Talk:Young America movement

Inappropriate language
The American exceptionalism often attached to O'Sullivan's "Manifest Destiny" was an 1850s perversion that can be attributed to what Widmer called "Young America II" - To describe something as a "perversion" in this way seems to me to carry a value judgement inappropriate for a supposed encyclopaedia. "Development", "variant" or "off-shoot" might be less biased terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.137.249 (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted this article to a previous version edited by Alan Liefting because I percieved copyright problems with the later edits. It looked like the new information, which had replaced the older information, was mostly copied from other sources.

A Google search turned up the following sources:

I suspect that the reviews these links lead were quoting the book itself, and that the author of this article revision was doing likewise, though I certainly don't know that.
 * 1) The first paragraph was nearly identical to the text I found here, while the last paragraph seemed to be a rephrasing of ideas taken from the same source.
 * 2) The second paragraph looked the same as what I found here, which is, in turn, taken from page 126 of the book.
 * 3) The third paragraph contained the same phrasing as what I found here.

Pardon me. I'm editing this post to add that, in attempting to comply with Copyright Problems, I tried to add a note to the revision author's talk page, but he doesn't seem to have one. &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision needed
urgently. Just about everything in this article is wrong from the very first sentence. I won't rewrite the article myself, but feel free to check e.g. the Britannica Entry to see what a botch this here is. --Janneman 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and copyvios
I have twice now reverted edits from an anon who is claiming that the page is totally inaccurate and a copyright violation. First it was blanked, replaced with a comment about the article. Then an unencyclopedic disclaimer was placed at the top of the article. mY reverts are not an endorsement of the current article, but are against the way the protests were handled.

To deal with the copyvio issues, we need to know where the current text is copied from. I checked the earlier copyvio allegation links above, and do not see the current page text having come from there. The one at the top of the page is actually mirroring from Wikipedia itself, so they are getting their text from here, not visa-versa.

As for accuracy, if the page is wrong, please edit to be correct. Blanket declarations of "It's all wrong" are almost useless. Details here on the talk page of exactly what is wrong are needed if anyone is going to be able to fix it. Or just fix it yourself.

A little bit minor version of this is placing tags after those facts that you consider to be inacurate. This challenges others to come up with references to support the current version of the article. Whether it's the current version or a rewrite, it should be properly sourced anyway.

Finally, if the page is unsaveable, you can nominate it for deletion. You will need to have persuasive arguments for why the article is unsalvagable. - TexasAndroid 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Clipper Ship
Why is the image of the Great America clipper ship on this page? There is no stated relationship between the boat and the movement in the article. so what is the connection? - Apperceptions 01:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)