Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States History

Survey about How Historical Knowledge is Produced on Wikipedia
Hi everyone,

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu

Manifest Destiny
I suggest some eyes on Manifest Destiny. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Internment of Japanese Americans - Article name and terminology used in article text
Despite the consensus seeming to be in favour of keeping "internment" as the title of Internment of Japanese Americans, the article's text now solely uses the term "incarceration". Consistency between the two would be preferred, especially since the change to the article's text seems to have been made recently without discussion. Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The text should use the term "incarceration". That's the phrase used in current scholarship—for examples:
 * Roger Daniels, "Incarceration of the Japanese Americans: A Sixty-Year Perspective", History Teacher 35, no. 3 (May 2002): 297–310, DOI:10.2307/3054440
 * Alice George, "Eighty Years After the U.S. Incarcerated 120,000 Japanese Americans, Trauma and Scars Still Remain", Smithsonian Magazine (February 11, 2022)
 * Susan H. Kamei, When Can We Go Back to America? Voices of Japanese American Incarceration during WWII (Simon & Schuster, 2022).
 * National WWII Museum, "Japanese American Incarceration"
 * National Park Service, "Terminology and the Mass Incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II"
 * As the last of these sources states, It is important to accurately describe the history of the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II without perpetuating euphemistic terms. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you should argue for a change in the article's name. As I stated, there is presently not a consensus in favour of "incarceration".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no need to argue for a change in the article's name. There were persuasive comments on the talk page about why using "internment" is suitable for the name of the article. My comments are about the appropriate language to use in the text of the article. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If the article is named something that the text of the article does not use (not even in the lede or infobox!) and indeed effectively calls a euphemism, I would say that the article and title are in disjoint with one another and thus present an issue.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead image of Andrew Jackson
Discussion at Talk:Andrew Jackson has not achieved consensus over what image to use as the lead image in the infobox for Andrew Jackson. Both are visible to the right: the upper (and current) image is a painting of him created in 1835; the lower (proposed to replace the former) is a photograph of Jackson taken in 1845.

Proponents of the painting have pointed to earlier talk page discussions as a consensus in favor of a painting of Jackson for the lead image. Those in favor of the painting have said that the painting depicts him as a man of vigor and at the height of his powers. It was argued that the painting depicts Jackson as he was during the presidency that made him notable. It's also been argued that readers are unlikely to recognize the photograph as being of Jackson, and that MOS:LEADIMAGE favors an image that can give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page, which they say is more the case with the painting than the photograph. Editors favoring the painting say they do not consider it a hagiographic image.

Proponents of the photograph have said consensus can change and argue that since Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic (MOS:LEADIMAGE), What is more natural than a photograph?. Editors in favor of the painting have pointed to Wikipedia articles about other presidents around this time period that use post-presidential photographs as lead images (John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren). It was argued that the photograph is recognizable as Jackson, with his characteristically tousled hair and the distinctive shape of his face, and that the painting's smoothed over features and hair aren't as obviously Jackson. Some concern was expressed that the painting may be hagiographic.

For clarity, there is a that was brought up early in the thread, but which no editors any longer favor.

Courtesy pinging editors involved in the talk page thread:, , , ,

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Hello! On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, I have drafted a replacement Wikipedia entry for editor review. On the article's Talk page, I have outlined how the current entry is problematic and shared how I think the draft is a significant improvement. I do not edit the main space because of my conflict of interest, so I'm seeking assistance from other editors to implement the improved text on my behalf. Are any WikiProject US History members willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ The draft has been reviewed. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Move request: Is there a consensus that there was a comprehensive genocide against Native Americans?
See here. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Seen this many times - Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples 100.43.104.116 (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

FAR for The Slave Community
I have nominated The Slave Community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

People from Colonial Pennsylvania scope
I have been reviewing all birth article years by year going backwards. I started in 1927 and moved back. I did more recent years. At another point I started with 2023 and moved back. I only got to 1998 or so. It was less interesting to me. Anyway now I am to 1771. I am starting to see "People from Colonial Pennsylvania" and categories for other colonies in British America. My thought is this seeks excessive for a person born in 1771. Although there are some issues. I do not think we can make a hard and fast rule. If someone was born in 1771, but did something that made them well known in 1775. Thry would clearly fit. If someone was born in 1701, but only came to public attention by writing a pamphlet that got published in 1785, I still think they go in the People from colonial X category. I think a reasonable rule is anyone we know lived in X polity up until age, I am not sure what age though, Elsewhere I went with 21, but I am not sure I would impose that high an age in removing categories. I would also make exceptions for people we know were publicly active at a younger age. One does not have to be notable to fit, but it is excessive to categorize infants in most cases. The other issue is do we consider Colonial Oennsylvania to end in 1776, 1783, or do we punt and go for fuzzy lines. I would say clearly anyone born after 1776 does not go in such categories, unleas we can clearly show a good reason to place them. They wpuld only be 7 when the British fully recognize independence. However enen if we are going with 1783, I think a bitvearlier date is needed. If these were Writers, Artists, lawyers, musicians from Colonial Pennsylvania I would push for an older age and evidence of having been a writer, lawyer, musician etc while axsubject of the colony, but the People from Colonial Pennsylvania category would seem to have an easier cutoff. Mere birth in a place is not defining, so someone birn in December 1782 let alone in the part of 1783 before the treaty was signed clearly would not belong. I am thinking we need to condider each case. I guess a key question is what is the function of these caregories. Is it to rag every article we have on a person who lived in say Colonisl Pennsylvania, or is it to aid peiple trying to learn about colonial Pennsylvania? If it is the later we probably should go for an earlier last birth year than if the goal is the former.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the best way to group people by occupation from British America
This is going to be an issue I will have to grapple with soon. I believe we have a few categories in the form of say Scientiest from. The Thirteen Colonies. I have to admit I hate the name. The 13 Colonies were not an actual political unit. I am tempted to say better would be Scientists from Massachusetts Bay Colony. SCientiests from Colonial Pennsylvania, etc. I have doubts we have enough articles to populate such categories. We have some "Colonial American" categories which at times have said thry should include people from anywhere in the US during Colonial times regardless of if they were under Swedish, British, Dutch, Russian Empire, Spanish, French or other control. This might make sense if there was an American nation invaded by European colonizers. However there was not a nation that got broken up. In fact for Calufornia, New Mexico and Texas there is a 25 plus year gap from the end of Colonial rule until they become part of the United States of America. For Utah, Arizona and Nevada there is in almost all their area never Colonial rule at all. I think a better approach is to look at the historical reality. We have an article on British America which covers the Thirteen Colonies, but avoids imposing the present on the past. I live in Detroit. Detroit pre-1763 is part of New France, and to call Cadillac a colonial American is non-asnsical. In 1773 Detroit is not part of the 13 colonies. It is part of the Privince of Quebec. The fact that Quebec would not go with the other colonies is not pre-determined. Florida is British from 1763 until 1783, but not in the 13 colonies, but someone who moves from Charleston, South Carolina to St. Augustine in 1772 no more sees themselves as going somewhere new than if thry moved to New York City or Boston or Richmond. Leaving a Colony means more than leaving a modern US state. Still we have Artists from ancient Greece, musicians from ancient Greece etc and those are categories grouping people from a set of oolities that had no political unity at all. I think People from British America and its subcats work in dome cases. However I think we could maybe do by Colony categories for politicians, lawyers and maybe some other categories. Does anyone else have thoughts?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We already have Category:Politicians from the Thirteen Colonies. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

History of the United States subtopic proposed moves
An editor has requested that History of the United States (1776–1789) be moved to History of the United States from 1776 to 1789, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You &#32;are invited to participate in the move discussion. CMD (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)