per capita, and also fails to mention that some 90% of murders and assaults committed by African Americans are done to other AA's. The page here reeks of typical, out of context, late 20th century distortionism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * These statistics are true. However, there are only two options: That blacks are more inherently criminal, or they aren't, and the higher crime and incarceration rate can be attributed to something in the system we have in this country. One of these options is explicitly racist. The other is relevant in the context of race relations and the extremely long-term impact of slavery and prejudice, and thus is not "distortionism". --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Insert : Edit conflict) Distortionism was in reference to the out of context stub like statements that are typically used to discuss slavery, etc. And no, Africans as a race are not more prone to crime, but as a cultural entity in the U.S. this seems to be the case. How else do we explain the stat's? There were and are plenty of other minority groups, all were/are subject to discrimination at one time or another, who don't experience such very high crime rates in their communities. Certainly gangs and drugs plays a major role. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the other groups suffered for as long and as systemically as blacks did, and you know it. And still do, what with the higher incarceration rate for equal crimes, which you certainly can't blame on the criminals, but can only be placed upon the system. There are many other examples too. Blacks and whites are not treated equally by our system (be it the system of government or the economy or even society). --Golbez (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hogwash. False dichotomy. Blacks don't have to be "inherently criminal" (assuming you're speaking biology) for the demographic to be more crime prone now for subcultural/sociological reasons that have nothing to do with worn out excuses like "slavery and prejudice" (like the relatively recent disintegration of the family, a far more relevant factor). Regardless of reason, the distortion is in implying that the jailed rate is grossly unwarranted by omitting the disproportional crime rate. VictorD7 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So if it's not caused by biology, and it's not caused by "worn out excuses", then what causes it? And what caused that "disintegration of the family", if not biology and the system? --Golbez (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does any culture or subculture develop the way it does? We could have a long discussion about the unintended consequences of the welfare state, the impact of the modern civil rights industry, and diminishing personal responsibility, citing people from Thomas Sowell to Daniel Moynihan and others, but we don't have to answer such a question to point out that the current text distorts jailing practices by omitting the highly relevant crime info. Ultimately people are responsible for their own actions. However, I will point out that in going from around 20% of black babies born out of wedlock in 1960 (when there really was still anti-black discrimination) to over 70% born out of wedlock today, a phenomenon clearly not caused by "slavery", it'd be shocking if there weren't devastating sociological consequences. VictorD7 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs." So even Walt says it's the system's fault, rather than their race or culture. (Of course, Williams also blames child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and, well, other blacks, going out of his way to point out how poorly black kids perform in school, and how poorly black-majority cities are run. So it's not all systemic to him. Not that that makes him a worthy source for anything. I say this as a former libertarian who once read, enjoyed, and agreed with Sowell and Williams. Glad I'm over that.) --Golbez (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He said the absence of those "welfare and Great Society programs" was a good thing, and partly explains why the black family was stronger back then. Blaming entrenched welfare dependency and minimum wage laws is another critique of the system (the "black mayors" reference was more to illustrate the absurdity of blaming modern black sociological problems on slavery and anti-black prejudice), but I was correcting your false dichotomy that asserted high black rime rates were either due to blacks being "more inherently criminal" or the "long-term impact of slavery and prejudice". BTW, Thomas Sowell used to be a Marxist. I'm really glad he got over that. VictorD7 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but I did preface my statement by saying it was racial or the system. It was only later in that graph that I equated 'legacy of slavery and prejudice' with 'system', so correct, it's more than just that, but either way, it's still systemic vs racial. So it seems unfair to point out that blacks have higher crime rates if it's systemic rather than purely their fault. As for Sowell, well, reading his and Williams' stuff with fresh eyes makes me wonder how I ever read so much text (written by blacks, even!) dedicated to defending the notion that blacks are inferior. Enough on this (yes, that is me stealing the last word) as I've now veered us thoroughly off topic. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not letting you falsely accuse people of "defending the notion that blacks are inferior" and suddenly declare the discussion closed. They did no such thing. And even the "system" vs "racial" thing is a false dichotomy, as you're totally ignoring the role of free will in shaping culture, not to mention individual acts.  Regardless, I'm not sure what you mean by it's "unfair to point out that blacks have higher crime rates if it's systemic rather than purely their fault."  Why is it "fair" to point out a racially broken down arrest rate, or anything else in the article for that matter? Doesn't everything have a cause?  Or does it? It's not clear what your perception of "fair" has to do with presenting pertinent facts in a non-misleading way. VictorD7 (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If Drs. Sowell and Williams want to defend themselves, they can do it themselves, I've [directly] insulted no editor present. And you're right, I did rob people of a bit of agency, it's not entirely the system, but it is in large part a reaction to said system. And you can point out the racially broken down arrest rate, as long as you also point out that the incarceration rate is even more outrageous. Put it on both the people and the system, is what I'm saying. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the liberal Moynihan, whom your baseless insult also presumably covered. "the incarceration rate is even more outrageous". I'm not sure why that would be more outrageous than the actual crime rate. Regarding that and your claims on this higher, I don't know precisely what study you're talking about, but I've seen enough garbage ones over the years to ask several questions off the top of my head, including: Did they control for socio-economic status? Maybe the white perps could afford better lawyers, and race per se had nothing to do with it. BTW, poor blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than poor members of other races. Did they take location into account?  Differing practice in different places could misleadingly skew a racial breakdown. Did they consider that some criminals may leave more convictable evidence behind, or did they not look too deeply into such facts? Did blacks and whites tend to conduct themselves differently in court and/or plea bargain negotiations? Did they lump differing offenses together as "equivalent"? Beware agenda driven studies, especially when many potential variables are in play. But we digress. We can disagree on larger causes, but, regardless, it's misleading to imply that blacks are being rounded up and arrested simply for being black, and that's what's causing the cited disparity.  By focusing on "jailed" rather than crimes, the current text potentially leaves that false impression. VictorD7 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Don't forget the liberal Moynihan, whom your baseless insult also presumably covered." Hardly, as I didn't read any of his writings yesterday, only Williams and Sowell. --Golbez (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He and millions of others have expressed similar views, which have nothing to do with claiming "blacks are inferior". The latter implies biology, and would be utterly rejected by the scholars mentioned. They're talking culture/sociology, recent developments at that, and even within that sphere this discussion is revolving around only certain aspects deemed negative. Identifying societal or cultural problems isn't even tantamount to dismissing that whole shebang as "inferior", as the people mentioned have also said plenty of positive things about blacks and black accomplishments over the years, though they tend to approach the world from a fundamentally colorblind perspective, meaning they see race as a social construct or cosmetic physical difference of limited ultimate significance and don't believe blacks or any other similarly defined group are inherently inferior. VictorD7 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When you show me an article written by Moynihan obsessing over how poorly black-majority cities are run, how poorly black kids all do in school, all in an attempt to show that it's not the white man's fault! They're just like this! then I'll agree. (Personally I don't think it's all the white man's fault, but that's the premise they - especially Williams - seem to be running with, so I'll respond in kind) They are really, REALLY interested in pointing out how bad blacks are, for some reason. It appears to be Williams' number one concern. Otherwise, I can only speak on what I read, which was Sowell's and Williams' writings. Not very good writings, at that; funny how we let ideology trump quality sometimes, forgiving poorly written screeds because we agree with them. So, maybe you could move on from trying to defend the honor of people that aren't present? --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So not only did you not understand what you read, but you missed Williams citing John Kerry saying something "idiotic" (isn't he a white guy?), Sowell focusing on "liberals" (most of whom are white), and Sowell discussing strong performing black schools (the opposite of your "They're just like this!" claim) and crediting blacks themselves, not liberal policies, for their past achievements. The pieces were about policy. That you took nuanced, cogently argued, fact based columns presented in mild, reasonable tones and boiled them down to "white man" versus "black man" in your response is tragic, and illustrates how hopelessly poisoned discourse has become thanks to those who obsessively seek to pit races against each other. This isn't just about combating character assassination, it's about thwarting the spread of misinformation. VictorD7 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * is poorly written. It has a poor premise, a deliberate misunderstanding of the minimum wage, a random defense of child labor, and ends abruptly after pointing out how horrible black kids are in school without offering any reason. The last sentence is, "That means an employer hiring the typical black high-school graduate is in effect hiring an eighth-grader.". No conclusion offered, no solutions, no reason even, just this statement of insult based on non-objective data. Yeah, you go on with that thwarting, you're doing a great job. --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not even the piece I linked to, but it starts by citing facts showing black unemployment was roughly equivalent or less than white unemployment in the first half of the 20th Century, effectively undermining claims that modern relative high black unemployment is due to "discrimination", and totally refuting your "they're just like this" characterization. It lauds teenage labor, and echoes widespread claims about the well understood destructive impact of minimum wage laws. Indeed observing their negative effects in Puerto Rico as a government intern largely turned Sowell from a Marxist into a free market guy.  Williams ends by citing the undisputed poor modern school performance of blacks as an aside to show why such laws restricting low skilled labor are hurting blacks even more than whites. Elsewhere conservative/libertarian pundits (probably including Williams, but I don't remember for sure) have expounded on that issue to show that blacks performed well in school in earlier eras, so the current crisis isn't an "inherent" phenomenon. You're entitled to your opinion on the column's writing quality, but your "white man" versus "black man" and "blacks are inferior" characterizations are totally false. And yeah, I think I'm doing alright. VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course that's not the piece you linked to, you're presumably smarter than to go straight to a bad example. OK, so black unemployment was equivalent to white unemployment in the first half of the 20th. (Well, so he says; as we've already seen, he cherrypicks sources, I have no reason to believe his statistics unless independently verified), and now it's not. What changed? Minimum wage laws, really? Child labor laws, really? Yeah, you can pretend he meant teenagers, but he didn't say that, did he. And minimum wage laws aren't why there aren't gas station attendants anymore; they're because the customer preferred without. There's still a handful of gas station attendants around if you care to look, they still exist despite the minimum wage. It's amazing how he can say the market determines what jobs will exist, but in this case, it couldn't have been the market at all, the consumer has no agency, it must have been the minimum wage law! And, again, it must be asked: If employment was on par before minimum wage laws, why did minimum wage laws affect blacks disproportionately? Hm. No, that wouldn't fit with his narrative, can't ask that. He simply accepts that it does, and therefore the laws are evil, rather than wonder why. I mean, if they were on par before, what changed? Would that require more in-depth writing than Jewish World Review allows? (Based on my recollection of columns on JWR: Yes, it would.) You say he's explaining how it isn't inherent, I'm saying he's never really saying it's not. He's saying "laws did it!" and then saying how bad blacks off are, and last I checked, whites were subject to those same laws. Hm. If only there could be social, economic, and other governmental reasons for this... And he repeats all this claptrap. I only pulled that by looking at his last page of columns, and he has years and years of these. I stand by my opinions and my assertions, it's a poorly written piece that I would have sadly eaten up years ago and simply nodded and though, "Damn government doing this to those poor people." Except that's barely what he's saying at all, and now I can see it. (ps you should stop trying to get the last word, because I'm not going to stop :) --Golbez (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He actually used the terms "teen unemployment", "teenager", "high-school student, and "teens", lol, so I don't see how you can say he didn't mean that, at least in the "child labor" portion of the column. And no, full service gas stations went away because of the cost. People preferred them, but in most places not enough to pay the artificially jacked up expense. Also, I (and he) said "unemployment" was on par, meaning blacks held jobs at a similar rate to whites in the first half of the 20th Century. No one claimed blacks were as skilled or had the same types of jobs as whites back then, if that's what you were vaguely insinuating, in an era where it's very easy to argue that disparities were a result of slavery hangover and discrimination. But it's better to have a job than not have one. Minimum wage laws restrict employment for all races, but disproportionately hurt lower skilled blacks.  Walters' point is that it's absurd to blame modern black demographic crises, like the sky high unemployment (double whites for more than 50 years; over 40% youth unemployment currently; over 50% adult black male unemployment in some cities), broken homes (illegitimacy rate from roughly 20% in 1960 to over 70% today, compared to 29% for whites) and the sociological consequences (like sky high crime rates) on anti-black "discrimination", much less "slavery".  Those canards aren't intellectually satisfying answers when such problems didn't exist with anywhere near the same salience back in the era of true discrimination, and they certainly haven't led to practical solutions. Perpetuating the victim mindset has arguably made things worse.  21st Century America has net discrimination in favor of blacks, from longstanding affirmative action programs, to the pervasive touting of minority officials, to companies bending over backwards to avoid even baseless charges of "racism" (google NAACP Hallmark card),  to the tolerance and even celebration of racially oriented institutions like "The Black Entertainment Channel" and "Black History Month" that would be condemned as racial nationalism if attempted by whites. Then there's the aforementioned black political leaders, from the White House to numerous major cities. Where's the alleged "prejudice" keeping blacks down?  Asians make more money than whites.  Is that due to discrimination? The Asian demographic seems to have recovered nicely from the rampant discrimination of the 19th Century, not to mention the stark poverty and mass slaughters more recent immigrants fled. Likewise, Jews have bounced back well from the Holocaust, particularly the many who immigrated to the US. Recent black immigrants don't complain much about discrimination and seem to have very different worldviews than long established American black families.


 * Of course you can disagree with their arguments, but they're certainly not saying blacks are inherently inferior, and pretending otherwise is a non sequitur (at best) that kills any hope of a rational discussion from the get go. Blacks are undeniably performing poorly in schools vis a vis other groups. Williams points that out because he doesn't want it to continue. Golbez is upset that he points that out because (fill in the blank). Thomas Sowell often focuses on evidence of black schools working well now and historically, in an attempt to ascertain where most approaches are going wrong.  "While there are examples of schools where this happens in our own time-- both public and private, secular and religious-- we can also go back nearly a hundred years and find the same phenomenon.  Back in 1899, in Washington, D. C., there were four academic public high schools-- one black and three white.1  In standardized tests given that year, students in the black high school averaged higher test scores than students in two of the three white high schools.2 This was not a fluke.  It so happens that I have followed 85 years of the history of this black high school-- from 1870 to 1955 --and found it repeatedly equaling or exceeding national norms on standardized tests.3"..."Important as the history of outstanding schools for minority students has been, there is also much to learn from the history of very ordinary urban ghetto schools, which often did far better in the past-- both absolutely and relative to their white contemporaries-- than is the case today.  I went to such schools in Harlem in the 1940s but I do not rely on nostalgia for my information.  The test scores in ordinary Harlem schools in the 1940s were quite comparable to the test scores in white working-class neighborhoods on New York's lower east side." He concludes that seriousness, teacher quality (not necessarily as defined by teachers unions or education degrees), and discipline are important factors, and that many current schools, better funded and equipped than the better performing institutions of the past, focus on the wrong things, particularly in predominantly black areas. Williams makes similar points here, critiquing liberal dogma and also focusing on the late 20th Century breakdown of the black family's role in education decline. Only a liar or a moron could read such pieces and claim that they're peddling the view that blacks are inherently inferior.  Their entire premise is that things could be substantially better than they are. And it's not just a couple of guys, but virtually all conservatives/libertarians and probably most Americans who'd reject your false dichotomy. Despite your above claims you're acting like you've never read stuff by Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz (The Race Card, Left Illusions), Larry Elder or countless others who may have their own nuanced views but don't believe blacks are inherently inferior or that the current sociological problems are inevitable. Bush condemned "the soft bigotry of low expectations". I suppose one could argue that destructive modern liberal policies and cultural memes are an overcorrection of earlier discrimination and slavery, and therefore caused by them, but by that logic we could say black problems are caused by the Big Bang. Many dispute that they're the immediate cause, and there's always that free will thing.


 * Your original argument (presumably against including racial crime rate breakdowns to provide context for the potentially misleading "jailed" racial breakdown currently sitting in the article) is that such facts only lead to two conclusions, that blacks are either "inherently criminal" or more crime prone due to the impact of "slavery and prejudice", and that one possibility was "explicitly racist". While it's unclear why facts leading to a "racist" conclusion should be omitted from the article if true, clearly there are other possibilities, some of which have been presented here. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their views or how you feel about one columnist's writing. Furthermore, even if there was a consensus that black crime rates result from slavery and discrimination, that's no reason for not including them or a justification for falsely implying that blacks are being jailed at the given disproportionate rate simply because they're black, rather than (at least mostly) because they're committing way more crime (and mostly against other blacks). The larger causes are more open to speculative debate than the crime rate issue itself, and no opinion on the former justifies a factual distortion on the latter. Also, I don't care about the "last word". That's your obsession; take it.  But make it a good one or I might respond. Not making false statements would be a nice start. Here, I'll even help you out with a suggested response: "I disagree with their arguments but this is getting off topic." If you have some class you might even add "I shouldn't have characterized their views that way."  Or not.  I'd be fine continuing this discussion for years. VictorD7 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I could respond with "tl;dr" but you'd take that as a victory. I'll simply note "the tolerance and even celebration of racially oriented institutions like "The Black Entertainment Channel" and "Black History Month" that would be condemned as racial nationalism if attempted by whites." and laugh, thinking that I used to agree with you. (In what way I used to agree with you is an exercise left to you; I suspect you won't get it right.) --Golbez (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you have proved that reading isn't your strong suit. But regarding the single line you ripped from context and quoted (BTW, I thought about mentioning "White Entertainment Channel" followed by "(insert joke here)" and "White History Month" followed by "(insert off the mark retort here)", but figured I'd give you a little credit. Maybe that was a mistake.), you failed to even say what you used to agree and now disagree with me on, since I didn't argue in favor of or against such things (for either race), simply marking them as a telling sign of the times. Do you disagree that such "white" themed institutions would be condemned as racial nationalism? Before leaping to assumptions I'd have to know if you're operating from a false premise regarding my opinions, as you were regarding those of Sowell and the others. VictorD7 (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I said it was an exercise for you and it remains so. I'm not going to fill out your paper for you. I will, however, try pushing you in the right direction: There's more than one way to disagree with the sentiment of "We accept things like Black History Month, but if there was a White History Month it would be condemned". You went for the "You don't think White History Month would be condemned?" There's another option here. Oh, okay, I'll spell it out for you: A minority or group lacking in power having advocacy groups is fundamentally different from the majority of group having power having advocacy groups. The majority doesn't need advocacy groups. So yes, we tolerate things like BET and Black History Month because they are tools to help a minority or group lacking power to assist it in gaining a parity of power, if only slightly through cultural awareness. A White Entertainment Television would be to help a majority or group with power to assist it in ... gaining more power. Because it already has more than the parity of power, and obviously this isn't designed for it to lose power. That is one of the reasons this dichotomy exists. So yes, we accept it, but not because we're giving special favor to one side because they aren't white, but rather we're giving special favor to one side because they lack power. (ps I use the phrasing of "majority or power" repeatedly because often the majority isn't the ones with the power. See Africa as well as the small countries of Arabia). Your stance appeared to be that it's wrong for us to tolerate one racial advocacy group while not tolerating another's, and that the solution is to tolerate neither, and to disagree means that we should tolerate both; I'm saying that's perfectly fine to only tolerate one. --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You gave the stock answer I figured you would, but missed the point. It wasn't about whether such pro black discrimination was right or wrong, rather simply that it exists. There are counterarguments to your stock power structure argument, btw, but that would take us down another tangent. Here's a more important question that gets us back on topic: Whether you feel it's "their fault" or not, do you deny that racially disparate "jailed" rates are at least mostly due to blacks committing crimes at much higher rates, as opposed to being rounded up and thrown in jail simply because they're black? VictorD7 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How was that a stock answer? Do you even know what a "stock answer" is? Hm. Anyway, moving beyond that curious statement. Yes, that black people commit more crimes (or rather, are arrested more? I dunno what the exact statistics are) than white people is not in dispute. That black people are disproportionately punished for equal actions should also not be in dispute. Also, I apologize if I put it in a way that could be misconstrued (I hate when people say "I apologize if I did X" but in this case it's purely out of ignorance; you expect me to go back through this tome and find my exact words?), but I never said it wasn't their fault. I'm simply saying, crime arises from one of two motivations: An inherent criminality, or circumstances. Obviously, blacks as a race aren't inherently criminal, or rather no one here would admit to holding such a stance. Thus, we can attribute a large part of it to circumstances, of lack of power, of economics, of social issues, that, yes Virginia, still exist even 50 years after the civil rights movement won its greatest victory. Only so much of it can be explained through economics, there are still lingering and sometimes powerful social and power issues at play. (which also influence, for example, why those economics remain so disparate) --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a stock answer because I've heard it countless times and figured that's where your mind was (the "off the mark retort"). Moving on...first...I'm glad we apparently agree that the disparate jailed rate is at least largely due to a disparate crime rate. The current text is misleading for not pointing that out, leaving the impression that blacks may be jailed at the given disproportional rate simply because they're black. Correcting that, either by deleting the distortive line, adding the explanatory context of disparate crime rates, or simply replacing the "jailed" reference with a crime rate one, would improve the article without having to get into the larger, speculative issue of causes. On the latter (an entirely separate debate), people are a mix of free will, nature (genetics), and nurture (culture; how one is raised; "circumstance"). Nature and nurture influence the chances that someone will do something, without absolving people of personal responsibility.  The scholars I cited earlier focus on the free will/nurture points of the triangle (not genetics), critiquing a broadly held mindset as well as recent policies they view as detrimental. Their premise is that blacks aren't inherently (naturally) prone to failure or criminality. Your "inherent"/"circumstances" dichotomy obliterates personal responsibility, genetics being a cop out excuse as much as simply blaming "the system" is. And no, I don't know whether blacks are disproportionately punished for "equal crimes", much less to what extent, much less what the actual causes of any discrepancy would be, though such a disparity, if it exists, would be dwarfed by the very real crime rate difference, as evidenced by the huge racial crime victim disparity. Unless one believes a whole bunch of white guys are killing and robbing black people in predominately black neighborhoods and getting away scot free while innocent blacks are prosecuted for the crimes, that is.   As to the debate over what types of circumstances are making black criminality more likely, I'll refer any poor souls still reading this exchange back to my above commentary that you either didn't read or just didn't address.  However, I will point out that you never answered my question about whether whites make less money than Asians due to "discrimination". VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, I didn't agree to that. The incarceration rate is independent of the crime rate. For example, to say "X whites convicted of crime Y were sent to prison for over 12 months, while X*3 blacks convicted of the exact same crime were sent to prison for over 12 months" has nothing to do with the crime rate. Also, "inherent" doesn't mean genetics. Presumably, most cold-blooded murderers weren't genetically murderers, but they were still inherently criminal rather than criminal through circumstances. Likewise, someone stealing for food is criminal due to circumstances rather than inherently. It can be a spectrum, it's not always 100/0, since if I were 100% pure of heart I wouldn't even steal for food, but then again, I'm not a self-destructive idiot. Likewise, someone who is born to be a serial killer might never have the means to do so, or is distracted by other pursuits and never learns his true calling. As for if "discrimination" (your quotes, not mine) is why Asians make more than whites: Probably not. Asians are also heavily congregated in the richer, more developed regions of the union, whereas whites are everywhere, which would skew things. I also haven't seen your figures; I don't know if you're talking in aggregate, or for same job in same location, or what not. You made an assertion and demanded I respond to it without supplying anything valid to back it up. Kind of like Dr. Williams, really. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it was kind of like you wanting me to respond to the disparate punishment for "equal crimes" claim, but I'm glad we agree that it's at least conceivable that variables other than racial discrimination could account for income disparities. I'd say that's true of other disparities as well. Here's a racial income breakdown by the Census, btw: Median Income of Families, 2012. You haven't provided evidence of your "equal crimes" claim. The assertions I've heard along those lines over the years have tended to come from activists touting agenda pushing "studies" of dubious worth. By "largely dependent" I mean there's a strong causal relationship between committing crimes and serving jail time.  In disagreeing with me, are you claiming that the "jailed" disparity owes more to racial discrimination by the justice system (presumably including in cities with largely black power structures and mostly black juries, where the highest crime rates are) than to the extreme disparity in crime rates? At least you did agree earlier that the latter exists.  Blacks commit more  murders and robberies than non-Hispanic whites and most Hispanics combined (lumped together as "white"), despite only being around 13% of the population. Data fluctuates by source, but generally tells the same story. According to government stats, from 1980-2008 "Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)".  Those disproportionally high rates persist across the board.  The gap shrinks with less serious crimes, but given that blacks have long committed the most serious crimes at several times the rate of whites (mostly against other blacks), it's not surprising that they're incarcerated at several times the rate.  And if your usage of "inherent" doesn't mean genetic (as I've qualified that I've been using it since the beginning; you've taken your time clarifying this) then it's not necessarily "racist", though it's not clear what else you'd mean by it given the dictionary definition. Regardless of which part of your dichotomy such observations would be associated with, identifying sociological problems and pointing to subcultural factors other than "slavery and prejudice" isn't remotely "racist", especially when we're primarily defining this problem in racial terms because the left is obsessed with race and apparently insists on maintaining its salient entrenchment in the political and general public consciousness forever, perpetuating racial self identification as a vital subcultural aspect to many people.  I'd be fine with deleting the racial "jailed" disparity and replacing it with something else...like an inner city versus rural/suburb breakdown, sex breakdown, or age breakdown. However, the scholars I cited earlier do often speak about race since the terms of discourse have been set and observable subcultural patterns still correlate with race in some cases, particularly among many blacks, and government stats track race, so I'm fine with doing it as well.  The scholars attack myths they see as impediments to real solutions to the sociological problems most people agree exist in "black" communities and in some cases among blacks in predominately non-black communities.  A singular focus on "prejudice" or the allegedly "unfair system", if based on false premises, can be harmful to blacks who happen to embrace the notion and encourage people of all races in positions of power who embrace it to behave as enablers and enact counterproductive policies while ignoring potentially better alternatives. Accusations of "racism" also harm those falsely accused, and tend to make productive discourse impossible. Indeed, at least in public, false accusations of "racism" are far more common in modern American discourse than actual examples of racism (admittedly MSNBC, New Left college professors, vapid pop stars, and the modern NAACP skew this), as the term is cynically employed as a weapon, particularly by those seeking to deflect and distract. VictorD7 (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * PS - Regarding your deleted claim about "liberal" versus "conservative" regions of the country, the north east became wealthier centuries ago (when dominated by Republicans and earlier parties, I dare say), long before its gradual embrace of leftist economic policies over the past few decades, is almost entirely white (the largest black population being in the southeast, the trend being to migrate back to the south, btw), and in relative terms has been living on inertia and borrowed time. In recent decades the south and west (except California this century) have been far more economically dynamic, attracting businesses and people from (dare I say) higher taxed, more heavily regulated regions. At this rate in a few more decades the regional dynamics will look very different. Of course certain conservative states are already among the wealthiest in the country. VictorD7 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you're misunderstanding me, the whole time I've been referring to the severity of sentences, rather than how many per capita get them. Obviously if more of group A commit a crime, more of group A will be in jail. I'm talking about how there are times when blacks get worse punishment than whites for equal or similar crimes. (An example of 'similar' comes in the cocaine vs crack debate) It has nothing to do with the rate of committing crime, unless you're suggesting that because blacks commit more crimes, they need to be punished harsher. As for a source for this: which states, "In regards to African-Americans, this study’s findings show that African-Americans sentenced in State courts are generally punished more harshly than whites, independent of offense seriousness and prior criminal history." It is a small but significant influence. As for racism, I used it solely in its classical definition of "belief of one race being inferior to another", and in regards to Williams' and Sowell's writings, I'll stand by that. And yes, I removed liberal and conservative for two reasons. One, it wasn't germane. Two, I had a brain fart and was looking at the African-American distribution map and thinking "They're all in the south!" and then I had some coffee and realized, "Wait, they're also in New York, and Detroit, and Boston, and Washington, and Los Angeles, and Chicago" and reversed that. However, according to the Asian-American distribution map, Asians are extremely concentrated in just a handful of very dense, economically vibrant regions. (Well, and Detroit.) And while the south may be "economically dynamic", states like Mississippi are still the poorest, in most metrics, that we have. --Golbez (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We've actually been discussing the text's "jailed" rate mention, and whether the disparity is more due to blacks committing crimes at a higher rate or alleged discrimination in sentencing. I appreciate you linking the meta-analysis. I've only had to time to skim the 193 page study so far, but its pertinent conclusion for our purposes is "The observed differences between whites and these minority groups generally were statistically small suggesting that discrimination is not the primary cause of the overrepresentation of minorities in U.S. prisons." In fact it found past studies were all over the place, with many finding no racial disparity and some that blacks are treated more leniently than whites.  It echoed my earlier comments that studies in this field are "replete with potential methodological flaws". It found that shoddily constructed studies controlling for fewer variables (most didn't even consider things like type of counsel or victim injury!) tended to find more racial disparity than those employing more control variables and precise measures.  The real headline should be that the racial disparity mostly vanishes when basic factors like criminal history and seriousness of crime are controlled for. If more pertinent variables are added, including some I mentioned earlier (which admittedly can be hard to quantify in studies) and more precise measures of crime seriousness (current practice looks vague and shoddy), I wouldn't be surprised if the disparity shrank further or vanished completely.  BTW, the crack/cocaine thing was one example I had in mind of a bs issue, the sentencing difference being explainable due to them being different drugs with different actual and perceived impact, with no need to resort to race as an explanatory factor. I'm not sure what it means for a race to be "inferior" if you aren't talking genetics, but, regardless, neither Sowell, Williams, or anyone else I mentioned has ever said "blacks are inferior"; indeed their views clearly refute any notion of natural racial inferiority as they frequently cite examples of strong performance in various cultural/sociological/policy contexts, and argue that anyone can succeed regardless of skin color. They're among the most non-"racist" people in the country. And yeah, MS is poor (if not as bad off as the liberal utopia of Detroit), but Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, the Dakotas, Texas (when adjusted for PPP) and others are wealthy, and states like Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina are climbing up the rankings, especially when cost of living differences are considered. Regardless, stats show racial disparities in income and crime rate tend to persist across the country, which, of course, skews down metrics like income for southeastern states, where the largest black concentration is. BTW, while sentencing practices undeniably vary by locale, which I suspect might contribute to skewing the overall racial sentencing disparity picture, your meta-study did find no significant difference in the black/white sentencing disparity between southern and non-southern jurisdictions. Indeed the activist lobbying piece currently used as the article text's source lists the greatest black/white incarceration disparity (raw, uncontrolled data, of course) as being in Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut. VictorD7 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. I was just thinking that it's quickly becoming the "slavery" section. Of course the new, strangely specific "Pequot" inclusion fails to mention that the slaves were prisoners taken after a war. To underscore my point on Amerindian slavery and yours on context distortion, here's a brief summary from the Pequot people page: "In 1637, long-standing tensions between the Puritan English of Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay colonies and the Pequot escalated into open warfare. There was much confusion on both sides and, when the tribe killed an Englishman thinking he was Dutch, war was soon upon them. The Mohegan and the Narragansett sided with the English. Perhaps 1,500 Pequot were killed in battles or hunted down. Others were captured and distributed as slaves or household servants. A few escaped to be absorbed by the Mohawk or the Niantic on Long Island. Eventually, some returned to their traditional lands, where family groups of "friendly" Pequots had stayed. Of those enslaved, most were awarded to the allied tribes, but many were also sold as slaves in Bermuda.[8] [9] The Mohegan in particular treated their Pequot captives so severely that colonial officials of Connecticut Colony eventually removed them.


 * Connecticut established two reservations for the Pequot in 1683: the Eastern Pequot Reservation at North Stonington, Connecticut and the Western Pequot, or Mashantucket Pequt Reservation in Ledyard. While the land bases of the two tribes have been much reduced, the two groups have held on to their land and maintained community continuity." Gives a different picture than that currently painted in the US article, despite even that segment omitting the Pequot attacks on colonial towns and other tribes. VictorD7 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, slavery is slavery. Wikipedia is not here to justify slavery nor condemn slavery. The Civil War had to do with slavery. If there are any sources that state there were no Indian slaves in 1860-1861, please give a reference. Again, the edits were added to give a time frame when slavery began both Native American and Africans. All slavery ended, except for convicted felons, with the 13th Amendment in 1865. Slavery was instituted immediately upon the arrival of Europeans. There needs to be mentioned slavery in the article. America has a history of slavery and this should not be excluded from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, slavery was not instituted on the continent by Europeans, but had been long practiced by Amerindian tribes. I just quoted another Wiki article pointing out that most of the Pequot prisoners turned into slaves were given to the colonists' Indian allies. You don't mention that, the Indian allies, or the war. "Slavery is slavery" but you only seem interested in slavery by one group. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. People always seem to magically forget about all the bad things Natives did. America does have a history with slavery, but it doesn't start with Europeans, nor is it exclusive to Europeans. To make it seem like it does is to violate WP:NPOV.Kude90 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is slavery so over-represented in this article? Slavery was a worldwide practice until its supression by the British and later the Americans in the 1800s. As such it hardly seems proprer to be focusing this article's attention on it in the early settlement section encompassing the 1600 and 1700s. Yes, we should mention the switch from indentured labor to African slave labor, but does it really help the article to talk about the enslavement of captured Pequots? We don't discuss the Pequot War or the taking of white settlers as slaves nor should we. The article would be improved if it could be pared down to the key bits of information with links to more detailed articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because we fought a war over it, and it, combined with its hundred-year legacy of diminished rights for blacks, takes up the vast majority of the lifetime of the country. However, I agree; the obsession with getting into Indian slavery (either by Indians or of Indians) and trying to put it on equal ground would dilute the issue of black slavery. Certainly no mention of pre-Columbian slavery is relevant, and since Columbus never set foot on what is today the United States, his actions - apart from bringing back word of the New World - are pretty much irrelevant to the history of the country. --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe slavery is over represented in the article. There has to be a time frame as to when slavery began. I was not wanting to get into specifics. We can mention the Pequot War, but I believe that is unneccessary for the article. The purpose was to make a general statement that slavery began during the settlement period and that both blacks and Indians were slaves. I believe there may have been intermarriages between Indians and Blacks. The colonists encouraged this because they wanted a "super slave" that was both acclimated and strong to work under the hot sun in the tobbacco fields. Golbez is correct, "Because we fought a war over it, and it, combined with its hundred-year legacy of diminished rights for blacks, takes up the vast majority of the lifetime of the country." Slavery needs to be established in the article. Any person who was enslaved was a slave, whether Indian or Black, and had no legal rights. In fact, blacks obtained citizenship before Indians. I agree that the cost for African American freedom was tremendous at over 200,000 Union soldiers who gave their lives during the Civil War. We should not make the Indian or Puritans in the article look like the "bad guys". Make a simple statement that both blacks and Indians were enslaved is appropriate for the article. King Philip's war has been mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think slavery should be included, but it's too often over-represented. I think if slavery is included, then it must be stated that the Europeans did NOT start slavery, nor were they the first to enslave people in North America. If that's not included, that's over-representing European slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple to not state that Europeans started slavery. They did, however, bring the transoceanic slave trade, by definition. You seem to be asking for inclusion of more slavery, when the better solution is exclusion of less relevant statements. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that entire paragraph there's not a single mention of non-white slaveowners. Amazing. VictorD7 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What was the proportion? Were there enough to really warrant mention in a summary article? --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically regarding the Pequot, most of the slaves taken were by other Indian tribes, as I just quoted. If you're asking whether I think the article should get into the 12k slaves owned by American blacks prior to the Civil War, or talk about the Pequots at all, then no. My point is just that slavery was widespread in the Americas long before Europeans showed up, and for that matter Africa, Asia, etc., and in many places long after westerners had outlawed it. The reality runs counter to the skewed narrative Cmguy seems focused on trying to construct. VictorD7 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. Have you read your history of the Roman Empire. That empire was founded on slavery and yes the Romans did not invent slavery, but clearly there is a long history of slavery in Europe starting with the Greeks. I don't believe that Constantine ever outlawed slavery in the Roman Empire. If you have a specific Indian tribe that bought and sold Indian slaves, I do not object to putting that tribe in the article if there is a valid reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cmguy, there's a long history of slavery on virtually every continent. African slavery was started by Africans. Arabs still had a serious slave trade into the 20th Century. The west was about the only major civilization to ban it...first in the Middle Ages due to Christian influence and again a few centuries later when black slavery was abolished. Regarding your specific Pequot inclusion, that most of the slaves went to the other Indian tribes is sourced twice in the text.  Let me know if you have some reason to doubt their reliability.  Otherwise, it's clearly worth a mention if the Pequot segment here remains. VictorD7 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * VictorD7, the Rausch (1994) source does not state that Indian captives were given to other Indians to be slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * VictorD7, please provide any sources that specifically state the Perquot people owned Perquot slaves. Also, please provide any sources that state African Americans owned 12,000 slaves prior to the Civil War. Are you stating that free blacks owned Indian slaves or other black slaves or both? By the way free blacks did not have citizenship rights or constitutional protection prior to the Civil War. Indians were never protected, except on their respected reservations, until their citizenship in 1924. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Rausch source is an overtly one sided polemic that only spends a few lines on the episode, and in the pertinent segment doesn't even mention the war or how it actually started, simply claiming that the Puritans "punished" the Pequot for their "opposition to European settlement" by killing hundreds of them and enslaving others. There's no mention of the tribes allied with Puritans, presumably because that doesn't fit with Rausch's agenda. In addition to the sources in the article I linked to earlier, here’s the Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes (page 223): "Pequot captives were sold into slavery in the Caribbean or given as slaves to the Mohegan, Narragansett, and Niantic as payment for their help in the war. ….In 1655, the colonists freed Pequot slaves in New England and resettled them on the Mystic River."


 * And Nantucket and other Native Places: The Legacy of Elizabeth Alden Little (page 145): “The text of this peace treaty allocated the “200 Peaquots living that are men, besides squawes and paposes,” then held as captives, to be assigned as slaves to the conquering Indians. Miantinommy of the Narragansett received eighty Pequot in addition to the eleven that his people already held, and to “Poquime his number,” generally interpreted to be eighty. The actual count remains uncertain….Despite these events, the Pequot soon reemerged as a viable people, having been liberated by the Connecticut Colony in 1650 and provided with two independent reservations. One of the two 1650 reservation tracts was provided to those former Pequot who had been slaves of the Narragansett, and the other to those Pequot slaves freed from the Mohegan.”


 * And Cmguy, please learn to indent and carry on a nested discussion (so Gwillhickers doesn't have to do it for you next time). As for your other requests, I'm not interested in spending time digging up sources at your whim to support things (albeit true) that I explicitly said I'm not advocating be in the article. Also, most Indians had already become citizens long before 1924, but please don't start another tangent.VictorD7 (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

slavery(2)

 * The article is starting to read like a primary school textbook in the bible belt, rather than a serious article. TFD (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the article is beginning to look like another political hit piece written by a racist activist who doesn't know the half of it. We can continue this line of discussion if you like, or we can try to keep focus on the discussion. You're not helping much by initiating those sorts of cheap remarks. Please put a lid on the (not so) veiled religious slurs. Thanks.--
 * Seriously, TFD, one can only speculate about what tricked your mind into believing that would be a worthwhile thing for you to say. VictorD7 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert:Gwillhickers, I sighted Rausch (1994) and you call me a racist. Name calling is not the way to encourage cooperation between editors. I was going by wikipedia policy having a reference. Rausch stated that Indians were captured and enslaved. If you believe Rausch is a racist that is your problem. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Never said anything about Rausch, only about the way the section is written, half of which is about slavery, not the Settlers and the Settlements. Again, the slavery account is given much too much weight and doesn't clarify a number of points, esp regarding how many settlers actually owned slaves, as usual. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How is that a religious slur? Most religious people do not support the historical revisionism that aboriginals and Africans are responsible for American slavery.  TFD (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After your comment about the Bible belt now you're speaking for "most religious peoples". I get it. A joke. Ha ha. In any case, surely you are aware that slavery existed long before the colonies and that for centuries African tribal chiefs captured entire tribes of Africans and sold them into slavery -- and also used them in ceremonial human sacrifices. Virtually all the Africans that came to the new world were captured and sold by other Africans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, words of advice, before you mention the Bible Belt you better site your source on the textbook before making any statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery coverage out of proportion
More than half the text in the 'Settlements' section is devoted to slavery. Very little is written about the actual Settlers (remember them?), the development of colonies, the struggles, the establishment of laws, the culture, the religion, the ways of life, etc, etc. Again, the majority of settlers were poor common people who fled Europe to gain religious and other basic freedoms, and simply could not afford to buy, feed, cloth and provide shelter for slaves. They had a difficult enough time trying to provide themselves with these things. Out of undue weight considerations and because of all the out of context stub like statements that convey the idea that all settlers in all the colonies owned slaves, we need to scale down the over/distorted representation of slavery and put an end to the apparent concerted effort to make slavery look as if the sun revolved around it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One paragraph and two sentences on slavery is a concerted overemphasis on slavery. That is not true. Slavery was part of America. No one is judgeing the Puritans or Colonists or Indians. There is a whole section on Native American and Euro American cultural exchange. Maybe the word "slavery" is uncomfortable for you to fathom. It is not for me. To rid the article of slavery is to lie to the reader. Wikipedia is suppose to take a neutral view on slavery. We can not ignore the subject in good concious, a history that spanned from 1619, to the |Civil War, and to the end of Reconstruction in 1877. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about ridding the articled of slavery? You speak about lying and in the same breath make distorted claims like that?? I made my points in plain English. quite clearly. Please reread and try not to ignore what apparently displeases you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, there is one paragraph on Indians being captured and enslaved by Colonists and I believe that is the paragraph you want deleted from the article. Rausch (1994) is a valid source and was sited cited in the article. To rid the article of this paragraph, in my opinion, would be a lie, since the reader would not know that Colonists enslaved Indians. You state I am a racist because I referenced a source that stated colonists captured and enslaved Indians. I have apologized before for statements I have made in the past. I believe you owe me an apology. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction -- 'some colonists', very few overall, enslaved Indians, who themselves enslaved other Indians and often practiced wholesale slaughter on various settlements struggling and unable to defend themselves. That is the context you routinely and habitually have ignored, just as you did in your very reply above. i.e."...the reader would not know that Colonists enslaved Indians." Since you are so keen on informing the readers about the whole truth, let's include this context together. I'll let you go first. I'm sure you're dying to get at it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cmguy, it's "cited", not "sited". VictorD7 (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reminder :  The Settlements section needs much more coverage about the actual 'settlements', and the 'settlers'. Again, half the section involves itself with slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, how can this discussion proceed when you called me a racist? I believe you need to retract that statement, apologize, or at least explain why you made that statement. Enslaving blacks and capturing and enslaving Indians was part of settlement process. The section currently states that slavery was practiced and sanctioned by the colonists given a valid source Rausch (1994). Both Indians and Africans were enslaved by colonists and part of the Golden Triangle. The colonists captured and sold these Indians into slavery. Over 4,000 Indians were enslaved after Prince Philips War. Enslaving Indians was a way of acquiring their lands according to Rausch (1994), pp. 59-60. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cm', please stop. This is what I said in response to TFD's 'Bible belt' comment: -- "On the contrary, the article is beginning to look like another political hit piece written by a racist activist who doesn't know the half of it". -- Are you saying you're responsible for every out of context and over generalized statement regarding slavery, made with just one single source? If so you need to clean up this stuff and bring clarity and context to the picture. You have a long history of making such edits about slavery as several of us I'm sure realize. And when someone tries to bring balance and context to the picture we get the same foot dragging and comments of indignation from you. If you're going to make sweeping and out of context statements that overshadow the content of the entire section(s) the least you could do is provide more than one cherry picked source. We've been through this sort of thing before. Regarding controversial and questionable claims and as an experienced editor you should know better. Kindly refrain from making distorted and sweeping comments like this :" ...the reader would not know that Colonists enslaved Indians." You're not stupid, you know exactly how that reads. The 'Settlements' section should largely cover the 'settlements' and the 'settlers', their lives, hardships, why they fled Europe, etc.  Again, the greater bulk of settlers couldn't afford to buy/possess slaves, and provided food, clothing and shelter for them because they were most often struggling to provide these things for themselves. This perspective is missing, entirely, in the given sections.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, settlements must include Indian relations, in addition to Indian and African slavery. That was part of the Golden Triangle slave trade including the harsh conditions of working in the West Indies sugar plantations. We should not ignore history that may be considered uncomfortable or repressive. Slavery was part of the Settlement EuroAmerican daily practice. There are other aspects of settling land as you have mentioned. The article does not state that all settlers practice slavery. There needs to be some source as to accurately access how many slaves were owned in New England, the Carolinas, and Virginia by individual settlers. No one has yet to given a source to my knowledge as to Indians practicing slavery during the settlement period in the article. As been stated before, slavery needs to have a foundation or prelude to the Civil War and Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there needs to be a source that accurately relates how many slaves were owned and by how many settlers, so we need to find one and refrain from your usual blanket statements about 'colonies in general', etc. Once again, the 'Settlements' section is about settlements and settlers. If some of them in some of the colonies employed the use of slavery this is not a ticket to turn half the section into an expose' on slavery. We can mention it, in context, and link to the pages that are dedicated to the subject. You have been reminded of this basic approach about slavery time and again. Please find the source(s) which "accurately" defines the advent. Your particular edits, ala Rausch, 1994, (intentionally?) leaves too many questions unanswered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "By 1750, about 200,000 slaves lived in the colonies." "Only 12 percent of slave-owners operated plantations that had 20 or more slaves. But more than half of all the country's slaves worked on these plantations. Most of the other slave-owners had small farms and only a few slaves each." In 1750, there were around 1.1 million people in the US. While this is Original research, that means if people only owned one salve, that's 1 slave owner per 5 people. But, half of the salves in the colonies were on these plantations. Something else that sort of interested me,, an article about the enslavement of white people in early colonial America. Kude90 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The term "employed the use of slavery" in my opinion is an attempt to make slavery an employment opportunity for Blacks and Indians. This is not true. The main issue is that slavery was an institution implemented by the colonists on Africans and Indians. Slavery grew in numbers that ultimately led to the Civil War and Reconstruction. I am in favor of any reference that states the colonial dispersion of slaves to colonists particularly during the 1600's upon the Carolina, Virginia, and New England colonists. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The main issue is that slavery was an institution implemented by the colonists on Africans and Indians." As it's been pointed out numerous times, slavery was NOT started by Europeans, it was NOT first used in North America by Europeans, and it was NOT only used by Europeans. Both Africans and natives participated in slavery. They both were enslaved, and enslaved others. They weren't just the victims. And that has to be reflected in anything we add to this article.Kude90 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Kude90. Everything you mentioned does not nullify the fact the colonists enslaved Africans and Europeans. I never stated African and Indians were victims of injustice. You stated that. Please stop denying that colonist enslaved Africans and Europeans. I have a web source, Slavery in the North, that stated at the end of the colonial period the average New England household had two slaves and that New England institutionalized slavery before Virginia and Carolina. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cmguy, I'm curious...do you know what the term "straw man argument" means? VictorD7 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes VictorD7. I have been getting allot of straw man (false) arguements that there is too much on slavery, that the Indians and Africans were slavers also and that there were not allot of slaves in New England. Misreprenting the fact that New England was the hub of the Golden Triangle slave trade. There are people who deny there was slavery in the North and ignore the facts. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery coverage out of proportion(2)
Let's not forget that without Africa and its enterprising tribal chiefs, there would be no triangle at all. Speaking of straw men -- who in the world ever denied there was slavery in the US?? Moreover, no one around here has come close to even suggesting that. Yes, there is far too much ta'do about slavery in sections like the Settlements. Again, there is little to nothing about the greater population of settlers, their flight from Europe, their quest for religious and other freedoms, their struggle with trying to set up stable settlements, their laws, their religions, their customs, etc. All you seem to care about is slavery, and only where it concerns "whites". And you've yet to differentiate 'how many' settlers had slaves and continue in the effort of speaking in obtuse terms that, obviously, suggest that all settlers in all of the colonies could afford to buy and/or support slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, "flight from Europe", "religious and other freedoms", "struggle with trying to set up stable settlements" First I believe that the Puritans "flight from Europe" maybe a bit exagerated. The Puritans risked their lives coming over here to get wealthy. That is not an ignoble purpose. Also, England and Europe were becoming overcrowded and the new world offered new opportunities and coveted new land. Second, in terms of freedom of religion, the Puritans were the most anti freedom of religion sect to colonize the New World. In terms of art, the Puritans could not even allow a Maypole at the Merry Mount colony. In addition the Purtians banned Christmas and killed people accused of being witches. In addition the Puritans killed Charles I because he was to close to being a Catholic. The Puritans were anti-freedom of religion. The Bible clearly expressed to "Honor the King", not "Behead the King". The Puritans did struggle for land, however, this was brought upon by the Indians, who themselves were anti freedom of religion. This issue has already been expressed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Back to the Puritans. Are you saying that the Puritans should have come over to the new world with the specific intention of not becoming sucessful? And what percentage of them actually became "wealthy". Do you even know? Is seeking wealth and good fortune by itself some sort of crime, as you 're trying to suggest? In any event, these things, for better or worse, need to take a front seat in the Settlements section. Not slavery. Thus far all you've done is dump on settlers and parade around with the slavery issue, all the while you prefer to ignore the African and Indian role in the practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

On average, people were much richer in New England than England itself. Incomes were much higher and taxes much lower. For this reason, slave-owning was much less restricted than in a poorer area. Just pointing it out.Rwenonah (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)