Talk:United States/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Federal Land Map

Hello. I believe it may be beneficial to the article to add this map (which I recently uploaded) of federally owned land to the bottom of the "Geography, climate, and environment" section (next to where government owned land is discussed). It would, in addition to filling a relatively empty portion of the article, provide readers with an accurate perception of the scale of the amount of land owned by the federal government. The picture would, of course, be kept fairly small. Thoughts and/or objections? --Philpill691 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 24 June 2013 about Inverted_totalitarianism

The wikilink Inverted_totalitarianism is missing in the "See also" section. 79.7.92.246 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. Though, I disagree with your terminology. It is not present; missing implies it belongs there. --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is still not present (and missing). Will you insert that link please? I think that a so precise political analysis about the USA is a necessary link for this article, as it describes in a very peculiar way what the US political system is like. (that definition is more and more actual and matching as time elapses, although more than 10 years passed since 2003).

Should i wait for somebody else to insert the link or should i register to add it by myself?

thanks

79.44.97.106 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A fringe position pushed by one person? No, it's not "missing," it does not belong. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem if you register but please don't add that link. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this edit request as there is no consensus for this request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Lingering slavery issues

There are still some issues regarding slavery. The items I introduced (above, in bold) to the 'Middle version' were general and non specific and referred to slaves overall. Below (in bold) there are items that are not generalized and get into details about the south, New Englanders, Rum, etc.

The first African slaves were brought to the Americas by Spanish conquistadors in the 1500s shortly after Columbus' voyages. Most slaves were shipped to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil, where life expectancy was about seven years.[64] Life expectancy was much higher in North America because of less disease and better food and treatment, so the numbers of slaves grew rapidly into the millions by excesses of births over deaths,[65][66] Colonial society was largely divided over the religious and moral implications of slavery and many colonies passed acts for and against the practice.[67][68] By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions.[69] This was especially true in the south, where the land was better suited for large scale cash crop cultivation than the rocky ground and cool climate of New England, though New Englanders, especially rum producers, participated in the lucrative "Golden Triangle" African slave trade, involving planters in European colonies in the Caribbean, shippers, and the African tribal chiefs who provided them with slaves.[53][70]

"New Englanders ... participated" in the triangle?? The statement more than suggests all New Englanders participated. And what about the southern slave interests? They participated also. I thought the idea was not to make sweeping statements out of context. Also, the paragraph already says slaves were the primary source of labor. We don't need to refer to (all?) New Englanders and the South. The above bold should be changed to this:

This was especially true in the south, where the land was better suited for large scale cash crop cultivation than the rocky ground and cool climate of New England, though New Englanders, especially rum producers Some slave owners participated in the lucrative "Golden Triangle" African slave trade, involving planters, merchants, shippers, and the African tribal chiefs who provided them with slaves.[53][70]

This will also help to scale down some of the text committed to slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree Gwillhickers. VictorD7's account of slavery in the North is accurate. Rum had allot to do with the slave trade. Your edit downplays slavery. Also your edit wipes out any mention of slavery in the North and South. That is denial. The word "some" is undefined. The article does not state every Colonist practiced slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Again with your deceptive speak. Who said Victor's account wasn't accuarte? If you want to define "some" in better 'detail', which we are trying to curb, provide the sources. 'Some' is definitive enough and is not misleading like saying "New Englanders practiced in the slave trade..." Take it up with someone else if you are still seeing things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I can live with further edits, but there was nothing "misleading" about the text. If anything it's more misleading to include a generic statement about colonies having "passed acts for and against the practice", since that leads one who doesn't know better to believe that some had outlawed it by the eve of the revolution. Regardless, the article should mention somewhere, either in the Settlement or Civil War section, why slavery took off more in the south than the north, namely the terrain/climate differences that made large scale cash crop cultivation more feasible in the south. That's all perfectly easy to source. I'll note that the text, as currently adjusted by you, still does nothing to point out that most people, southerner or New Englander, weren't involved with slavery, only saying "some slave owners participated in the lucrative "Golden Triangle"...", not that only "some" people owned slaves. That new portion of the text will have to be adjusted since it wasn't just slave owners participating in the triangle. Also, why did you go out of your way to delete the link to the triangular trade page that explains all this in more depth? Finally, I'm not sure slavery should have its own paragraph in the Settlement section. But why bother discussing anything on the Talk Page first, right? It's more fun to indulge in waves of sudden, unilateral edits when multiple posters are focusing on a section simultaneously. And that worked out so well before, at least if one likes train wrecks.

Also, just because it's important to remain clear on this, slaves were not the primary source of labor. The text says they became the primary source of "bonded" labor, which says as much about the decline of indentured servitude as it does about the rise of slavery. VictorD7 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The section still mentions "bonded labor". Also, I didn't go "out of my way" to remove the link to the triangle, I simply forgot to add it when I did some rewording, which was partially in response to your previous comment that the account of slavery was too long. Also, if you are not comfortable with saying acts were "passed for and against", I can always re-introduce the particular acts, laws, starting with Roger Williams, all of which was and can be well sourced all over again. Yes, it wasn't just slave owners who particiaped in the triangle, it included shippers, merchants who dealt in goods produced by slaves but didn't necessarily own them, and Africa tribal chiefs, which is already mentioned. As you said, there is nothing misleading, but if we start adding all the details again the section will get bigger all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I know the text still says "bonded labor". I'm the one who just pointed that out after your comment here about slaves being "the primary source of labor." That said, though that's an old line, at some point it might be worth discussing whether slaves are actually "bonded labor" or not, and whether or not the sentence should be replaced with something about the decline of indentured servitude as cross Atlantic trips became more affordable. Regarding the link, I'm not sure why you precisely deleted it in the first place while leaving the term "Golden Triangle" in, but oh well. Doesn't matter now. Books can and have been written about countless details of colonial life, and we could always discuss whether temporary acts by Roger Williams are worthy of insertion or represent a skewing of proportion and an undue niche focus, since, as the text observed before I deleted the line, slavery was legal in every colony (and pretty much everywhere else in the world for that matter) late in the colonial period. I fixed the triangular trade sentence so it no longer implies "slave owners" represented the only involvement on the American end, replacing that term with "people". VictorD7 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : We seem to have all the excessive details under control, not to mention the misleading statements. As for acts and laws "passed for and against", in the settlement era, it is not my intention to reintroduce all the details but if you're not happy with "passed for and against" otoh, then it begs details. That comment was made just to qualify that settlers were divided against slavery, an idea that seems to be objectionable by the usual editor. As you said, the section is not misleading as it once was, and we have summary mention of slavery. To take it any further means (re)introducing content and details. And let's not forget, the Civil War section picks up the ball and covers slavery further, with lots of links to go with it, speaking of which. I just added a link to the African slave trade. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)s

Well, most of the misleading statements. We could simply delete the "passed for and against" sentence as frivolous instead of adding more details, but frankly at this point I'd prefer editors interested in the section move on from an obsessive focus on slavery to other issues, especially mercantilism. Chapter 4 in the Walton source has good info on it. It might serve as part of a broader effort in the Settlement and/or Independence sections to explain why the Americans revolted. It was a lot more than taxes, which is all the article currently mentions, as restrictive regulation from the Navigation Acts onward played an arguably even greater role. We should strongly consider mentioning the influence of Lockean philosophy somewhere too, probably in the Independence section. Regardless, the Settlement section looks a lot better than it did, and when I get more free time I'll probably turn my focus back to issues elsewhere in the article that I placed on the backburner when this History stuff blew up several weeks ago. VictorD7 (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You see VictorD7, how difficult it can be making edits concerning slavery when Gwillhickers gets involved. I am not the only one. In my opinion, Gwillhickers, is purposely manipulating the narration and inserting text that downplays the role of slavery in the United States and British settlements. This includes deleting the link to the Triangle trade and making edits without discussion on slavery. Gwillhickers wants to have his own way. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I merely make sure that individuals like yourself do not over state slavery in the typical late 20th century 'fashion', with sweeping and distored accounts that depicts entire populations of "whites" who "participated in the slave trade", etc, so kindly stop with the sour grapes. I have gone along with many of Victor's proposals, including a major rewrite for Pete's sake, all along. I even scaled down much of the text at his mention before and after he introduced his middle version, and you're still belly-aching. Please don't mistake my insistence that you not make sweeping and misleading statements, misrepresenting sources (of which you have a long history of, on the Thomas Jefferson page and now here), as being difficult. I've only been difficult with you, and with many good reasons. Kindly not carry on as if editors can't remember past yesterday. You constanly insult even average intelligence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, VictorD7's edit on slavery was not over played. Yet you had make alterations and in my opinion downplay any mention of slavery in the section. That is POV. I have been careful not to make any edits. I believed VictorD7's edit on slavery was accurate and acknowledged there was slavery in the North and South. The current edit does neither. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to mention slavery in the North and South when the settlements overall are being referred to, so your complaint is sort of fuzzy and no don't made to infer some sort of wrong without committing yourself to any statement that isn't true. Easy to see. Please stop carrying on as if Victor had nothing to do with the way the section reads and trying to imply I'm the only way calling the shots. You say you've been careful not to make any edits for the last day or so? That doesn't change the fact that you are ready and eager to make pov statements like this: 'New Englanders participated in the Golden Triangle...period.' I'm not down playing slavery, I'm just making sure you don't inflate the topic with a lot of smoke. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, the Golden Triangle segment about New Englanders followed an exposition on how slavery had become centered in the south. It merely observed that New Englanders were involved in the larger phenomenon too, providing balance. The section didn't say all slaves were in the south or that only New Englanders participated in the lucrative triangular trade, though, as the center of shipping and rum production, the triangular trade is usually associated with New England, even in the Wiki article linked. That said, I think the current version is a vast improvement over what the section was a few days ago. It might even be the best quality subsection in the History section. The Native American, Independence, and other sections still need work. VictorD7 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

First, there were Northern, Middle, and Southern colonies. Secondly there was slavery in the North and a thriving slave trade that was fueled by the making of rum. Third, from reading the article, I would have been satisfied with VictorD7's edit on slavery had there been no modification or reduction by Gwillhickers. The new Settlements section is vastly improved, however, there needs to be a distinction between the North and Southern colonies on slavery and the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Victor, agree that the section is a vast improvement. It mentions slaves were used as the chief means of bonded labor and mentions the triangle without getting into details about who did what in the north and south. If we're going to expound on details about rum, North South, etc, then we should also include, tobacco and cotton production, house slaves, etc, etc, along with plantations, who financed them, slave treatment and how their life expectancy was such that slave populations grew into the millions. Again, the summary as we've made it is fine and there are plenty of links in the section, as well as in the Civil War section, that link to dedicated pages covering slavery, while the topic no longer overshadows the entire settlements section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but for the record we do mention tobacco, slave treatment, and life expectancy. VictorD7 (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, but not in terms of, the north made this, did that - the south grew this and did that, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well there was a segment on slavery becoming bigger in the south due to the more friendly cash crop terrain until you deleted it. I added the segment to an appropriate paragraph in the Independence/Expansion section that already dealt with the north/south divide. I'm fine with the current Settlement section. VictorD7 (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is stating there were more slaves in the North in the South. The issue is the slave trade in the North. Particulary the rum for slaves as part of the Golden Triangle. Slaves themselves were traded, possibly to Southerners, in the North. Even the term Wall Street I believe was derived from slaves being sold on a wall. Please look at this link. This isn't Southern Tide Water country. This is New York City! Slave Market Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with the current settlement section too. Wonder why the US never got a reputation for making fine cigars like Cuba did. A good number of slaves were master craftsman, fine furniture makers, metal smiths, gun smiths, etc. Plenty of tobacco. How come no cigars? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

editbreak

Insert: Gwillhickers, I find your above comment racist and inappropriate for the this talk page. Hasn't the Paula Deen incident taught you a lesson. Suggesting that black slaves makes cigars for white slave master is completely beneath even your low standards. You make editing and even discussing slavery extremely difficult under a hostile environment. I find no humor in your above statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your numerous and sweeping references to whites and the countless examples of deceptive language where you attempt to claim that entire populations of settlers engaged in the "slave trade" or the 'triangle', and the lengths you've gone to misrepresent sources to prop it all up have demonstrated that you're the racist. I merely asked why were there no black cigar makers, a fine craft that took a lot of skill. If I had mentioned indentured servants and cigars you wouldn't have even blinked. Racist. You're the one who has assumed racism, out of habit, so kindly take your race card and use it for some other function. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is complete ignoring slavery in the North. That is why I put that New York City opened Wall Street slave market in 1711. There was no reason to delete the edit! Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason was that we can't fall back into the pattern of haphazard, unilateral edits and sparring over slavery that characterized this section for weeks. Given all the electronic ink spilled over this section here by multiple editors lately, there's nothing wrong with posting a proposal here and waiting for at least a couple of days to see if anyone objects. VictorD7 (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Unbelievable. Once again, the usual editor carries on like there was never any discussion extended to him. After all the discussion about 'details' and how the Settlements section treats all the settlements without getting specific, he still feels slavery in the north is being ignored, as if there were no settlements in the north, the very location where indeed most of them existed. Victor, thanks for putting your foot down. You beat me to it. Tired of this editor's self centered and myopic approach altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, I am shocked by your double standards. You coward down to Gwillhickers unilateral edit rather then defend your own superb editing on slavery in the Settlements section. Then you revert a once sentence edit that discusses slavery in New York. I don't need you permission to make edits to the article that currently completely ignores slavery in the North and South. I have tried to be patient and talk things out. That gets nowhere. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, the section has a whole paragraph on slavery, and it's discussed elsewhere as well. The section does include the Golden Triangle segment you wanted in, complete with a link to a page discussing New England's role in more depth. Nobody has gotten everything they wanted in the section, but it's vastly better than it was before, and the improvement was a team effort that resulted from hashing out things here in a more comprehensive way. The old piecemeal sparring is what derailed things earlier. Tell you what, if you post your New York sentence here and wait for three days, if no one else objects to it then I won't oppose you putting it back in. Does that sound fair? VictorD7 (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Many details were removed and a summary section largely authored by you was put in place. I continued to scale down text I had added and removed MANY details about the division over slavery, acts, laws, people, etc, all referenced by a variety of sources, so I'll be damned if I'm going to let this character ignore and blow off all the discussions we've had and come back in and carry on about specifics and plunge the section, and the talk page, right back into the same mess we worked weeks to get it out of. He pulled the same nonsense for months on the Thomas Jefferson page. And when things didn't go his way he played the race card, as we just saw here. Other editors accused him of having an agenda, and I even defended him believing, then, he didn't. Now I gotta wonder. Talk is a waste of time. He is never happy. You just put your foot down with this editor. My advice to you now is to blow this guy off. He has a lot of personal issues that he has always and continues to drag onto the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: "Blow this guy off", "Put your foot down with this editor", "He has allot of personal issues" Very hostile wording Gwillhickers. I have apologized before for a certain statement I made in the past. Maybe you need to apologize for this inappropriate language. Agenda. Slavery in the North is a huge issue today by researchers. People have denied and ignored slavery took place in the North because they did not want to taint the Puritan and Pilgrim settlers. The only agenda I have is to keep the article current and I believe the Settlements section needs to focus on beginings of slavery in the North and South by the Euroamerican colonists. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• We had a lot of discussions about keeping slavery in the Settlements section, in summary form, and many details were removed. MANY. Slavery and the division over slavery is referred to overall and in summary form in the Settlements section, with plenty of links to dedicated pages. Victor and myself went through great lengths to get the section to where it is now. Yet, you're back, yet again, ignoring everything and are all set to bloat the section out with details about New York. Before that it was Rum. Before that it was New Englanders. Before that it was the Puritans. At this point I have absolutely no faith in anything you have to say. You say one thing, but your actions and language tells us quite a different story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have no intention of letting the section go off the rails again. BTW, for the record, we shouldn't characterize our efforts as anti-detail. I'm pro detail. Heck, I'm Mr. Detail; just check out my extended Talk Page discussions and article contributions over the past year. My problem with the former Settlement section was the skewing caused by high detail level being applied to some topics selectively, indeed seemingly randomly, while other, often more pertinent topics were being ignored. We pulled back on the reins in certain areas, but we added more detail. Indeed the section now has more info across a breadth of topics than it did before. VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I don't make quid pro quo bargains on Wikipedia. Wikipedia as far as I know does not have a wait for three days policy. You seemed to make that policy up on the spot. You had an excellent edit of your own in the article that you allowed Gwillhickers to take out. In my opinion you should have reverted Gwillhickers edit, since I believe yours was more historically accurate concerning slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no "quid pro quo", lol, as I wouldn't be receiving anything. I basically just said I'd be fine with your edit as long as you posted here first and waited three days to see if anyone objects. That's a brief amount of time. I think I'm being extremely reasonable. If Gwillhickers makes sudden, significant, unilateral slavery edits to the Settlement section at this point I'll revert him too. I'm just trying to bring a modest level of calm, stability, and sanity to this process. VictorD7 (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I would prefer my edit on the 1711 New York slave market on Wall Street be restored without a wait for three days policy. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does however have a discussion and consensus policy and one for tendentious editing. It also has an undue weight policy. It also has a policy about refusing to get the point. It has numerous policies about disruptive behavior and campaigning to drive away productive editors. For openers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, what about a compromise, where you follow this sentence..."Colonial society was largely divided over the religious and moral implications of slavery and many colonies passed acts for and against the practice"...with the clauses...",though every colony had slaves, as did much of the world at time."...? That would establish that slavery existed in the north too, without becoming too skewed by selective focus, while providing some context as to the larger backdrop. Would that work? VictorD7 (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. First, Gwillhickers has made hostile statements concerning any suggestions I make for the article. Secondly, you first edit that Gwillhickers edited out was the best and did establish slavery in the North. Third, there needs to be a sentence that establishes there was slavery in the North, Middle, and Southern colonies. The term "every colony" does not have any geographical area attached. Also the term "as did much of the world at (the) time" is rather a defensive statement, POV, implying that since the rest of the world practiced slavery then slavery was an acceptable institution. VictorD7, I apologize for any statements I made on you being "cowardly". I appreciate your efforts at a compromise VictorD7, but I believe there needs to be three sentences that address slavery in the North, the Middle Colonies, and the South. Slavery in the north focused on the shipping of slaves and rum. Slavery in the South had to do more concering growing agriculture products and slaves working in the fields. Honestly I am not sure how slavery worked in the Middle colonies, but would be worth investigating. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's no more defensive than going to great lengths to point out that slavery existed in the north too, and doesn't imply it's an acceptable institution, but does provide context. It existed in much of the world at the time, and in many regions well into the 20th Century. In some places it's still going on, especially the sex slave trade. The Middle colonies, predictably containing both southern and northern geographical and economic elements, had more slaves than New England, in some colonies the slave population at times being 10% or more of the population. But New Englanders owned slaves too, often serving in houses and/or assisting in trades. Then, as you point out, there was the salient involvement in the triangular slave trade, both from a shipping and rum production standpoint. VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have recently read through The American Colonies: The Settling of North America by Alan Taylor (2002), however, and I did not find much if anything on slavery in New England. There is a book Complicity How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank (2006) that could help, however, I do not have page numbers on my Kindle edition. I did find a good website on Slavery in the North. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I will accept stating that slavery was practiced in all colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Slavery was practiced in all colonies, including the Northern, where slaves were auctioned in Philadelphia, Boston, Rhode Island, and New York. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you making a proposal here. The problem with that is that it singles out three cities and one colony by name that hadn't been mentioned at all elsewhere in the section, implying those places are most notable for slave auctions. They weren't. No colony was. My earlier version dealt in broad, regional terms, "New England" having already been established by the section, and included an observation and explanation about slavery becoming more pronounced in the south. There was no skewing through selective focus involved. VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, this is more evidence there is a concerted POV effort to keep slavery from the North out of the article. All colonies does not state specifically North, Middle Colonies or South. As I mentioned there needs to be specifics on all three sections. Currently I don't believe there is even a sentence that all colonies practiced slavery. I did not single out the Northern colonies, I mentioned all colonies practiced slavery and used the much understudied North as an example. There is a huge resistance to mentioning any geographic area where slavery was in the English colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there isn't currently a sentence stating that all colonies practiced slavery, which is why I suggested the clause above. Doesn't "all colonies" include the north, middle, and south? Why is more specificity needed? VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

More specifics is needed because the colonies were divided into three areas, New England, Middle Colonies, and Southern or Chesapeake Colonies. Why not name specific areas? There seems to be a strong resistance to mentioning Boston, Philidelphia, Rhode Island, and New York partcipated in slavery. That is POV. Let's keep things secret. Don't tell anyone. I added a second proposal that includes the Northern, Middle, and Southern colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit 2

• Slavery was practiced in all colonies. Slaves auctions were commonly held in New England, including cities of Philidelphia and Boston. In the middle colonies the Dutch practiced slavery and the institution of slavery grew under the English rule starting in 1664. In the South an aristocratic plantation economy developed that depended heavily on African slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's better from a scope standpoint, except that Philadelphia isn't part of New England, and, again, neither of those cities are mentioned anywhere else in the section. They weren't chiefly notable for slavery, so why should their only mention be in the context of slave auctions? It's also pretty long. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, VictorD7 you are not giving the New England Colonies even a chance to be notable since you are censoring that New England be included in the article concerning slavery. Correction: Philadelphia is part of the Middle Colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision:

• Slavery was practiced in all colonies, including New England where slaves were commonly traded in Boston. In the middle colonies the Dutch introduced slaves around 1625 and the institution of slavery grew under the English rule starting in 1664. In the South an aristocratic plantation economy developed that depended heavily on African slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you only interested in mentioning "Boston" in the context of slavery? The section currently doesn't list specific cities (outside the original two town settlements), but if they're added at some point it should be in a broader context than slave auctions. I also don't see what the point is of separating the three regions and giving each a sentence just to say flatly that they had slavery. There should be some rationale to singling out regions. Here's how the segment initially read: "This was especially true in the south, where the land was better suited for large scale cash crop cultivation than the rocky ground and cool climate of New England, though New Englanders, especially rum producers, participated in the lucrative "Golden Triangle" African slave trade, involving planters in European colonies in the Caribbean, shippers, and the African tribal chiefs who provided them with slaves.[53][70]"

It conveyed info on broad regional divergences and characteristics. It was subsequently reduced to this in a series of edits: "Some people participated in the lucrative, slave oriented "Golden Triangle", involving planters, merchants of various types, shippers, and the African tribal chiefs who provided them with slaves."

Maybe there's a way to tweak the original version that would address the concerns Gwillhickers raised, like adding the qualifier "many" to "New Englanders" and keeping the "rum" reference replaced with the current "merchants" mention. And maybe there's a way to get the Middle Colonies mentioned. However, my concern is also with length. The section already devotes an entire paragraph to slavery, and it shouldn't grow much longer than it already is, so if we make additions we'd have to be on guard against bloat. VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The word "some" could mean from 2 to 3 billion. There is no definition and I believe the word is POV. Also "some" does not distinguish colonies and is only reference to people in general. The segment doesn't even mention colonists nor colonies rather "people". In my opinion, Gwillhickers is minimizing the effects of slavery on Africans and Indians, at the same time hiding the fact that colonists participated in slavery by stating the word "people" rather then "colonists", and is indirectly implying that not all colonies participated in slavery. The is POV and simply misleading. I am certain if we tweak the sentence Gwillhickers will revert the edits. Gwillhickers likes to have things Gwillhickers's way in articles concerning slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : I have gone along with discussion and I'm not the one who is deleting your edits lately. Given you incessant and repetitive 'talk' and your numerous attempts to insert isolated details, and given your latest edits, it's sort of clear that it's you who must have things his own way. They say three point back. Again, you carry on as if you think people can't see or remember. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not only interested in Boston in terms of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed "people" to "colonists". So far the edit is holding up. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As we have discussed in length, we need to keep things in summary form. We don't have to say North Middle South -- all we need to do is what has been discussed and done. Re: The phrase Some settlers: This is used so as not to mislead the reader into thinking that Settlers in general or All settlers. By saying, New Englanders participated in the Golden Triangle, we are more than suggesting that most or all of them did -- and this too has ben explained to you personally several times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, stating "many settlers" or "most settlers" would imply most or all New Englanders practiced slavery. Stating "some settlers" is an undetermined amount and implies not many New Englanders had slaves. That is POV. I know you will be resistant to such change, however, new research is revealing owning and trading slaves was very common in New England and throughout the middle colonies. The article is treating all colonies geographically equal. This is not true, especially in the South where there was all year crop rotations and depended heavily on slavery. The article does not even state there was slavery in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, there's commentary on the rise of slavery in the south in the Independence and Civil War sections, which are part of the article (and which both frankly need some work). You're not entirely without a point when you say the article doesn't currently explicitly confirm its existence in the north, but "some" isn't POV. It's a vague description. If you wanted to change it you'd need to attack it as being inferior to alternative language for some reason.VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. How did slaves get to the South? Answer: During the Settlement period. The Settlement period needs to distinguish between the New England, Middle, and Southern colonies. Ok here is an example. "I had some chocolate ice cream for dessert." Does that mean I ate 500 gallons of ice cream, or most likely two or three scoops. Of course the latter. "Some" is POV! Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No, "some" may or may not be an adequate description, but you're misusing the term "POV". Slaves got to the south the same way they got to the middle and northeast. The Settlements section has a whole paragraph on slavery, so don't pretend like it's being ignored. You need to calm down, collect yourself, and rationally explain why you think the section is deficient on slavery, keeping in mind that at this point a limited change is far more likely than a large change on the topic. VictorD7 (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I am remaining calm cool and collected. I am certain Gwillhickers would have a fit if the word "Some" were removed. As I stated before, had you left your original sentence in, that I had accepted, then I would have not protested concerning the Settlements. Gwillhickers, in a sense, changed the whole outlook on slavery in the Settlements section. Ideally the Settlements needs to have a clear distinction between New England, Middle, and Southern Colonies. There is no mention in the article that the British allowed the Dutch to take over the Middle Colonies. From the current article, there is no geographic approach in terms of slavery. I would suggest at least putting in the article all colonies practiced slavery including the Dutch. That would be a good step in the right direction. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm' is the only one not satisfied with slavery coverage in the section and is still trying to introduce specific details at this late date and after lengthy (and wasted time spent on) discussions. Once again, saying "all colonies practiced slavery" (during all time periods?) is like saying all colonists practiced slavery. The notion that everyone, north or south, had two slaves in their 'garage' is a late 20th century politically motivated myth. Once again, most settlers could not afford to support a slave or slaves. This required a great initial investment in terms of purchase, housing, furnishings, clothing, food, etc and most settlers had all they could do to feed and cloth themselves. Slaves were mostly employed by plantation owners and other larger interests, esp in the early days of settlement. In places like Boston and New York Africans were often taken in as house servants by Christians opposed to slavery. (Another chapter swept under the rug.) There are many other such details we can include. I've removed many sourced details covering the division over slavery in the settlement era (which I may reintroduce if anyone starts inserting specific details again). Haven't we been through this? If there are sources (plural) that say many, most or all colonists had slaves for any particular colony, much less all the colonies, let's see them. If not, we're just wasting our time here. Consensus has been established. Cm' unless you can do more than repeat yourself and make the same sweeping assertions with no specific sources to back it up it would seem you need to come to terms with the 21st century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sweeping assertations? I was talking about removing the word "some" and that is a sweeping change? What source states "some" colonists own slaves? I have yet to read a source that states some colonists owned slaves. Douglas Harper (2003), Slavery in the North Introduction states the following, "African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people." The John Carter Brown Library (2007), Slavery and the Slave Trade in Rhode Island, states that "Rhode Island played a leading role in the transatlantic slave trade. Not only did Rhode Islanders have slaves—they had more per capita than any other New England state—but they also entered with gusto into the trade. By the close of the eighteenth century, Rhode Islanders had mounted at least a thousand voyages from Africa to the Americas." Alan Taylor (2001), American Colonies The Settling of North America, p. 177 states the New England economy was dependent on West Indian Slavery. "Although few New Englanders owned slaves, their region's prosperity depended upon a trading system that serviced the wealthier slave-based economy of the West Indies...New England freedom depended on West Indian Slavery." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your "all colonies practiced slavery" is a sweeping claim that implies that everyone owned slaves, which is not even close to the truth and is typical of the sort of statements you have used before and would like to use again, while your insistence for adding all the different details you've presented over the last week or so is becoming a blur. Again, the summary we took the time to draft and enter into the section has links to the dedicated pages on slavery, which is where you should be directing your energies. And while the sources you cite above say the new England economy depended on slavery, and mentions Franklin, et al, they make no reference to the Settlements era. Nor do they say many, most or all colonists owned slaves. The sources speak in general terms and are not time specific per the early Settlements, which is the name of the section. Still waiting for a source that says most, many or all settlers owned slaves. Every statement in bold speaks in general and questionable terms not directed at the settlements. Take this statement:

"By the close of the eighteenth century, Rhode Islanders had mounted at least
a thousand voyages from Africa to the Americas"

Not only does this statement refer to the post settlement era by simply and typically saying "Rhode Islanders" it tries to suggest that the entire population of RI was so involved, which is nonsense. We've been through this. You're aiming at the wrong section with the same fuzzy claims you once tried to inject into the article before. Nice show though. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the above source I gave stated there had been "slaves in all the old colonies." If there are slaves in all the old colonies then slavery was practiced in all the colonies. I take that Harper (2003) was refering to the original colonies during the Settlements period. The statement "all colonies practiced slavery" does not in any way imply that all colonists practiced slavery. I did not make that statement that all colonists practiced slavery. You changed VictorD7's original edit to make the article suitable to your own POV that only "some" colonists practiced slavery, when in fact slavery was practiced in all colonies including the Dutch colony. VictorD7's original edit is accurate. What source states when the "Settlements" "Era" ended? Franklin and Handcock were born in the colonial period. Isn't colonial and settlement period one in the same thing. Is there an exact date from a valid source that states when the Settlements period ended? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert : I said " Some colonists" I didn't say "some colonies". You just can't help it, can you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think my compromise proposal of just adding a clause like "...,though slavery existed in every colony." is looking better and better. The phrasing comes off as less sweeping than saying "all colonies practiced slavery", since we'd be referring to events within the colonies rather than actions by colonies themselves, and yet it also succeeds in establishing that slavery was practiced in the north and middle, and not just the south, the misleading latter impression potentially coming after reading the later sections' focus on southern slavery. VictorD7 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with VictorD7 and advocate that "slavery existed in all colonies" be put in the article in the Settlements section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit 3

To make the statement more clear it should read "slavery was practiced in all colonies by some of the colonists". It should be followed with the existing statement that colonists were largely divided over slavery. This will help to reeducate people who are still emotionally stuck in the 1960's school of thought. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

How about saying it was practiced "by some in every colony"? Flows better aesthetically. e.g. - ."Colonial society was largely divided over the religious and moral implications of slavery and many colonies passed acts for and against it, though it was practiced by some in every colony." I also still wouldn't oppose a brief addition pointing out that slavery was common over much of the world at the time. VictorD7 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Since most colonists were poor, or indentured, maybe we should further distinguish the topic.

Eventually slavery was practiced, mostly by merchants and planters, in every colony

The qualifier 'Eventually' should be added because the colonies had to go through an establishing and stablization period before they could set up farms, etc for which to use slaves. Also, when the various slaughters of colonists by Indians occured this would also include any slaves present, not just Europeans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually most colonists weren't that poor, especially by the late colonial period (though it might depend on one's definitions). While the statement about merchants and planters may be true, it seems to me that juxtaposing "mostly" with "merchants and planters" could accidentally give the false impression that most of these people owned slaves, running counter to this discussion's theme of wanting to avoid such impressions, concern having been expressed over language even less potentially guilty of that. However, I do think your timing concern is well founded, as we don't want to imply that colonial slavery was longitudinally universal. VictorD7 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Slavery ending

Apologies if this is in an inappropriate location - but I think the average reader would misintrepret the statement "The American Civil War ended legalized slavery in the United States." The Civil war ended in May of 1865 and the last slaves were freed in the border states in December of 1865. Of course the thirteenth amendment wouldn't have passed without the civil war, but if that's the point then it should be stated. Eljamoquio (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That's in the lede, for those who don't know. In fairness, the History section lower down does get into more detail, saying..."Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution ensured freedom for the nearly four million African Americans who had been slaves". Maybe the lede text could be adjusted to say something like "The American Civil War led to the end of legalized slavery...". VictorD7 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Genocide"

Any reason the word genocide no longer appears in this article? American nationalists are just like Holocaust deniers. Sickening and evil. Look at the language: "displacing native tribes"—like the Nazis "displaced the Jews"? Jesus Christ, you people make me sick. LudicrousTripe (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to your cool and level headed inquiry, that language is SURE to make its way back into the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not often someone's username is a specific notice as to the quality of their statements. --Golbez (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There would need to be a source or sources that specifically state "genocide". Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Genocide" was discussed at great length here and rejected as emotive POV rhetoric that failed to add anything substantive to the article. The term has no widely agreed on, universal definition, and its application to historic white/NA Indian relations is typically performed by activists writing polemics. To the extent it exists as a legal concept (since the mid-20th Century), convicting people ex post facto without a trial would be anachronistic at best. It's also frivolous, as any information meant to be conveyed by the word "genocide" could be described in clearer, more specific language. Using it in this context would be obtuse and potentially misleading. In fact the current article still needs to be changed to reflect the fact, conceded even by the source employing the word "genocide", that violence was not a significant factor in overall Amerindian population reduction (unlike, for example, the Jews in Nazi Germany). VictorD7 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page graffiti

Judging from the systemic prejudice and social slurs used by our outspoken friend it would appear she was raised in front of a television set. No one here has denied that Indians suffered heavy loses, as did many settlers who were also met with intentions of genocide from some tribes of xenophobic and racist Indians, and we've already discussed at length usage of the term "genocide". Since neither group actually suffered "genocide", or anything that actually came close to it, and since more Indians were killed by other Indians, by far, it would be ludicrous trying to describe in overall terms the actions of settlers, or "whites" if you prefer, with such 20th century hyper speak. Self proclaimed "progressives" ironically are stuck in the past, typically have a distorted view of it and seem to enjoy their predicament. Sad. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict insert) Looking at two particular comments made above it's not difficult to predict that someone will be reopening the "genocide" debate. When that happens we're going to need more than one RS that can do more than claim, but qualify, usage of the term "genocide" for any one group of people. And usage of the term to make 'overall' descriptions won't cut it. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Because the best thing to respond to a comment with blanket accusations is a comment with blanket accusations. --Golbez (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A primer on 'genocide'

I paraphrase Scott Straus in on the Committee on Conscience, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and a professor of political science at U. of Wisconsin, Madison. Indentifying genocide and related forms of mass atrocity – an effort to develop a conceptual standard “to identify the class of events that the atrocity prevention community wishes to prevent.” (p. 25) Some define a mass killing atrocity as 1,000 civilian deaths in a year ... Others define a mass atrocity as 5,000 civilian deaths, still others refer to a class of legal crimes such as crimes against humanity and war crimes (p.1). Genocide is a form of extensive, group-selective violence whose purpose is the destruction of that group in a territory under the control of a perpetrator. Extensive violence, is deliberate violence of a large scale, sustained over time and across space; it is organized and systematic, spread out geographically, and the perpetrator has the capacity to inflict such levels of violence (p.4-5). In short, to assess extent in areas under a perpetrator’s control, outside observers can look at deliberateness, at scale (are substantial numbers being targeted?), at systematicity (organization, coordination, patterned regularity), at time (repetition and sustainment, which are implied by systematicity), at geography (widespread breadth), and at capacity--ability, involvement by institutions (p.10).

Genocide has a logic of group destruction apart from the political violence which conforms to a coercive logic: political violence is designed to change the behavior of specific audiences. Repressive violence—is largely intended to signal to would-be protestors that such a fate would befall them if they were to do the same (Kalyvas 2006). Terrorist violence is similarly not designed to destroy groups; it is designed to generate fear, to attack symbols, and the like—it has a communicative function (Richardson 2006). Most political violence also envisages compromise and negotiation as an end point. Group destruction implies a different causal logic, namely, that from the perpetrator’s perspective the targeted group cannot be negotiated with, tamed, or repressed (p.10-11). Definitions are problematic. How much group destruction, a numeric threshold, state as a necessary perpetrator, distinguishing war from genocide, relating genocide to the Holocaust (p.15-17). Writer/editors have conflicting objectives: 1. Moral or ethical objective: genocide is normative, something very bad. 2. As a legal concept, it must meet evidentiary proof in a court of law. 3. The narrative may be merely an empirical identification of a type of violence with the properties of genocide (p.17).

Alternatives: Mass atrocity is emerging as the dominant alternative, broader standard than genocide. Along with crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes to describe violence against civilians (p.19). Within mass atrocity against civilians is mass killing and mass violence. Christian Gerlach defines mass violence as “widespread physical violence against noncombatants, that is, outside of immediate fighting between military or paramilitary personnel. Mass violence includes killings, but also forced removal or expulsion, enforced hunger or undersupply, forced labor, collective rape, strategic bombing, and excessive imprisonment”. In contrast to mass killing, mass violence includes a range of kinds of violence. Unlike genocide, mass violence is not necessarily group-selective (p.21-22). Apart from the Indian Wars, we should use “mass violence” to describe the violence perpetrated by local regulators and state militias, Army commands and sutlers, and Interior Department agents and commissaries, against Native American civilians over the centuries of US history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian history of the USA

Two sentences, yes 2 !

On Pre-Columbian history of the USA.

I would imagine there are tons of history faculties, especially in the US, which have produced numours publications on Pre-Columbian history of the USA - or am I mistaken? Or no one is interest in more than 2 sentences?  :-( regards --Hoffmansk 18:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's more like three sentences, but keep in mind that this is a USA page, not a North America page, so its focus is on the US and the most pertinent factors in its development. VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Star-Spangled Banner audio file

I see there has been an edit war going on about inclusion of the "The Star-Spangled Banner" audio file in the info box. I agree that the file shouldn't be removed from the page but it is not 'info' and doesn't belong near the top of the info box. It is better placed at the beginning of the Culture section, perhaps above the picture of the Statue of Liberty. Because of the edit war, I'll wait for comment (and tempers to cool) before moving it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a positive change to me. — Lfdder (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. I like it right where it is. It contains audio info on tune and lyrics, and is in the same place the UK anthem is. As the official national anthem it's more appropriately placed where it's easily accessible at the top of the page than way down in the Culture section. It doesn't consume much space and I don't see a problem with it. VictorD7 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How about we include a video of fire works, with '4th of July' in the caption? The song is not information. If we were to list the song by 'title' under 'National Anthem: Star Spangled Banner', that would be info'. What may occur on another particular page, good or not so good, doesn't concern us here. We should weigh the idea on its own merit. We should compromise. We shouldn't remove it, but place it in a more appropriate section.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's wrong. The current song has lyrics in it. The song "The Star Spangled Banner" is 100% related to the song "The Star Spangled banner." Fireworks aren't the only things having to do with the Fourth of July. Think of it from the perspective of a foreigner doing research on the US. They come to the wikipedia page for conveniently placed information. They'll be looking for things like what the national anthem is. They shouldn't have to dig through this enormous article to find the song itself. The way it is now is simple, it's convenient, it makes sense. I oppose the removal/move of this information.Kude90 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we should leave it where it is unless there's a consensus to move it. The song is information, as I just pointed out. Lyrics and tune. It does appear below "Anthem: Star Spangled Banner". A fire works video, while potentially badass, doesn't contain the salient, notable information worthy of topline inclusion in the info box. A better comparison are the pictures of the flag and Great Seal at the top of the info box, which convey non verbal, visual information. The song is as notable as stuff like the Seal and motto. While everything about US society could be classified broadly under "culture", the national anthem's official status puts it in a different category than merely culture. It would reduce article quality to keep the title mention in the info box but move the playable tune much lower in the article. Better to keep them together. VictorD7 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing flags and seals. — Lfdder (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well that's not happening. My personal opinion is that audio or video content should typically only be in an article dedicated to it, i.e. the media file for the song should be only in the article on said song. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not happening. — Lfdder (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Golbez. There is no reason for audio files for songs to appear anywhere except in their articles. If someone wants to know about an anthem, they typically want to see the lyrics, know when it was written, etc., which they may find by clicking the piped link to its article. TFD (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In which case, we should strip this article to the basics only. No maps, no true information. This should be a Disambiguation. We should just leave a collection of terms linked to their articles. That's not what an encyclopedia is.Kude90 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw man, no one proposed doing that. We both proposed removing audio and video information to other articles. If you aren't going to take this seriously... --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No "true" information? Is the song "Yankee Doodle" considered "information"? What, exactlly, makes the National Anthem "information"? i.e.WHAT info does it actually contain? If you can explain that then we'll go ahead include a sound clip of "Yankee Doodle" also. Disagree/agree with Golbez, Lfdder and TDF, the Anthem should NOT be removed from the page but instead placed at the top of the Culture section near or above the Statue of liberty. Compromise. Btw, Lfdder, I wasn't very pleased with your suggestion that the flag be removed (every such info box has the flag) and now suspect your reasons to remove the Anthem were, shall we say, not very nice. (Hope I'm wrong on that.) So if the sound clip remains where it is, I'm still a happy camper. Just would like to move it for reasons stated. It's not "information", and don't apprecaite people reinventing the English language to make a point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly; I wasn't being literal. Bit interesting that I've taken the anthem out from about 10 other country articles but it's only caused a stir here though. — Lfdder (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More interesting that it's such widespread Wikipedia practice to include the anthems. What country articles have you removed it from in this little crusade?VictorD7 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What are your sentiments....exactly? Just 'cos it's widespread doesn't make it good practice; and that's what you're arguing above/below, if I'm not mistaken. Is it that you agree with condescendingly calling it a "little crusade" then? What are your sentiments, exactly? — Lfdder (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I saw you have deleted several national anthems over the past couple of days, though you didn't edit war when you were reverted on the UK page. Interesting. Personally, I like being able to go from the UK, Ireland, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Ukrainian, etc. pages and listen to the national anthems with a quick click without having to go through other articles. So far no one has articulated how it supposedly harms the article. VictorD7 (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a list of national anthems with audio. — Lfdder (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice, but I still like to click on the national anthem from time to time while I'm researching other things about a nation. You still haven't articulated how it supposedly harms the article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Never said it does. — Lfdder (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, are you really saying you don't know the difference between the national anthem and a regular song? The Star Spangled Banner was made the national anthem by statute in 1931. To my knowledge the nation only has one official national anthem. I'm not sure why you feel other people are reinventing the English language. Do you consider the national motto and pictures of the flag and Great Seal to be information? Also, to clarify, were you advocating that the textual mention ("Anthem: "The Star Spangled Banner"") be moved too, or just that it be split from the audio file? VictorD7 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The National Anthem is a song and has a melody and lyrics like most songs. Are you seriously trying to say the Anthem is not a song? Not regarding the Anthem as a song and calling it "information" imo is reinventing the language, albeit one word of it. Have you ever heard anyone say, Hey honey, they're playing our information? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The words and tune are information. Assuming that was meant to be a response to me (I adjusted the indent), you didn't answer my questions about whether you consider pictures of the flag and seal to be "information" according to whatever peculiar definition you're using, or if you're advocating that the text be moved or just the audio file. BTW, there are a lot of flags, even among Americans. Your "Yankee Doodle" argument is about as sound as arguing against the US flag by saying its inclusion would open the door to adding a "Don't Tread on Me", Olympics, or Dallas Cowboys flag.VictorD7 (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really, info boxes for countries are supposed to have the country's flag there and no other sort of flag should be included. Anyways, I thought the Anthem would be better off in a different section, but like I also said, at this point I'm not too concerned with the location, just as long as the Anthem remains on the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as no other sort of flag should be included, and no other sort of motto should be included, no other sort of "song" or "anthem" should be included. A national anthem is just as unique among songs as a national flag or national motto. Heck, possible more so, seeing as a nation often has more than one representative flag (such as naval ensigns). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To make my points more out front and consolidated: I don't think audio and video material should be on any article except the article explicitly about said material. Keep song clips to articles about the song, keep video clips to articles about the video itself or the event being taped, etc. I know this is the Internet we're talking about but I don't think we're ready for our articles to be complex A/V experiences. --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The National Anthem is the official United States song since 1931. However, the song itself was never commissioned by any federal office nor Congress to be written specifically for the country. That might make a difference. The music and lyrics were composed by seperate persons and in different time periods. The composer for the music was actually British in 1778 during the American Revolution. Francis Scott Key wrote the lyrics in 1814 during the War of 1812. Since there is somewhat of a chaotic background to the song, possibly there should be no recording of the song in the entire article. Being in the lede infobox could be misleading. The song was adopted to be Americas national anthem. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tunes were often used by more than one song back then. The British anthem should sound familiar to American school kids, of course with very different words applied. That said, the tune we're discussing (originally To Anacreon in Heaven) has morphed from a drinking song to a march over the years as applied to the Star Spangled Banner. If anything, the song's organic development and consequential, real lyrics make it more notable as a national anthem than the typical anthem commissioned by a government out to a paid professional, who may or may not even be a resident of that country, to write from scratch and fill with lofty but largely empty rhetoric. But the truth is none of that really matters for our purposes here. National anthems are notable. In fact I've been thinking for some time that the anthem's inspiration in the War of 1812 should be mentioned in the History section's text. VictorD7 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor consensus removal from article

• Support removal of the National Anthem audio from the article. The audio of the National Anthem is already in the Star-Spangled Banner article. The song was never commissioned by Congress in the first place. I would imagine there would have been some sort of internationl plagerism in terms of taking John Stafford Smith's music combined with Francis Scott Key's lyrics. There is no need to have the audio in the article since this is not an article on music. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; clearly there's no consensus for removal. I'm not even sure why you started this section. At least four editors have already gone on record opposing removal. Also, the song's origin is irrelevant to this discussion. Congress made it the official national anthem in 1931. Material can be and often is conveniently located on more than one page. A nation's national anthem is pertinent to the country article, and adding the audio/lyric file right underneath the title is efficient and user friendly without consuming much space. So far no article harm has been articulated. VictorD7 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, however I think as a compromise the sound file is more appropriately and should be placed in a different section. Don't want to start a trend of putting video and music clips in info boxes of history and geography articles. i.e. My reasons are academic, not personal or political. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not sure if editor concensus had been reached. Again, this article is not a music article. Why not have Jimi Hendrix play the national anthem? Here is the link: Jimi Hendrix - Star Spangled Banner (January 9, 1969) Konserthuset, Stockholm Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, do you know what the term "non sequitur" means? VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked up the meaning of "non sequitur" and yes I understand the definition. But how does this apply as to whether to keep the Star-Spangled Banner audio? I supppose you are refering to the Jimi Hendrix audio. I posed a good question. Why can't his version be used in the audio? Was the recording that is currently played sanctioned by Congress? No. What was sanctioned by Congress was not the recording but rather the lyrics and music (chords and notes) to the Star-Spangled banner. That is my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I was referring first (at least regarding your latest post) to the "music article" sentence, as though national anthems can only appear in "music article(s)", whatever that even means, and second to the Hendrix claim. If you're trying to argue that the existence of more than one audio source means we shouldn't include any, your logic could also be applied to the various pictures chosen for use throughout the article, or for that matter to the text itself. It's about editor judgment. Now if you wanted to sincerely argue that we should replace the current audio file with a Hendrix version, then I for one would oppose that by saying that the current march version better represents how the national anthem has traditionally been played, and is a basic version that, being devoid of affectation, communicates the essential tune more clearly. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, this is not a musical article. This is an article on a country the United States. National anthems are music. There are patriotic words and chords to the music. Music is not the same as photos and are incomparible for this situtation, in my opinion. Yes. I agree it's about editor judgment. I am not asking that the current National Anthem music be replaced by the Jimi Hendriz rendition. You have not answered my question. Was the current National Anthem recorded media in the article sanctioned by Congress? That answer is no. Congress only sanctioned the lyrics and music (chords and notes). To verify, is there any source where this Congressional sanctioning can be found of the National Anthem to get the direct wording of the sanction? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This the U.S. Code on the National Anthem:

"The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem."

Source:36 USC CHAPTER 3 - NATIONAL ANTHEM, MOTTO, FLORAL EMBLEM Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Congress sanctioned the composition of the National Anthem, not the recording. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So what? It didn't sanction the fonts available for text use on the Wikipedia page or the particular picture files used for the flag or seal either. As editors we find appropriate means to represent these items. Again, you don't have a point. And I assumed your question was rhetorical. You also failed to explain why you feel the pictures throughout the page aren't comparable when I cited them to illustrate that editors routinely use judgment in article construction (which you just said you agree with) even when countless alternatives are available, and you failed to explain what a "musical article" even is much less why national anthems should be exclusively restricted to them. At least your bizarre "patriotic words and chords" sentence is educational in offering yet another example of a non sequitur. VictorD7 (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos have no direct relationship with the Star-Spangled Banner audio in the current article. Of course editors can choose what photos to be in the article. There is no official version of the National Anthem so why have a recording of the National Anthem in the article? Editor concensus 2 to 1 is to keep the SSB audio in the article. I am not sure why there is any reason to keep going over this issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just curious about your understanding of the concept of non sequiturs, but if you want me to stop asking questions...like about why it matters whether or not there's an "official" version of the national anthem any more than an official picture file of the flag or seal...I will, since, as you say, it doesn't matter. VictorD7 (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, I have not had a Logic class since the 1980's. You state I made a non sequitur arguement. I disagree that I have. The important issue is to state "I am human" and to respect yourself and others. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the file should be removed, the loading of the player causes the page to take much longer to load. This minor inconvenience I feel outweighs its minor benefit to being included on this page, instead of being a click away on the star spangled banner page 50.80.146.188 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Settlements first paragraph rewrite

I am about to make a rewrite to the Settlements first paragraph. I have added solid Taylor (2001) references. The Paragraph can be expanded. It fits in the time line of the Settlements segment. I have purposely avoided Indian contact. The current paragaph contains no references and does not mention De Soto or Coronado, the two main conquistadors, who explored much of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The French explorations in Mississippi I believe took place in the 1670's. This can be readded later. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remember, this is the Settlements section. For context we of course mention that prelininary exploration occured, but we don't want to start dragging in names of all the explorers with details associated with each. You should however mention that the first European contacts with Indians were made at this time. One sentence should do it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted for reasons given. You replaced a serviceable summary paragraph with one that skews things by focusing only on the Spanish, and with a level of name detail not generally found elsewhere in the section. References aren't necessary for such basic facts, especially when links to pertinent articles are provided. This about editing, not sources. That said, if you believe some text is potentially disputable and that it should have references, you aren't supposed to immediately delete it, at least not for that reason only. Call attention to it, preferably with a section here, and give people time to source it. You aren't really disputing anything in the current paragraph though, are you? VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That said, we could adjust the French sentence to something like "There were also some French attempts at colonization along the east coast, and later settlement along the Mississippi River." Or, if you insist, we could just drop MS River clause. But the French were extremely active players on the continent from the early colonization period and should be mentioned in the stage setting paragraph. We don't need an entire paragraph about either them or the Spanish though. VictorD7 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, you have violated Wikipedia policy by deleting referenced material and replacing over non referenced material. The Spanish did much of the early exploration. Your "basic facts" contention is not founded on Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to cite references and sources. I can delete sentences that are unsourced. You are establishing a dictatorship over this article and not allowing editors to make any edits that you don't approve of regardless of conversation. Taylor is an extremely good source whom you for some reason prefer to have non referenced information rather then supporting Taylor as a source. This is Wikipedia mutiny and a double standard. We allowed you to make major edits to the article but you have refused to allow myself to make edits. You allow Gwillhickers to edit but not myself. You had no right to revert my edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia mutiny" LOL! Funny, yesterday you were whining about Gwillhickers opposing your edits. No, Cmguy, I'm not establishing a dictatorship and I certainly haven't violated any Wiki policies. Editors have the right to contribute and revert. When I do revert I'm careful to explain why and I've demonstrated a willingness to hash things out on the Talk Page. You're upset because you can't make any unilateral edit you want to on a whim. Some of your unilateral ones have been allowed, but most of your large ones have been problematic and have been reverted by various editors for good reasons. People here have been extremely patient in dealing with you, trying to address your concerns, and finding ways to incorporate at least some of your proposals into the article, despite an often questionable impact on article quality. By contrast, when frustrated you've resorted to launching transparently baseless insults against editors like me and Gwillhickers, and falsely accusing us of violating policies you clearly don't understand. I ignored your personal and frankly moronic insult against me in the above section even before you took it back and apologized, continuing to politely try to work with you the whole time. If you had said that to me in person (which I doubt you would have) it would have been a different and no doubt grislier story, but I was going out my way to exercise forbearance here. As a result of editors' forbearance you've been allowed to wag the dog here for too long.

As for this particular edit, you're still babbling about sources as if someone had claimed what you posted wasn't true. Again, this isn't about sourcing, it's about editing (what belongs in the paragraph). The vast majority of true, well sourced statements in the world dealing with biochemistry to World of Warcraft wouldn't be appropriate for this page's Settlement intro. Neither is suddenly flipping over weeks of intense work to improve the section by whimsically deciding to erase the opening paragraph and replace it with a bizarre exposition on Spanish exploration that cites a bunch of names when we don't mention names throughout the rest of the section (except for James I). It sometimes seems like you're intentionally trying to sabotage the article. The alternative is that you have no grasp of context or perspective whatsoever. Or maybe you've just never seriously studied history before so your knowledge base is weak, and you're excited whenever you come across some new factoid, having no sense of how or if it belongs in a brief survey piece.

Now I'm obviously willing to discuss changes to the section, but it has too many interested editors' eyes on it for you to just run wild and free throughout it, either intentionally or unwittingly screwing it up with rapid fire, random, undiscussed, unilateral edits. That's how it became a train wreck before. Remember, Cmguy, this isn't your page either. VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

One statement is true VictorD7. This isn't my web page. It is every editors. You have a way subtly attacking myself and recently personally attacking by inference that I don't have any logic. You have violated Wikipedia policy. Ownership of articles is forbidden. You replace non referenced material over valid sourced material. Wikipedia requires references. Your first paragraph had no references and is not Wikipedia policy. This is an important article. You have violated Wikipedia policy by not allowing myself to make edits. I was using the established Taylor as a reference you delete as if there were no references. What is next? All edits need approval by VictorD7 in the article. We showed you allot of leeway when you put in your edits but now you have a double standard of not letting me edit one paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, you sound like a malfunctioning software program. Everything I said is true and I haven't violated any policies. References are not required and many sentences throughout the page aren't sourced, including much of the lede. Indeed Golbez once led an effort to remove unnecessary sources from the lede to save space. Conversely, being sourced is no guarantee against reversion, for reasons I hopefully don't have to spell out for you again. That said, the stuff I added to the Settlement section is sourced. The stuff you tried to remove has been there a long time (it's not my first paragraph) and I have no idea who added it (except the Roanoke sentence I added, which contains a freaking link to the Roanoke Colony page and all sorts of sources; have you never heard of the lost colony?), but though it's unsourced the facts it contains are basic and undisputed.

I posted my Settlement edit here for over a week before implementing changes, and other editors, including you, supported it! Remember? Do I need to requote what anyone can still read you saying in the above sections? Heck, I've only reverted you on a couple of occasions, the last time being the New York slave sentence you tried to add, and I told you I'd be fine with you putting it back in if you posted it here for a measly three days and no one else objected to it. Hardly dictatorial. Of course it found no support and more objection. You did, however, have enormous impact in shaping the Native American section, and are responsible for the Golden Triangle inclusion in the Settlement section. The bottom line is that since the Settlement section has seen so much intense editing and discussion lately, it's reasonable to post any significant changes to it here first, at least for a while. VictorD7 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I supported your edits, but you are not allowing me to make any edits in the first paragraph. That is a double standard. VictorD7. Here is Wikipedia policy:Identifying reliable sources. There are no reliable sources in the first paragraph. You deleted an edit with reliable references that fit in the timeline of the Settlements section. The Taylor (2001) was deleted as references. This book specifically is on the American colonies and addresses directly the settlements period. If neccessary I will go to a neutral administrator to resolve this issue. You have no right to bar the Taylor (2001) references from this article. This is not about me, this is about Taylor (2001). Cmguy777 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I posted my edit here for over a week before implementing it, gaining support first, and I only asked you to leave yours posted here for three days before implementing it, there is a double standard, but I held myself to the much higher one. You don't want to run Settlement section edits by people here first at all.

I never said you couldn't make an edit. I even tried to work with you to reach a compromise, but you weren't interested in discussing it. Your "reliable sources" link explains different types of appropriate sources; it doesn't say every sentence must be sourced. It must be verifiable. Sources should be added to "material challenged or likely to be challenged". Are you challenging the accuracy or verifiability of any of the statements you tried to remove? If so which one? Let's do it one at a time. I want you on record as questioning whether other European explorers followed Columbus, or the lost English colony of Roanoke existed. If not, well looky here: "When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[3] If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Did you try to find sources yourself before removing the material? Or were you just using the absence of references for obvious, undisputed statements as an excuse to delete material and make room for your new write up, possibly under the (erroneous) calculation that the sourcing contrast would make it look better and improve its chances of survival? Because that would be a "no no" categorized as "gaming the system". Believe me, Cmguy, when I say that you're the last person on this page who should want to run to admin. Talk about the potential to blow up in your face.

Conversely, back to the Verifiability page, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." So you see, simply being sourced doesn't mean a paragraph warrants inclusion. If other editors object to it you need to articulate an argument why it would improve the article. VictorD7 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

First, this is the United States article and I believe every paragraph needs to have citations. According to Taylor (2001), most of the exploration was done by Coronado and De Soto. The French I believe colonized in the 1670's rather then the 1500's. Secondly, every sentence had an inline citation and, I believe, added neccessary references. The edit also stated that Columbus was looking for a trade route to the Orient. Again, this is from the Taylor (2001) source. Thirdly, if this "blows up" let it. I don't care anymore. I don't see how this can "blow up" in my face when I was following Wikipedia policy to the T. I believe I wrote a better paragraph for the article that was straight forward with a valid references. The Spanish did much of the explorations in the U.S. particularly De Soto. I listed all the modern day states as Taylor (2001) stated that De Soto visited. If Taylor found this to be important, then I believe this needs to be in the article. You keep pointing the fingers at myself when the real issues is Taylor (2001). The book was edited by Eric Foner, an established and respected historian. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, refer back to our earlier discussion on non sequiturs. At best that was an only partially developed thought. Second, the entire paragraph doesn't need to be about explorers, much less Spanish explorers. It currently only spends two sentences on exploration, explicitly focusing on the Spanish. Most of the rest of the paragraph is about settlement. Spanish, French, and English settlement is mentioned. The French, and for that matter the English, both explored and attempted to settle parts of what's now the US before Jamestown was founded. For a quick primer here's a page on French colonization. I mentioned Roanoke since it's famous and was the most salient pre-Jamestown English attempt. Your edit obliterated all that, and you have yet to give a good reason why.

You didn't answer my question about whether you're challenging the verifiability of the statements you tried to delete, or if you first tried to find sources for them yourself as Wikipedia policy suggests. I can envision legitimate concerns over the current wording of the French sentence (in placement or focus, not accuracy), and tried to work with you on that, but you ignored my efforts and launched into your earlier rant. And no, I'm no fan of the far left Foner or Taylor but this isn't about them; indeed your own Taylor source could have referenced most if not all of what you tried to delete. This is about editing, not sourcing. You need to explain why erasing any mention of pre-Jamestown settlements, activity by the French and English, and a summary sentence about the unsuccessful fate of early colonial attempts, and replacing all that with a paragraph focusing only on a couple of named Spanish conquistadors, despite countless more pertinent names from John Smith to John Rolfe to William Bradford to Thomas Dale to Roger Williams to Benjamin Franklin not appearing in the section, somehow improves the article. You can't view contributions in a vacuum, Cmguy. Context matters. VictorD7 (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, first you stated that you did not even write the paragraph except for the last sentence on Roanoke. That means Roanoke was not part of the original paragraph. Why deletion? I keep telling you there were no reference citations so I have a right to delete and put in sentences with proper references. It is better to put in new sentences with new references rather then try to backtrack and bend any sources to fit the original paragraph. Secondly there was a chronolocial difficulty with the paragraph. The French colonized the Mississippi in the 1670's. So that means chronologically you go from the 1500's by mentioning the Spanish, then to the 1670's by mentioning the French, having failed to mention the Spanish were there in the 1500's under the Desoto's expedition, then you jump backwards in time to Roanoke, a failed British colony, but you won't mention the Viking failed colony at Vinland, and Taylor (2001) does discuss on page 33. You failed to find references for the paragraph and you failed to give a source for the Roanoke sentence and then you put the blame on me for failing to find references or any sources. And the fact is I did add Taylor (2001) as a source for my edits and references. Why find sources when you reject the sources or make some other excuses for deleting from the article. You are manipulator with your personal attack myself concerning non sequitor. I did keep the part about Columbus discovering America and used Taylor (2001) as a reference. I made the statement more accurate by putting in the Columbus was looking for a trade route to the far East. I focused on De Soto and Coronado because that is who Taylor (2001) focused. VictorD7, you continue to control this article by harrassing myself over an edit I made with valid references. No explanations I have voluntarily given ever seems to satisfy your seemingly unquenchable desire to control and manipulate myself as an editor and this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You're still dodging, Cmguy. Wikipedia policy: "When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[3] If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Did you try to find sources yourself before removing the material? Or were you just "gaming the system"? I didn't fail to find anything. All the stuff you tried to delete is easily sourceable, including by your own Taylor source (which I never "reject(ed)", contrary to your claim), which discusses the European explorers who followed Columbus (even boiling it down to a sentence similar to the text's on p. 37), and even has a titled section on Roanoke. You still refuse to say whether you dispute the accuracy or verifiability of anything you tried to delete. This isn't about sourcing. We're still at the point where you're supposed to be explaining why the text should be changed so that the first paragraph only discusses Spanish conquistadors, and why we should mention them by name when more pertinent people aren't mentioned. So far you've failed to even try to explain how that would improve the article. BTW, my Roanoke inclusion was part of the edit proposal I posted here for over a week and that you supported. It had been in the article unchallenged for several days. I already said I might partially agree with you on the French sentence (though they tried to colonize the east coast in the 1500s), but instead of addressing my suggestions on it you threw a temper tantrum and ran off to lie about me to an administrator, which I don't appreciate. And your totally baseless insult against me, flung when you were angry that I wasn't reverting some stuff Gwillhickers added (at least not as much as you wanted), predated my politely worded question to you about non sequiturs, the latter being legitimate. Your dishonest personal attacks on me are getting tiresome. You'd be well served to drop them and focus on the substance of the paragraph you want to completely rewrite, discussing how to improve the article instead of endlessly repeating your already addressed, off the mark sourcing comments. Start by going back and replying to my initial French post. VictorD7 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Any statements I make are ignored by you VictorD7. No one made this much scrutiny when we allowed you to make your major edits. I only edited a paragraph I get the third degree. I am not on trial. I do not need to defend myself for my edits. While I was reading Taylor (2001) he emphasized Coronado and De Soto. So if Taylor (2001) as a source emphasized Coronado and De Soto, then I would in the article. In the previous edit states were named and in my edit I named states so there was not that much difference. I have noticed that Juan Ponce de León has not been readded to the article. I did not believe Juan Ponce de León explorations were signifigant enough to be mentioned compared to De Soto's expedition. You continue to harass me over this edit I ask you to stop. I have no need to respond to your hostile language or implications. One other matter, when you made that sweeping edit that we allowed and approved you did not add any references to first paragraph. Why did not you look for references? Then you accuse me of not looking for references for the paragraph. You did not even add a reference to your own edit on Roanoke. Taylor (2001) did not support entirely the paragraph I deleted. If you mention Roanoke then you need to mention the Vikings and Vinland. Both were failed colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure whether you're sincere or trolling, but there's no point in trying to logically respond to your last paragraph in detail. I'll just answer your clear question about why I didn't source the first paragraph by reminding you that it was already there, and had been for quite some time. I only added the Roanoke line, complete with a link to the Roanoke page, which, like the lines already there, is such basic, easily verifiable info that I figured it wasn't worth wasting time and space explicitly referencing. I certainly wasn't challenging the statements. You can't summon the minimal courage to say whether you're challenging them or to answer my other pertinent questions, so I won't bother re-asking them. Your own source emphasizes Roanoke with a titled section, so by your own dubious logic it must be included (along with a ton of other stuff), and yet you deleted it. I say dubious, in part, because as editors it's our job, through consensus, to determine page layout, what's notable enough for inclusion, etc.. We aren't bound by what a single, random source you find allegedly chooses to emphasize. Different sources focus on different things, and a book is different from a brief Encyclopedia survey. Even if that wasn't the case, your Taylor book is about North America, not the United States per se, and would therefore be a poor choice as a blueprint. I'll close by pointing out that so far no one has supported the edit you tried to make, and two editors have criticized it. VictorD7 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, you are invited to join United States Editor Dispute on Wehwalt talk page. Wehwalt has agreed to moderate the conversation. Wehwalt is a neutral administrator. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert For future reference, the dispute seems to have been moved. Here's a link to it. [1]Kude90 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

He agreed to mediate if I agreed to it, and he pointed out that his suggestions wouldn't be binding. That was his polite way of letting you know that this isn't an admin issue. There's no need for mediation. You made an edit that was reverted because other editors objected to it and explained why. That's how Wikipedia works. Instead of bothering administrators, you should focus on putting your effort into gaining editor support for your proposal and/or reaching a compromise with those who disagree with you. BTW, I'll note that I and Gwillhickers were previously working to address your lingering concerns over slavery language, but that effort has stalled since you abruptly opened up this new tangent. VictorD7 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine VictorD7. The purpose is to have a neutral opinion and I believe Wehwalt would be a good neutral mediator on this matter. Please feel free to state your views in Wehwalt's talk page unless there has been another designated area for the mediation. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. The discussion has begun and we are waiting for you to post. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, again, I don't appreciate you telling falsehoods about me. I don't see how you could have possibly read what I just wrote above about mediation not being required and been sincere afterward when you reported to the admin that I had "accepted" mediation. Please stop bothering administrators and put your energy into gaining editor support for your proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. No falsehoods were spread. I would appreciate a direct Yes or No answer in regard to accepting and invitation to mediation. Your answer was vague, neither an acceptance nor a rejection. Are you declining an invitation to mediation? Yes or No. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if that BS about my reply being too vague was true, why then did you falsely report that I had "accepted" mediation? BTW, I'm under no obligation to "decline" mediation since it only starts if I actively accept it, but yes I decline. I was even in the process of using that exact word and admonishing you for repeating yourself before an edit conflict showed your updated claim about the discussion supposedly starting. VictorD7 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert: VictorD7. I stated that I had believed you had accepted from your statement. A yes or no answer would have been appropriate. All I wanted was a neutral point of view from Wehwalt. You refused to have an open dialogue with Wehwalt. That I do not understand. A neutral editor is needed to have any compromise. I believe the real issue is article ownership. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone is free to post their opinions here and I haven't rejected having a regular content conversation with any editor. Herculean self restraint is keeping me from stating what the real issue is here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert:VictorD7. Your last remark appeared to have hostile intent. There is no need to be angry in this matter. Since there appears to be no one defending my edits and we seem to be going around in circles I consider this talk segment to be closed. Rather then paragraph, I could attempt to tackle the Settlements section one sentence at a time. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No need for false accusations either. Sounds like a good plan, but it's still probably better to run your changes to the section by the Talk Page first to see if anyone objects. VictorD7 (talk)

VictorD7. An "I believe" statement is not a false accusation. I did not state directly that you had accepted. By your reply I believed or assumed you had accepted mediation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually had in mind (at least most recently) your "ownership" comments, but it's time to move on. You wanted another opinion and a poster on the admin's user page was kind enough to give you one, explaining that he favored the current summary paragraph over your attempted edit. VictorD7 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Yes. We can move on. However, I will respond to the "ownership" in the article. We had allowed you to make a large scale edit in the Settlements, albiet a good one. Gwillhickers was allowed to modify you information on slavery. My edit on Oliver Cromwell was deleted. I had given consent to your changes as long as there were references. I made a change to the first pargraph and added references since no references were given. Taylor (2001) has emphasised the early Spanish explorations and I felt that the article was ingorning or down playing the Spanish. My edit was completely removed and replaced by the unreferenced paragraph. Yes. In the interest of article cohesion I will drop the issue of ownership. The Settlement's section I believe is one of the most important parts of the whole United States article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Me posting a proposal for over a week and gaining support from you and other editors isn't "ownership", nor is reverting a sudden, unilateral edit you made that every commentator so far (including the one on the most recent admin Talk Page you ran off to) has deemed inferior to the paragraph you deleted. Again, I didn't add the paragraph in question; it was already there (sans the Roanoke line and frivolous references). I'm also not sure why you keep trying to tie you supporting my edit with me opposing your latest one, given how strenuously you insisted elsewhere that you don't operate by "quid pro quo" (despite no such offer having been made). At least we agree that the Settlement section is important. VictorD7 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7 I will apologize for misunderstanding your statement as an acceptance, however, a "yes" or "no" statement would have been appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

US nationalists, genocide denial and trivialisation, eugenics, sterilisation

We need to get this into the article somewhere.

California Prisons Illegally Sterilizing Female Inmates as Recently as 2010

This follows in a long history of of US eugenics, sterilisation, and medical experiments on slaves and Black children, some of which inspired the Nazis and their ideological ancestors. "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." Cheers. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have multiple articles on the subject. What section[s] would you propose we put this in? What makes it significant enough to single out in this summary article, on equal footing with slavery, World War II, and apple pie? Oh, and also: Thanks for not insulting us this time, I guess there's hope for anyone to improve, I certainly didn't expect it after last time. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well he did throw "nationalists" and "genocide denial" into the title. VictorD7 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I find improvement where I can. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by area

In the beginning of this article, it says USA is the third country by land area, what is wrong according to this Wikipedia list I put in the title. By area, USA is the fourth, behind China.--Igor Dalmy (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a complicated matter. At present, the intro says the USA is the third in land area, which is correct: omitting internal, territorial, and coastal waters, and going purely by land, the ranking is Russia, China, USA (Canada, surprisingly to most people, comes in 4th). This part is not in dispute, as China has a 350ksqmi lead on the USA in land area.

The confusion is when you include water. The US has more of it. About 370ksqmi more of it. So, land plus water, depending on who's counting, may lead to the US being third, or fourth, as you can see the margin of error is only 20ksqmi, or an area roughly the size of West Virginia. The problem is, different sources count it differently. Do they just count internal waters, like Lake Michigan? Do they count coastal waters, the continental shelf? Do they count all territorial waters, up to 12 miles off? Furthermore, the land extent of China is also in question: Do you include Taiwan and Hong Kong (which introduce ~14ksqmi to the margin of error)? And, more importantly, what about the other disputed regions, like Aksai Chin, which China administers but is claimed by India, or Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims but is administered by India? When you have to handle these more complex issues of water and territoriality, you get into a solid "i dunno" issue of which country is larger.

So, recently (a month or so ago) someone ended the waffling by changing "third- or fourth-largest" to "third largest in land area", which is indisputably accurate: the US is third in land area. Total area is a much more complex question. The list of countries by area you refer to includes both land and water area, and also includes footnotes explaining why it's such a complex question. --Golbez (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

American nationalists and "Jews not wanted" signs

From p. 35 of Raul Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews (2003):

This did not mean, Schacht said, that all "single actions" (Einzelaktionen) against Jews were to be condemned. For example, he could see no objections to the display of signs reading "Jews not wanted." Such signs could often be found in the United States too.

How many crucial facts about genocide, antisemitism, ethnic cleansing, medical experimentation on slaves, Black people and children, and the inspiration some of gave to the Nazis, do we need before we can put it in the article? Holocaust denial is grotesque, as is the denial by the American patriot (what a ridiculous notion, those who call themselves patriots do not have functioning brain cells) of the genocide of the Native Americans. Sickening.

In a similar vein, can we somewhere fit in the conclusions of David Stannard's American Holocaust (1992)? Thank you.

LudicrousTripe (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to make new threads, insulting us and others in them, without responding to comments in your older threads, it just looks like you're floating by every couple of days to insult us. If you are truly interested in improving the article, then discuss rather than rant. Please. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the comments made in the previous two threads you started? Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, LudicrousTripe told me on his talk page that he was going to stop, and apologized for the immaturity. So... I guess this is closed. --Golbez (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Settlements section first paragraph

Here is the first paragraph:

After Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 other explorers followed. 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. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. The fate of the "lost" English colony of Roanoke in the 1580s is an enduring mystery.Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have issues with this first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are no references in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• There is no mention that trade was the primary reason why Columbus discovered the New World. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Spanish explored much of the South West in the 1530's and 1540's more then is suggested the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The French Settlements took place in the 1670's on the Mississippi and are somehow incorrectly linked at the same time with the early Spanish explorations. Cartier searched for the North West Passage in 1534. The French set up Charlesfort in 1562 in South Carolina. More needs to be mentioned on the French settling the Interior of the United States along the Mississippi later in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Sir Walter Ralegh under Queen Elizabeth needs to be mentioned in terms of setting up the first British colony in America in 1585. I suppose one could state the United States had its origins in 1585. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with tweaking the French sentence to focus on the east coast (which they tried to settle in the 1500s), but I like the current basic format because it touches on the most prominent players on the continent, the Spanish, French, and English, and captures the difficulties that early (often failed) colonies faced. Remember, this is a quick summary intro to a brief survey subsection, so I don't see how we could reasonably allocate an entire paragraph to one group--like the Spanish--who weren't directly involved in establishing the US. This is the United States article, not the North America article. You also didn't explain why those other details needed to be added, but simply asserted they should be. Keep in mind that new edits should fit into the context of the rest of the section.

As for references, those should be easy to add if you insist on it. VictorD7 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. We agree on fixing the French settlements issue. Rather then the Mississippi, mention the Charlesfort. The Roanoke colony needs to mention Ralegh and Queen Elizabeth. If there was a British ruler who founded America it would be her. I would add more states that the Spanish explored in the 1500's. This is important. Taylor (2001) emphasises the Spanish explorations of De Soto and Coronado in what is now the United States. What is missing in the Settlements section is the French colonizing what would be known as the Louisiana territory, i.e. Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. However this occured in the 1670's. Tweaks would be good. Trade is important because that is what Taylor (2001) stated. Columbus wasn't really "exploring" he was looking for a trade route to Asia. His discovery launched the European colonization into what is today the United States. Maybe it would be best to modify the paragraph in the talk page first, and find appropriate referencing. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative edit

• After Christopher Columbus effectively discovered the New World in 1492, seeking a trade route to the Far East, other explorers soon followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. During the 1530's and 1540's Spanish conquistidors explored much of the interior Southwest including modern day states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, eastern Texas, and New Mexico In 1562, the French set up the colony of Charlesfort. The fate of the "lost" English colony of Roanoke, set up by Queen Elizabeth and Sir Walter Ralegh in 1585, remains an enduring mystery. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative edit 2

• After Christopher Columbus effectively discovered the New World in 1492, seeking a trade route to the Far East, other explorers soon followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513, with their first permanent colony St. Augustine, set up in 1565. During the 1530's and 1540's Spanish conquistidors explored much of the interior Southwest. In 1562, the French set up the colony of Charlesfort. The fate of the "lost" English colony of Roanoke, set up by Queen Elizabeth and Sir Walter Ralegh in 1585, remains an enduring mystery. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals.

I think we can drop the "effectively" and "soon" in the interest of streamlining, but I can live with a vague conquistador mention. I can maybe be talked into something like "while seeking a trade route to the Far East", but I don't see why it's necessary since this isn't about Columbus, and I couldn't care less about what "Taylor (2001)" states. 99.9%+ of what he states won't be in the article. The French and English explored too, the French as early as the 1520s, and the French also tried to establish colonies in Florida (1564) and Maine (1604), so it would be better to keep things vague and along the lines of "There were also some French attempts at colonization along the east coast". We could tack on, "...and later settlement along the Mississippi River", so we wouldn't have to force that into the middle of the section later.

Apart from that I prefer the existing paragraph. It's brief, identifies the major players, and capably summarizes why they're being mentioned (because the areas in question were eventually folded into the US, though mostly not until the 19th Century). Also, I prefer having the sentence generalizing about failed colonies prior to the Roanoke sentence, since the latter provides an example of the former statement, while simultaneously identifying the most salient early English attempt and setting up the next paragraph on successful English settlement. What about this more minimal change?

• After Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 other explorers followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Conquistadors explored much of the continent’s interior and Spain later set up some settlements in parts of Florida and the American southwest that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French attempts to colonize the east coast, and later more successful settlements along the Mississippi River. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. The fate of the "lost" English colony of Roanoke in the 1580s is an enduring mystery. VictorD7 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Compromise:

• After Columbus' effective discovery of the New world in 1492 other explorers followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Conquistadors explored much of the continent’s interior and Spain later set up some settlements in parts of Florida and the American southwest that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French attempts to colonize the east coast in the 1560s, and a century later more successful settlements along the Mississippi River. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. The fate of the "lost" English colony of Roanoke in the 1580s is an enduring mystery. 02:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that the French attempt to colonize Maine, which would presumably be covered by this passage, was in 1604. And I'm not sure why you want to qualify "discovery" with "effective". Maybe we can say "There were also some French attempts to colonize the east coast in the 16th and early 17th Century, and later more successful settlements along the Mississippi River." VictorD7 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe effective since his "discovery" brought European colonization. Also, Lief Ericson is mentioned by Taylor (2001), however, Vinland was not successful. I was trying to keep the discoveries in the 1500's. We can try to tweak that sentence. I will leave it up to you on the "effective" word, however, I believe most historians understand Columbus's discovery was effective in bringing in European colonists. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think people understand that Columbus discovered America for a civilization that didn't currently know about it. You can discover something without it necessarily meaning you were the first to discover it. That America was discovered multiple times is logically clear in the text due to the Amerindian presence discussed, though it's unlikely that a single explorer had as much transformational impact as Columbus. If I was writing a book about the history of North American exploration I would feature the Vikings and possibly the Celts and others, but if I'm writing a brief summary for a United States article I'd just mention Columbus. VictorD7 (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, your first edition French settlements sentence was best. My only change then would be to add the word "effective" to the first sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• After Columbus' effective discovery of the New world in 1492 other explorers followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Conquistadors explored much of the continent’s interior and Spain later set up some settlements in parts of Florida and the American southwest that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French attempts to colonize the east coast, and later more successful settlements along the Mississippi River. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. The fate of the "lost" English colony of Roanoke in the 1580s is an enduring mystery. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the edit a go? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If we agree to drop the word "effective" then I'm fine with you making the edit. VictorD7 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I can drop "effective". The Spanish get credit for exploring the interior and the French for attempting a colony or colonies on the east coast. I can link Charlesfort to the "east coast". east coast Cmguy777 (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Or you could link to French colonization of the Americas. VictorD7 (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. Yes. That is a good recommendation. That would cover all colonization by the French. I think the current Settlements section needs to have a bit more on the colonization of the Mississippi region in the 1670's. This would give an answer to why the Louisiana Purchase was with the French rather then Spanish or any other European comtempory powers. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you implement the already agreed to edit, and then we can discuss whether to add something else about the MS region. VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit implemented. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

NATIVE AMERICAN?

Calling "Native Americans" to the indigenous population is ridiculos because they precisely fought AGAINST America...and lost the War. It is true that now most of them have been assimilated by the Anglos and are usually English speaking and Christian...but they are not, and will never be, "Native Americans". In fact, AMERICA is European name. I don´t know how the indigenous population called the land were they lived, but certainly neither AMERICA nor COLUMBIA.--83.33.102.238 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source calling them something else? If so, I'd love to see it.Kude90 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Indians had several names for America. The best is state American Indian, Native American, or Amerindian. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean a source for a "better" name for Native Americans. I think Native American is fine.Kude90 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know actual Natives do not mind being called Indians, Native Americans, Amerindians, nor American Indians. However, I believe when possible the article needs to refer to actual tribal names when appropriate for content. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In my limited interactions with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee, "Indian" was not only acceptable, it was adopted. I certainly can't speak to all, but it doesn't seem to be at all rejected or considered racist. (I have also interacted with Apache but I don't remember any terminology other than "Apache". --Golbez (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys, don't blow this up into a real discussion. This is obviously feeding the trolls through the outrageousness of the opening post. Academically, they are referred to as Native Americans, while academically, Indian means someone from India. They don't become not "Native American" because some of them fought against the creation of certain countries within the Americas, such as the United States, and, in fact, there were Native Americans on both sides of the major conflict of the time period. Do not conflate trolling into what will, given the pattern of this talk page, end up as months of arguing over a long, long, looooong settled issue (settled even before the foundation of Wikipedia). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The opening post is inflammatory, revisionist rhetoric without any proffered solution or alternative, even if the actual critique had merit. And with no replies after six comments, it's looking like a drive-by comment. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I prefer specific tribal names, "Amerindian" (probably most academic), "Indian", or "American Indian" to "Native American", since the latter properly describes native born US citizens of any ethnicity. Granted, one could make distinctions through context or capitalization, but it introduces unnecessary confusion. Of course the native American category certainly includes modern Indians, regardless of what some of their ancestors did. VictorD7 (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Terrific, but this isn't a forum. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Trollish intentions by the op or not, the topic itself is about article word usage, and therefore appropriate for the Talk Page. VictorD7 (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not that impressed by the OP's logic, but I'm interested in the general answer. I'm Australian and over my lifetime have seen the evolution of terms used to describe the folks that were here before white folks arrived, and I try to help keep the best terms in our articles. I've seen a couple of claims in Wikipedia recently that the equivalent folks in the Americas don't mind being called Indians, which surprised me, but what would I know? And that's the point. I'd like to know. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WHAAOE: Native American name controversy. --Jayron32 04:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If we used Anglo terms, South of Rio Grande 80% of the population could be called "Native" because apart from large "pure" Native populations (which are a majority in countries like Guatemala, Bolivia or Peru), the "mestizo" Spanish speaking minority is usually more "pure" than most "Native American" in the U.S. In fact, English speaking "Native American" who are 1/2, 1/4 or 1/8 "Native" wouldn´t be considered indigenous at all by the different native tribes in Latinamerica. Every tribe called their land in a different way, but never "America".

When the huge "American tribe" expanded to the West, Natives foght against that expansion. I am from Spain, and I think "Americans" are just another Germanic tribe, like the Afrikaners, the Dutch, the Germans, the English, the Swedish, the Flemish....(Australians are still part of the English tribe in my opinion) As we know, many American children were kidnapped by Natives becoming part of the Apache tribe, Cheyenne tribe, Cherokee tribe etc. adopting their languages and customs. They left to be American to become part of a different nation, same as the children of Americans who live in foreign countries like France or Spain, and have French and Spanish names, speak French or Spanish etc. They are assimilated. So, when millions of foreigners arrive to America their children and grandchildren become "American" (American English speaking), not Apache, Cheyenne, Cherokee or any other nation.--83.32.84.197 (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Afrikaners in South Africa had the Great Trek...and Americans had a "Super Trek", ten times bigger.--83.32.84.197 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments. (1) You use alot of quotation marks, not sure why. (2) You use alot of capitalized words, also not sure why. (3) Other than ranting your own opinions, I'm not sure of your point. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with VictorD7 that "Amerindian" is the currently most academic term for Native Indians. I recommend that there needs to be consistent terminology of Native Americans. I also recommend that "Amerindian" be used to describe Native Americans in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert: In modifying my view, I recommend using the term "Amerindian" in the article, unless a specific tribal title would be appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Life expectancy ranking changes compared to other OECD countries

Regarding this edit summary it's from a new JAMA article confirming other sources which say the quality of the US healthcare system is rapidly declining relative to other industrialized countries in a way other statements in the article don't explain very well. There are many other important measures in the same source. I think it's important to emphasize "improvements in population health in the United States have not kept pace with advances in population health in other wealthy nations." Would including those absolute improvements provide needed balance? "US life expectancy increased from 75.2 years in 1990 to 78.2 years in 2010"? EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't confirm any such thing. The article just says that US health, while improved, hasn't improved as quickly as most other OECD countries (mostly the almost entirely white nations). Health =/= healthcare system. The healthcare system's role is an extremely complicated and controversial issue that won't be settled by a particular article, and this isn't the venue for crusading with such an agenda. The article even lists stuff like car wrecks, and acknowledges that the salient health differences are driven by lifestyle features like diet, obesity, drug/alcohol use, etc.. The health disparity you mention is already reflected in the section's segment discussing the life expectancy rankings' fall over time and the exposition that follows. We don't need to single out a dead horse and spend another paragraph beating it. VictorD7 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How about, "US life expectancy increased from 75.2 years in 1990 to 78.2 in 2010 but fell from 20th to 27th among the 34 industrialized countries of the OECD over the same period." A single sentence, not a paragraph, corroborating but not duplicating earlier information. And I thought you would want that source in there because it specifically discusses the lifestyle reasons you point out and quantifies their importance and specific contributions to the mortality rate. I actually think we should summarize how those lifestyle factors have changed over time, especially now that obesity has been reclassified as an illness in its own right. Also lack of physical mobility is a big one that everyone sitting in front of a computer reading (or editing) Wikipedia should be thinking about. (The figures for US obesity are 14% in 1974 vs. 35% now!) I'm not sure what agenda you think I'm crusading on. These are all facts literally concerning life and death, and just because the bare facts have obvious political implications I think it's disingenuous to make accusations of agenda pushing. Almost everyone on this talk page seems to have an agenda of some kind, anyway. And concerning the relationship between health and healthcare, when doctors have less time to talk to patients because they are spread thin, they have less opportunity to encourage and reinforce changes in the lifestyle factors you mention. Length of conversations with general practitioners during checkup visits is highly predictive of smoking cessation success, diet improvement, and weight loss. EllenCT (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose the proposed sentence if the article didn't already say this: "The United States life expectancy of 78.4 years at birth ranks it 50th among 221 nations.[391] Increasing obesity in the United States and health improvements elsewhere have contributed to lowering the country's rank in life expectancy from 1987, when it was 11th in the world.[392]" I don't see why it needs to say both. What new info do you think is being presented? Slightly different years? An OECD instead of global comparison? I'm all for OECD comparisons if global ones aren't available, but the latter seem more notable since they're broader. What's next, adding a life expectancy comparison with other NATO countries? How about the G-8? Maybe we should rank English speaking nations by LE too.

"I'm not sure what agenda you think I'm crusading on. These are all facts literally concerning life and death, and just because the bare facts have obvious political implications I think it's disingenuous to make accusations of agenda pushing." That's just it; the "political implications" are only "obvious" (your word) if presented a certain way and/or if the reader/presenter embraces certain premises that I and many others hotly dispute. Nothing disingenuous on my part. Also, for more regarding agenda pushing, how about "Also lack of physical mobility is a big one that everyone sitting in front of a computer reading (or editing) Wikipedia should be thinking about." Ha Ha, of course I personally agree with you on that, and think that the obesity rate is something the culture and individuals need to tackle, even though it's largely due to the US being the first nation in history to become so prosperous and have such a variety of affordable, appealing food that obesity is a more serious problem among the poor than hunger (coinciding with being the home of video games, the internet, and gadgets like smart phones). I'm blessed (or sometimes cursed) with a blazing fast metabolism and work out regularly on top of that, mostly through stuff like pullups, pushups, situps, and weightlifting, along with sprint heavy sports growing up that transitioned to a focus on distance runs (usually 3 miles) as an adult. I think everyone should stay physically active, but I'm reluctant to use Wikipedia as a forum for advocating that. The "preventative" healthcare treatment argument is speculative at best (maybe some instances of obvious correlation rather than causation) and frankly it's probably crap. Lots of people in single-payer healthcare countries don't spend as much time with their doctors as Americans do, and certainly don't have as quick access to medical treatments, plus the obesity epidemic cuts across incomes, affecting portions of the vast majority who have health insurance they like as well as portions of the small minority who are involuntarily uninsured. Graphic warnings have been on every cigarette carton and store bought alcoholic drink for decades, and there's been an enormous PR push on obesity and the other stuff in the media/entertainment industry/school system for many years. Some people just opt to disregard that stuff, the same way they do when they use recreational drugs or drive cars really fast for the thrill. Ultimately this is driven by lifestyle choices and culture, which is why large health/LE disparities also exist within OECD nations where people share the same healthcare system. Obesity has also been on a sharp rise in culturally similar nations a step below the US in prosperity but wealthier than most of the world, like the UK and Australia, "despite" those nations having long entrenched single payer healthcare systems.

You're right about me preferring your article as a source to the pitiful Guardian piece currently used, and I agree with you about the sharp obesity rise being notable. The problem is others have already long since agreed too, which is why the section already spends four sentences discussing obesity. Maybe there's a way to blend some of what you want to say in by rewriting/replacing existing portions (like updating figures), but I don't see why we should have both global and OECD LE comparisons. VictorD7 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I combined the change from 1990 and the OECD ranking change into the existing first sentence. I want to do something more with this part of the abstract: "The diseases and injuries with the largest number of YLLs [years of life lost] in 2010 were ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and road injury. Age-standardized YLL rates increased for Alzheimer disease, drug use disorders, chronic kidney disease, kidney cancer, and falls. The diseases with the largest number of YLDs [years lost to disability] in 2010 were low back pain, major depressive disorder, other musculoskeletal disorders, neck pain, and anxiety disorders.... The leading risk factors related to DALYs [disability-adjusted life years lost] were dietary risks, tobacco smoking, high body mass index, high blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, physical inactivity, and alcohol use." EllenCT (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why we need both global and OECD comparisons. There seems to be an implicit assumption that the US "should" rank higher among OECD nations, ignoring pertinent variables like (for example) America not being a tiny, racially homogenous nation in north/west Europe. But at least it's been condensed into one sentence. I can live with the new paragraph addition as it captures a notable cross section of health information. Still makes the section a little skewed to emphasize so much disease and premature death when Americans are among the healthiest peoples in the world (it's not the "Poor health" section), but maybe that can be addressed later. VictorD7 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It would be great to also include the top five things Americans do to stay healthy, but it's unlikely anyone will write those up. EllenCT (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually such articles are extremely common, and it is notable (as I've seen in some studies, including I think at least one recent one) that Americans are among the most physically active people on earth (a land of seeming contradictions in many ways), but I don't have time to pursue this right now. Maybe some other time I or someone else will develop an edit. VictorD7 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well [2] and most all of the similar sources I can find suggest staying healthy for Americans is mostly about actively avoiding the risk factors, preventative health care screenings, safe sex, seat belts, and immunizations. EllenCT (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is notable that Americans have the highest cancer survival rates in the world (in part because they have access to the most screening), the most access to pharmaceutical drugs (another major avenue for trying to maintain health), and among the most access to advanced heart treatments of various types. VictorD7 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Less horrible "Contemporary Era" section

The current section is not bad at all about reading ease and grade level, but it looks like a horse designed by a committee <g>.

In 1991, the Gulf War under a multi-national coalition led by the US forced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. After this war, the US had a sustained period of economic growth until March 2001. ]

The 2000 presidential election was extremely close, and was settled by a US Supreme Court decision ending a recount in Florida. On September 11, 2001, the September 11 attacks by terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center towers, and damaged the Pentagon building. In response, the US launched the global War on Terror, invading Afghanistan along with allies, deposing the Taliban government, and destroying al-Qaeda training camps. The Taliban continued to fight a guerrilla war. In 2003, the United States and allied forces invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein.

In 2008, during a global recession, Barack Obama was elected. The Iraq War officially ended with the pullout of the remaining U.S. troops from the country in December 2011.

Trying to make a coherent section - and avoiding lengthy discussions about presidents of the US and their specific accomplishments, which is a different article. Which is likely already linked, or ought to be. And still much more readable than most WP articles, by the way. The section here ought to be about the actions of the nation, not attributing anything to individuals. Collect (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Having a very close election was important but not cosmically so. There were even closer elections in the past (the electoral college tied in 1800 and 1824, after all), and the most notable thing about 2000 is that it went smoothly and peacefully, unlike most countries. I am also uneasy with mentioning Obama's election without offering any reason why we're mentioning it. The section as it is in the article is basically "This president did this. Then this president did that." We need to get back towards the structure of earlier in the section where American history wasn't cleanly divided up by which man was in power at the time. Now, this can be difficult since we don't know the full narrative that history will give to this period in time, but we can still try. If we can't weave anything better than a bullet list then maybe the section shouldn't exist at all. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Personalities are not "cosmically important" as a rule - we can expand bullet points far more easily than trying to remedy the current wording, IMO. Collect (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina and other things

Why include Hurricane Katrina, and exclude Hurricane Sandy? Why only include the death of Bin Ladin, and the end of the Iraq War, and the major "reform"s of the Obama Administration, and not include other events? Why not include the growth of the Tea Party Movement, or other promenant events that have occured within the United States since 2008?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors add current events, but over time the article gets cluttered. TFD (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So then what events should be added other than what has been included in the Obama Administration period? Presently all the events that have been included appear to be events that are seen as positive by the Obama Administration, but none that are neutral, or negative.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You could remove Bin Laden and say that the economy has not recovered and that the administration has carried out human rights abuses abroad and invaded privacy at home. TFD (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There are very few prominent events to happen in the US since 2008 to warrant inclusion in this article. We can't devote more space than we should to recent history, we have to keep perspective. Your premise of "why X but not Y" is faulty, though, since this isn't a partisan competition. Everything is considered on its own merits, and Katrina obviously warrants inclusion. I'm hoping and thinking it's not the case that you're suggesting we omit Katrina if Sandy is omitted, but the way you wrote it that is a possibility.

Sandy is a 'second place' storm and thus could be left out of this summary article (the same way Ivan, Andrew, etc. should have after Katrina hit, and the way Hugo should have been until Katrina), though they perhaps could be mentioned together. Why include the death of bin Ladin: On its own, I wouldn't, but if part of a simple sentence mentioning the ends of the three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Terror... I know "Terror" isn't ending but bin Ladin was a decapitation blow to that) it could work. The only other war that I see whose ending we specifically mention is Vietnam, and the two are pretty similar situations IMO. The fact that they went on for so long is one reason in mentioning the end separate from the beginning. However, I don't care too much on if we do, just how we do. (also, you realize we don't include Katrina just because it happened under Bush, right? It was the worst storm in U.S. history for reasons that didn't involve him. So don't make this more partisan than it needs to be.)

Nice scare quotes around "reform"s. I'm not sure they should be mentioned, since it just lends itself to the same stupid presidential laundry list you see in that entire section (Clinton did X. Then Bush did X. Then Obama did X. This is not how you write an encyclopedia!)

Why not include the growth of the Tea Party Movement? For the same reason we don't mention the Contract with America: Perspective. At present the Tea Party is a five-year-old political movement that may or may not have lasting traction. At present it's very prominent, but then again, so were the Whigs, who are never mentioned.

Anyway, all of this is moot. You're aiming at the wrong place. It's not about what is or isn't included in the "Contemporary era" section. It's that the Contemporary era section is horrible and needs a complete rewrite. So, once the other folks get tired over arguing how much slavery to mention, we may someday get to it. (Have they? I stopped reading weeks back) --Golbez (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the United States is currently an active first world economy nation and hopefully will remain so, then the article needs to be recycled at times. That means removing past contemporary information and replacing with new contemporary information. Editors need to decide what current events needs to be in the article. The Tea Party movement, is not neccessarily a current event. Katrina was a is relatively natural disaster that disabilitated New Orleans. Interesting how New Orleans, a French settlement, comes up again in discussion. Editors need to decide what contemporary issues need to be recycled in the article. They still have not finished rebuilding after Katrina. Look at this article: St. Bernard Project looks to local donors to keep Hurricane Katrina rebuilding going. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If Katrina "obviously warrants inclusion" should we include the 1906 earthquake, where even more people died? I'm honestly not sure if any of these natural disasters warrant inclusion in such a summary article, though I don't really feel strongly about it one way or the other. Maybe we should just have brief descriptions of general frequency (Gulf Coast, Pacific Rim, etc.), which already exists for hurricanes (Geography section) but the word "earthquake" isn't mentioned in the article. BTW, there have been at least two US hurricanes that killed more people than Katrina ([3], [4]).VictorD7 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds of events we "could" include - the question is which are directly important enough to be ranked above others --and Katrina likely fails that test. The New Madrid earthquake was of world-level size - and would seem to be of far greater historical impact that Katrina was. Collect (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I went back and thought about my 'obviously warrants inclusion' remark. It obviously warrants inclusion in a subsection or paragraph on natural disasters, certainly, just like Japan's article mentions its earthquakes. (Though, I should point out, the three costliest disasters in world history were two Japanese quakes... and Katrina) However, I am modifying my statement to say that, at present, I have no opinion on what goes in the Contemporary Era section because it is horrible and needs to be taken out back and shot in the face. We should not debate what belongs in it until we decide just what form it should take. "Its current form" is not a valid option. --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect, what policy says Katrina should be excluded? TFD (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The "policy" that looks objectively across ALL of the country's history and notes that the 1900 Galveston hurricane was considerably more deadly? HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Policy allows inclusion of just about anything editors agree to include -- we could include the death of George Gnarph if we decided to do so. Your argument here is specious and snarky, and of no conceivable value to improving this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Collect, but what policy is that? TFD (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS to begin with. Add in WP:Five pillars with

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents,

as well as WP:NOT

In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.

In short -- just about every edit is subject to WP:consensus and restrictions per WP:BLP and WMF legal and other concerns. I trust this has clearly stated why there is no obligation to include every possible factoid in every article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect, you said above, "Policy allows inclusion of just about anything editors agree to include -- we could include the death of George Gnarph if we decided to do so. Your argument here is specious and snarky, and of no conceivable value to improving this article. Cheers. [10:56, 18 July 2013] Are you now saying that there are policies that restrict what may be included, even if there is consensus? TFD (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Settlements links

I propose to add the following links to the Settlements section. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Main articles: Colonial history of the United States, New Netherland, New Spain, New France, and Russian colonization of the Americas

• Support This would expand the article by including other nations who colonized the United States without having to add allot to the Settlements section. This is going by modern research that is expanding the Anglo-American theme or view approach to the colonization of the United States and the Americas. (Taylor, 2001) In addition this would give helpful background to the French and Indian War, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Mexican American War. The reality is the French, Russians, and Spain wanted what was to be the United States. Yes. The Anglos won. That does not mean we need to dismiss the other nations as backwards or second rate powers. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I replaced New England with Colonial history of the United States.Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I replaced New Amsterdam with New Netherland Cmguy777 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Russian colonization of Alaska and California needs to be mentioned in the Settlements section, possibly one sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. It deserves note, perhaps with additions to the further readings section. The communal view of the state among the Russian colonists might help explain why subsequent immigrants have been persuaded to authorize the state to tax oil companies such that every citizen pays annually nothing to the state. State expenses are funded by taxes on oil companies, but each citizen is paid by the state a pro rata share of the extraction industry profit. This though corporations are thought to be persons before the law in a state exalting individualism. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mostly because no other History subsection has such headline links. VictorD7 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Following Cmguy777's historiography, it would be redundant to add links to any articles except the "Colonial history of the United States", because of course it should include the histories of New Netherlands, New Spain, etc. TFD (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support, seems like it deserves to be added.Kude90 (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like I am getting some support for this effort. The Colonial History of the United States could be replaced with European colonization of the Americas. That way every European nation that colonized America would be covered and would satisfy the Taylor (2001) model of including all nations who colonized America. VictorD7 I am for adding links to other History areas. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Since there is a 3 Supports to 2 Opposes there is not an overwhelming concencus. However I believe there is enough to add European colonization of the Americas. This would be following the Taylor (2001) model approach of studying all European and Native colonizations to America. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I added two links to the settlements sections, European colonization of the Americas and the Thirteen colonies. This is the best combination I believe since respectively one article focuses on all European colonization as per the Taylor (2001) model and the other article focuses on the origins of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you added the links, since, as you admitted, there was no consensus to do so, but now you need to add links to every subsection so it doesn't look stupid. Either way this has nothing to do with what you're calling the "Taylor model", which is a conceptual rationalization I totally reject. The text already covers non-Anglo Settlement, complete with links (and the potential for more in-text links). Personally, I think the text links and the section headline link to US history are perfectly sufficient, as they contain links to other articles, which in turn contain yet more links. But oh well. VictorD7 (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, you have castigated myself almost every edit proposal I have made. Your hostile commentary makes it almost impossible to have a rational converstation. You allowed Gwillhickers to make edits in the Settlements section. I would think since Gwillhickers and myself allowed you to make edits that you would possibly give me some slack. As far as I know you yet to obtain a copy of the Taylor (2001) book. Your Alpha-Editor commentary is getting a bit tiresome and in my opinion inappropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh it's virtually impossible for anyone to have a rational conversation with you, but that has nothing to do with my commentary. As for slack, I didn't revert you despite the demonstrated lack of consensus. Your wildly off the mark personal shots are getting tiresome. One would have thought you'd have a bit more humility after you embarrassed yourself by running off to admin to complain and lie about me a while back, only to be totally shot down and have my own commentary supported. Back to rational, why the hell does one cherry-picked History subsection have headline links while the others don't? It should be consistent one way or the other, unless there's some good reason for the Settlement section to be singled out for special treatment. The current setup looks ad hoc and bush league. VictorD7 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I added other appropriate links to the History section in their respected segments. "Ad hoc and bush league". Full of compliments. Yeah right. I was in good faith attempting to make the section more progressive and I get slammed for adding two links to the Settlements section. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Progressive"? Oh well, at least several of the sections have links now. It's a start. VictorD7 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Settlements section Mississippi Valley

I think more needs to be said on the French settling the Mississippi valley and how Spain and France were reluctant allies in settling the area. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You realize this is not an article on France, Spain, or French and Spanish colonization, right? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the United States and I would hope an honest approach to American settlements. To deny that the French and Spanish settled the Mississippi Valley and the South West would be inappropriate, in my opinion. How did the U.S. get the Louisiana Territory? The sale of land to the French governenment under Napoleon. How did the U.S. get the Southwest? Through war with Mexico and land aquisition. Mexico was part of New Spain before independence. Taylor (2001), American Colonies, Introduction x, has stated that most historians prior to the 1960's have assumed that the orginal colonists were only English. Wikipedia needs to go by current research. There were more colonists then only the English. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Remember that this article is a lot more than just a history article. Indeed, its history should just be a summary. Details on the history of French and Spanish colonization and alliance perhaps belong in a concentrated article, such as Louisiana (New France) or New Spain or Louisiana (New Spain) or Louisiana Purchase. Like it or not, the French and the Spanish did not found the United States, and their colonies did not either (though they were enjoined into it via various means). This is not merely a history of all things within geographical North America (or even geographical United States). There needs to be some justification on why things like Spanish and French reluctant alliance belongs in an article on something that took place after that alliance. Why here? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Reluctant alliance may not belong, but French colonization in what would later become Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Louisiana introduced chattel hereditary slavery of African-Americans there before US acquisition of those territories, an institution which persisted after US possession and its Northwest Ordinance of 1787 among the French taking up US citizenship during territorial political incorporation there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra. Why here? The Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican American War are why there needs to be more information on the French and Spanish settlements. The English were not the first AmeroEuropeans to colonize what would become the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian also noted that the French introduced slavery into the Mississippi Valley and the French took up U.S. Citizenship with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Modern research is tending to move away from an Anglo view of colonization. Of course, the French nor Spanish started the United States. Wealthy white British landowners (mostly slave owners) started the American Revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you also propose inclusion of detailed information on the Russian settlements in Alaska? Yes, there were non-English Europeans in what later became the United States before the English, but they are not the ones who made the United States. I feel the need to respond to the fact that there were non-English Europeans here first with a resounding "so?" What is the importance or relevance of that fact? In the case of the Louisiana Purchase, it is questionable whether they even had a say in their later inclusion into the United States. That was a decision made between the US and France. Unless the back-and-forth history between the French and Spanish in that region has a direct and significant relation to the United States, as opposed to the histories of those colonies when they were not part of the United States, what warrants their mention in a summary article? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure specifically what kind of edit you had in mind, but I tend to agree with OuroborosCobra. The article already makes it clear that non-English settlement predated English colonization in some parts of what would eventually become the US. We don't want to overstate that though. The relative population of French, Spanish, and Dutch settlement was tiny compared to what the British ultimately did, and clearly a summary piece on the US should have overwhelming emphasis on Anglo colonization. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OuroboroCobra. Yes to both Alaska and Hawaii need to be in the Settlements section. Last I checked on the map the United States includes Alaska and Hawaii. The current Settlements section only included the continental United states, excluding Alaska, in terms of settlement. If the French were so insignifigant in the Mississippi Valley why did President Jefferson have to negotiate with Napoleon in the first place. The Spanish were also included in the Louisiana Purchase. In terms of the Mexican American War, there are U.S. soldiers buried in Mexico City. The U.S. had to fight the Mexicans to get the South West territories including California. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. The research has moved away from the Anglo-centric view in terms of American colonization. This change occured during the 1960's according to Taylor (2001). As for France and Spain colonization I don't want to overstate the issue in the article, possibly one, two, or three sentences. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson would have had to negotiate with the French regardless of whether there were French colonists. That was who owned the land. The only other way to take it would have been through conflict, more along the lines of how we got Florida from Spain. There were very few Russians living in Alaska (500-2500 Russians), yet we still negotiated with Russia. That was the legal owner of the land. Now, I specifically asked if detailed information on Russian Alaska or pre-American Hawaii was necessary, in your opinion, not just a mention. I say detailed, because that is what you are asking us to do here; you want us to go into detail on French and Spanish relations in the Mississippi Valley prior to United States involvement. In your point regarding moving away from an Anglo-Centric view, that is proper in terms of exploring the issue of North American colonization by Europe... but this article is not about that. This article is about the United States, which was founded by the Anglo settlements, and not by the French, Spanish, Russian, or Dutch settlements. These other settlements were either already incorporated into those of the Anglo (Dutch) or incorporated after the creation of the United States, in some cases many decades later.

We are not ignoring these other settlements, per se. French settlement of the Mississippi Valley is mentioned in the first paragraph of our Settlements section. Dutch settlement is mentioned in the third paragraph. Spanish settlement of areas, such as Florida, is mentioned in the second sentence of the Settlements section. These are mentioned. Perhaps Russia should be as well, but as far as direct impact on American history, it simply is not as much as, say, the Virginia Colony and its House of Burgesses. Not to the history and development of the United States. The purchase of Alaska is significant and Alaska is significant, but the details of Russian settlement of Alaska are not. This isn't an article about the history of European colonization of North America. That would be European colonization of the Americas, which is itself a summary article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert:OuroborosCobra, if you are refering to the Pacific Northwest and the Oregon Country, then yes, that area was for the most part settled by Anglo Americans. When Jedediah Smith was the first American to reach California overland in 1826, guess who was there, the Mexican Government. He was arrested and sent to San Diego. Sounds like the Mexicans controlled California. If you look at a California map from San Diego to San Francisco you will find a whole bunch of Spanish names of towns. I have been to the San Juan Capistrono Mission, completed I believe in 1776. As for France, Jefferson negotiated rather then go to War with Napoleon, probably a wise move on Jefferson's part. If you look at French Lousisana, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, St. Louis are a few cities founded by French speaking people. There is a Creole speaking people in New Orleans. Now according to you, the French and Spanish/Mexican areas were settled by Anglo Americans. That is a historical inaccuracy and simply not true. The United States incorporated French and Spanish/Mexican territories. The truth is the French and Spanish/Mexicans settled these areas. Alaska and Hawaii are different subjects and could be discussed in another talk section. Why is there such resistance for a few sentences on the French colonizing the Mississippi Valley in the United States article? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The current boundaries of the U.S. include areas once held by hundreds of aboriginal nations as well as the UK, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Russia and, if we include unincorporated territories, Denmark, Germany and Japan. We do not have room to include them all in the article. I would just mention the pre-histories of the areas making up the original 13 colonies. That history is relevant because it explains why American institutions and culture developed. TFD (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD proposes modern American institutions and culture might be explained by reference to Native American pre-history, -- I thought it was for geographic context, people in places. Yet by non-sequitur logic, TFD would entirely omit -- deny 2-3 sentences related to -- prior settlement, incorporated citizens and slavery of France and Spain at US acquisition of their administered territory, -- while they were great powers of global reach, as UK was also at the time two hundred years ago, it should be remembered.

The USG was ambitious to be an equal to UK, France and Spain, but not equivalent to Dakota and Lakota when east and west of the Mississippi. All 'nations' of history are not equally useful for explaining US 'nationalism'. -- TFD contributions notwithstanding. Is North American slavery of English origin only? There is to be no account of US north american territorial expansion among possessions of European nations -- so as to -- what? purge the 1800s US of european-style nationalism? That is a Flat Earth joke, another imaginary america with no sources, just talk page disruption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand where you are getting all that from but I will explain my point. Since the US constitution was written by people from the original 13 colonies, they had rebelled against the UK, completed a treaty and established self rule in the states and a central government, we need to say something about their pre-1776 history. America's relation to the UK, particularly England, with its language, common law tradition, religion and government institutions is crucial to understanding how the country developed. Since the US did not adopt the institutions of territories that were acquired later, it is not necessary to provide detail of their histories, other than to say they were French, Spanish colonies, etc.

In order to understand colonial settlement it is of course necessary to mention that there were aboriginal people and to provide some information about them.

Certainly slavery existed in some of the territories acquired by the US, but the decision to allow it was made by the US government and, with the exception of Louisiana, no state or territory retained the legal system in force before it became part of the U.S. Hence the slavery laws in effect in the US were either American made laws or inherited from English law.

This is a brief article that covers an enormous topic. There is no need to get bogged down in historical details of limited importance for understanding the topic.

TFD (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Four Deuces aka TFD said, "I would just mention the pre-histories of the areas making up the original 13 colonies. That history is relevant because it explains why American institutions and culture developed." -date stamped 22:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC). That is of course, politically, socially and culturally historical nonsense.

TheFourDeuces/TFD said, "The current boundaries of the U.S. include areas once held by hundreds of aboriginal nations... We do not have room to include them all in the article." -date stamped 22:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Wrong. We can include France and Spain in 2-3 sentences. TFD's "hundreds of aboriginal nations", explain American institutions today in only the most tangential sense. There is no need to get bogged down in trying to assert how hundreds of aboriginal 'nations' determined modern US institutions.

French chattel slavery among former French nationals persisted illegally in Illinois and Indiana into statehood of the 1800s, the federal system prior to the Civil War was not consolidated enough to end it. We may pick up the thread again noting the center of the KKK in the 1920s was Indiana, and it virtually ran the Indiana state government in those years. In any case, French and Spanish colonial influence on incorporated territory then US state law and culture extend beyond French-only, Louisiana-only: -- for 2-3 sentences, only. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all written by British colonists or Americans living in former British colonies. There is no trace of French, Spanish or any other former colonial power in these documents or subsequent amendments to the U.S. constitution. While French law persisted in the Louisiana territory, neither the law nor language ever extended beyond its boundaries, and disappeared except within the state. The new territories that were incorporated in the U.S. joined the U.S. after it was established.

While we could mention that unlike the New England states, where slavery was based on English common law, slavery in Lousiana was based on the Code Noir 1724 and in Spanish territories it was based on the 13th century Siete Partidas. Other than that there is no need to explain how Spanish and French slavery developed in the Americas. Remember this is an article about the United States, and should not be overwhelmed by minor details.

While the Second KKK indeed was strong in Indiana, a former French territory, it was formed in Georgia and spread to Indiana and did not have its roots in French colonial history. Its leader D. C. Stephenson was not born in Indiana and AFAIK did not speak French or identify as a French American. One could equally say that automobile industry is French because it is centered in Detroit.

TFD (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The legacy of French slavery in the Ohio Valley and Spanish slavery in the lower Mississippi is manifest in US history. That does not mean the US annexed France and Spain in Europe, but that elements of their culture were assimilated into successive migrating populations to those places which were incorporated into the US. The French tradition of slavery persisted after US outlawed it in the Northwest Ordinance, but you presume there is only legal history, no social history. Do not dismiss 'bottom-up' historical perspective, it places you outside mainstream scholarship of the modern era.

After the US outlawed the international slave trade in 1808, Jim Bowie and his brothers (Jim of Alamo fame) smuggled Spanish-owned slaves imported directly from Africa into Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. Unlike Illinois and Indiana overcoming the French minority to forbid slavery as states, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas became slave-holding states -- majorities in the legislatures as states chose to expand slavery, not from an English tradition, but from a Spanish tradition. That does not mean the Houston Oilers are Spanish-owned. That is, like 'Detroit is French' -great pun-, a non-sequitur joke as social history. You are mistaken, or merely joking the talk page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

• "Starting in 1699 the French colonized Louisiana including the Gulf Coast, New Orleans, the lower and upper Mississippi valley and tributaries, and Illinois, bringing in French colonists and African slaves." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Source: Bradley G. Bond (2005), French Colonial Louisiana and the Atlantic World, pp. 205, 210 Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose All that is required is to note that the U.S. obtained the Louisiana territory from France, and any significant information, such as the territory contained French-speaking European inhabitants, some of whom owned slaves. If readers want to know about the history of Lousiana they can follow the links. The suggestions also seems to mitigate slavery in the U.S. by implying that the U.S. was not responsible for slavery within its borders. In fact slavery only continued in Lousiana because that was the will of the U.S. government. TFD (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The slaves were brought into Lousiana by the French chartered Mississippi Company administered by Scottish financier John Law in the 1720s. That was before the United States had jurisdiction over Louisiana. I could add the date 1720s to the paragraph. Slavery was allowed to continue and allowed to expanded in Louisiana by President Jefferson and Congress under the Louisiana Purchase treaty. The sentence is an effort to follow modern research that is attempting to get away from the Anglo centered view of the colonization period. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you provide any sources that modern research is attempting to get away from the Anglo centered view of the colonization period, and that it is relevant to adding information about French settlement in the French colony of Louisiana. My understanding is that the complaint was that earlier histories ignored African Americans and aboriginal Americans, not that they ignored the histories of territories acquired by the U.S. TFD (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Insert: Yes. Here is the source quote: "Until the 1960's, most American historians assumed that "the colonists" meant English-speaking men confined to the Atlantic seaboard...The other colonies of rival empires---Dutch, French, and Spanish---were a hazy backdrop of hostility: backward threats to the English America that alone spawned the American Revolution and the United States." Taylor (2001), The American Colonies, x Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • In his book, American Colonies: The Settling of North America, Taylor says that it is important to understand the settlement of the entire continent in order to understand US history, and provides a history of pre-Columbian and colonial North America. If we follow that, then the colonial history reported in the article should be a summary of the History of North America and include information about the settlements of Barbados, Jamaica, Bermuda, and Quebec as well. Also you would need to provide what is significant about these territories. For example, Quebec was settled by people from the NE of France, it had a seigneurial system, ultramontanism, French civil law and language, etc. But all you think important is that these areas had slavery, although you fail to mention the differences in their slavery laws. TFD (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

TDF. There is no need to bog down the article with extensive details. Please read my proposal. The purpose is to acknowlege that France colonized Louisiana. Slaves were brought in. We are essentially stating the Louisiana original AmeroEuropean colonists who had successful settlements were French or colonization was implemented by the French King. I am sticking with the United States, not the Territories of the United States. I only proposed one sentence. There is no need to add all the other details. I have limited the scope of the proposal to the United States. Obviously, your anglo centric POV is not supported by current research. I believe you are puposefully adding detail to thwart the proposal. This is not politics. We are not running for any office. There is no need to run a campaign to denigrate an editor. Good day. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You are presenting Taylor's book as a reason to mention French North America, but unlike him you are ignoring Quebec and the French West Indies which he gives equal coverage with Louisiana. And notice in his book he provides very little mention of slavery, but that is the only thing you choose to mention. Why ignore the British West Indies which had 775,000 slaves in 1807, while in Louisiana there were 20,000 slaves in 1797? Your accusations of "Anglo centric POV" are malarkey and projection. Your whole approach in this article is to pin the blame for American slavery on non-Anglo origins, while totally ignored the positive contributions that non-Anglo populations incorporated into the U.S. have made. TFD (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

TDF. Quebec and the French West Indies are not states of the United States. If you look at my source Bond (2005), that is where I got information on slavery. I am not pinning the blame on any race for slavery. I am all for information on Anglo slavery of Africans in the article. I was the one who desired to put in the article that Rhode Island ship builders were involved in the African slave trade. TheVirginiaHistorian brought up slavery and the French, that is why I added information on French slavery. Apparently slavery existed among the Dutch, English, Spanish/Mexican, and French. I don't understand all this resistance of putting in one sentence on French colonization and the fact that the French goverment and King allowed slaves in the Louisana. The Anglos were not the only colonists who practiced slavery. Even free blacks and Indians owned slaves prior to the Civil War. Please bear in mind that during Reconstruction Louisiana was one of the most stubborn states in allowing African American suffrage and equality. Although this was after Reconstruction, there were 335 lynchings of African Americans from 1885 to 1968. During Reconstruction there was the New Orleans Riot on July 30, 1876. There was the Colfax massacre on April 13, 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My position is that in this brief article about the United States we should note devote space to the histories of the various territories before they joined the U.S. You then presented Taylor's view that any study of colonial America should contain the history of the European settlement of all of North America, including the English, French, Russian, Dutch, and Spanish empires. Using Taylor's approach, we should devote more space to slavery in the British West Indies than in Louisiana because it is historically more significant. Notice that his book is called American Colonies: The Settling of North America, not the United States.

Also, if you want to include Louisiana, then you should in fairness say more about it that it was settled by the French and had slavery. The Cajun origins of many of the settlers for example should be included. Certainly you would not expect that that would be all we had to say about one of the 13 colonies.

If you believe that the fact slavery existed in the Louisiana territory when it was acquired, which of course was important, then we can just say that without having to get into the history of the territory before it joined the U.S. But it seems that the point of all this is to mitigate American responsibility for slavery in the U.S. In fact the U.S. accepted slavery in Louisiana.

TFD (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed sentence in no way mitigates American responsibility for slavery in the U.S. Your arguement is moot. The Louisiana Purchase treaty allowed slavery to continue in the terriory and allowed settlers to bring in their slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not say, "The Louisiana Purchase treaty allowed slavery to continue in the territory and allowed settlers to bring in their slaves" instead of what you propose. It belongs in the "Independence and expansion" section, not settlements. TFD (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine. However, I believe the Settlements section needs to at least acknowledge the French colonized Louisiana. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

why? The settlements section is about how the 13 colonies were settled. If you want to add the settlement of areas that became U.S. states, then you need to treat them equally and explain the settlements of Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, California, Florida, etc., and say more than that they had slavery. And why not mention for example that slavery was outlawed in Oregon before it became part of the U.S.? TFD (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 02

• "Starting in 1699 the French colonized Louisiana including the Gulf Coast, New Orleans, the lower and upper Mississippi valley and tributaries, and Illinois." Source: Bradley G. Bond (2005), French Colonial Louisiana and the Atlantic World, pp. 205, 206 Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to mention the French settlement of Lousiana, then you should mention the history of the settlements of each and every territory that would become part of the U.S. You should also provide the same level of detail as for the 13 colonies. TFD (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your requirement is not found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. In fact, your position verges on the level of Samuel Beckett. Collect (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Then obviously you are unfamiliar with the policy of neutrality. We are not supposed to treat different territories differently except to the extent that they are treated differently in reliable sources. Your position verges on the level of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." TFD (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Great dis! Not. There is absolutely no such policy that "each territory must be treated identically in an article covering multiple territories" whatsoever! Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate to do it but I agree with Collect. Some areas have more, or more interesting, history; some areas are too small to warrant equal treatment; etc. Just because you mention one doesn't mean you have to give equal time and effort to the others. This has nothing to do with the neutrality guideline. --Golbez (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, "We are not supposed to treat different territories differently except to the extent that they are treated differently in reliable sources." Or as neutrality says, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias....An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." It could be argued for example that the influence of at Hispanic (both Spanish and Mexican) settlement receives more attention in reliable sources than the influence of French settlement. It is also POV to mention that Louisiana was colonized by the French without mentioning that most Europeans arriving in the territory were Acadians. More attention is paid today to the Hispanic vote, use of the Spanish language etc. than the French vote and the use of the French language. The whole emphasis of recent changes or requests for changes has the effect of presenting a neo-confederate view that mitigates the responsibility of the Southern States for slavery. TFD (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the claim you made. You would appear to claim that giving two paragraphs to Plymouth Colony would make the Massachusetts history over-weighted compared with the other twelve colonies? That Rhode Island should have the precise same coverage as Virginia? Nope -- NPOV does not mean that, has never meant that, and will never mean it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect could you please read my postings before responding and not misrepresent them. Or do you feel that you already know what I will say and therefore have no need to read my comments before replying? TFD (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Am I actually getting support for the edit? Modern research is open to other colonizers of what would be the United States. I believe I am going by modern research that the French colonized Louisiana. I took out the part about slavery. French territories outside the United States do not neccessarily apply to the article on the United States. This is one sentence on the French colonizing Louisiana. Remember the French Indian War between the Brisish and French that was "started" by George Washington. The French are signifigant because they were competing for Western territory. Think of things this way. The Russians, French, British, Spanish, and Americans were competing for Western land territory. The Russians? Don't believe me huh. Check out this site: Fort Ross State Historic Park. Yes. The Russians were in California. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The "modern research" you are using to support inclusion says that all colonial settlement in North America should be included, not just the settlement of pieces that became part of the U.S. Otherwise we are not following modern scholarship, just putting in what we think is important. TFD (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a link to the French Colonization of America. Since this is the United States we can focus on the United States. So. Yes. We are going by modern scholarship. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The French colonies in America, which included Quebec, Acadia, Louisiana, Haiti, were never part of the United States. You seem to be confusing rs and npov. Yes we can find sources that the French colonized Louisiana, just as we can find sources about Hurricane Sandy. The issue is whether they should be in the article. Since you appear to be fascinated with how North America was settled, may I suggest you work on the History of North America. TFD (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, guys? Have you read our Settlements section in the article? The French colonization of the Mississippi Valley region is already mentioned. Cmguy's proposal is basically just a better worded (IMO) version of what we already have in the opening paragraph of the Settlements section. Now, it will include more specifics, like dates. Contrary to how it is being portrayed, this does not change the weight of inclusion in this article. The original proposal was for details on French/Spanish relations in that area, and that would have been changing weight and detail, but this proposal doesn't do that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to Royal court relations, Spain and France both colonized Louisiana and Texas respectively without military threat from each other in the early 1700s. The opening paragraph sentence is more of a general statement. This proposal would allow more detail into where the French settled in the Mississippi valley. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Golbez at 21:52, 17 Jul UTC; Ouroboros Cobra at 03:16, 18 Jul UTC; Cmguy777 at 06:59, 18 Jul UTC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 03

• Starting in 1700, Spain and France became cautious allies for over half a century, while the French and Spanish colonized Louisiana and Texas respectively." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources: (Bradley G. Bond (2005), French Colonial Louisiana and the Atlantic World, pp. 205, 206) --- (Helen Sophie Burton, F. Todd Smith (2008) Colonial Natchitoches: A Creole Community on the Louisiana-Texas Frontier, page 4)

• Support: This shows that Spain and France were involved in the Colonization of the United States in the 1700's and complies with expanding the Anglo colonization theme according to modern research. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the first paragraph of the "Settlements" section already say what you think should be included? I would add, following modern scholarship, that the French also colonized Quebec and Acadia, which is important to the events preceding the US revolution and the settlement of Louisiana. TFD (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a level of historical detail not relevant to this article. Proposal 2 was better. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about the specific recent proposals, but for the record I'll point out that the "modern scholarship" angle supposedly from "Taylor (2001)"--"The research has moved away from the Anglo-centric view in terms of American colonization. This change occured during the 1960's according to Taylor (2001)."-Cmguy777--is garbage that at best is topic dependent (we're discussing the US, not North America), and is possibly a vestigial example of the postmodernist brand of New Left commentary that started to gain prominence in the 1960s (he even mentions that decade in your quote; Gwillhickers would have loved that sentence), probably peaked in the 1990s, and contributed to a dumbing down of the education system. Fortunately in recent years there seems to be a growing backlash against such mindless, context distorting, liberal pc concerns, as any proper perspective seeking to explain how and why the US developed must be "Anglo-centric", and the truth is that, even during the height of the New Left era, scholarship of the period mostly focused on Anglo settlement, especially if it purported to be a history of the US rather than the continent. Not only was the colonial British population vast compared to the scattered French, Spanish, and Dutch settlements that were eventually folded into the US (or its founding colonies), but core American culture is obviously of British descent (we're having this conversation in English), British common law was inherited, and the general societal framework owes far more to centuries of British tradition than any other ancestral national source. Of course none of that means we shouldn't include material about the other players on the continent to the degree it's pertinent here, but I'd advise you to make the case for your specific edits without resorting to trying to make deep conceptual arguments attacking the section's inherently necessary Anglo focus. You might get more traction that way. VictorD7 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, Taylor (2001) must have struck a good chord that got you defensive and protectionist of Anglo colonization. You are saying the same things that Taylor (2001) had mentioned. In that case we might as well call this article the VictorD7 blog. Throw away modern research and stay stuck in the 1960's. That is POV garbage. Now you slander me by calling me the "postmodern brand New Left" and stating I am "dumbing down education" when in fact Taylor (2001) is expanding our knowledge of the people who colonized America. Maybe we need to leave the name calling out of Wikipedia commentary. Maybe Taylor (2001) ruffled feathers with his view that other nations colonized America, but I would rather accept an honest view of American history then one filled with lies and falsehoods. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking Taylor's view. This is what a reviewer from SUNY said, "Taylor's emphasis on cultural interaction and an Atlantic context as well as his resistance to reading the history of the United States back in time and geography also lead him to expand greatly the geographic and temporal boundaries of colonial America. Mexico, the West Indies, and French Canada, not to mention the borderlands of the Southwest and the Russian Northwest, all receive due attention."[5]

IOW if you want to follow this historiography then instead of a history of colonial America, you need to present a history of colonial North America. To include Massachusetts and exclude Quebec is to view colonial history through the prism of what became the U.S. You are using the old historiography that there is something exceptional about the 13 colonies and the eventual boundaries of the U.S., when it was not pre-ordained that no more nor less than those 13 colonies would have formed the U.S. or that Alaska, but not Yukon, Oregon but not BC, Louisiana but not Canada, California and Texas, but not present day Mexico would become part of the U.S.

We need to chose between the old or the new historiography, not create a third one.

TFD (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert:TFD. I have proposed links to put into the Settlements sections that would expand the article without having to put excessive information in the article concerning other non Anglo European colonization in the article. I am not creating a third historiography, rather attempting to follow the guidelines set by Taylor and modern research to have a more European inclusive view of the United States. That is the purpose of the links proposal. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Cmguy77. I didn't "slander" you and I'm certainly not the one here who's defensive or who has a history of telling "falsehoods". I'm generously not even opposing your edits (for now), but am just advising you to stick to advocating for them on their own merits as an editor and not by clouding the issue by taking a comment from a single author out of context from a book about continental history (and pre-history) that even spends much of its time covering the colonization of South and Central America, and that, unlike this page, isn't about the US per se. I'm not sure precisely what Taylor said as the page you mentioned earlier (x?) isn't available online, but unless it was that people writing a brief summary of the United States shouldn't focus on the British colonies that actually created the nation then it's not relevant in guiding our page emphasis decisions. BTW, speak for yourself regarding knowledge expansion. From the segments I've read I didn't notice anything I haven't seen in other continental histories. Unlike you, I (and most people with at least a grade school education) already knew that "other nations colonized America" (guess you forgot that the Settlement section already touches on some pertinent aspects of that), but those other colonial efforts didn't found the United States. VictorD7 (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, the Taylor (2001) book should be at any local library. The "x" in the reference is the Introduction page number. Yes I can give things a rest, however, I am not here on Wikipedia to promote any left or right wing agenda. I was hoping we could keep the politics out of Wikipedia, although everyone is entitled to their political opinion. I believe Taylor's view is correct that more then the English colonized the United States and that the colonization of America needs to be taken in context with all European colonization in both North and South America. This does not undermine the importance of British or Anglo colonization. Remember, the Anglos and Amercians finally won the continent. The French, Spanish, and British were eventually booted from the Continent either by war or treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you label that "insert"? Never mind. I know how intro sections are typically numbered (I wasn't certain if you meant to cite that as the page with the quote I've yet to see you provide). As I said, it's not available online. If it was worth going to a library to read I would. If his claim (at least as presented by you) was the dominant view, then I wouldn't need to since there'd be plenty of other sources available online saying the same thing. Your problem is that history books about American history written after 2001, including some used as sources here (like the economic oriented Walton 2009 and Gordon 2004) mostly focus on the Anglo colonies during the colonial period. They do touch on Indians and other European colonies in the area too, as has every broad history book covering the period I've ever read and like our section here already does, but they don't pretend that the colonies that actually founded the nation aren't by far the most critical to study if one is serious about understanding how the nation was created. Even if our page layout editing decisions were dictated by outside scholarship, you'd need more than one literally dated source. Regardless, in a brief summary like this we don't have time to get into stuff like Viking landings or expansive discussion of Spanish colonization in Peru. VictorD7 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I removed the "Insert". If you will kindly look at the sources I have given, Bond (2005) and Burton-Smith (2008) are all topic specific on the colonization of Louisiana and Texas and are after the Taylor (2001). I would suggest that is evidence there is specific research on regions of the United States that is non Anglo. The books focus on the French and Spanish rather then only concentrating on the Anglo United States. There was a history prior to the Lousiana Purchase. Jefferson made a treaty with France to get the Lousiana Purchase and I believe both the French and Spanish interchanged "ownership" of the area prior to U.S. take over. Even then I believe Spain allowed access to harbors in Louisana according to the Treaty. We have to remember Spain was a very formidable threat to U.S. Foriegn Policy up until the Spanish American War. The Thirteen Colonies were not united until after the Dutch were booted from New Amsterdam. There is Aaron Burr who plotted with the Spanish for the take over of the Louisiana territory. There are the Russians colonists in Alaska. We made a treaty with the Czar of Russia. Another source Gwenn A. Miller (2010) Kodiak Kreol: Communities of Empire in Early Russian America that focus on early Russian America Communities. Interesting the Russians negotiated with the Spanish, not the United States when they settled in California around 1806, i.e. Fort Ross. I would say modern research is expanding historical context on the History of the United States including North and South America. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question about "insert" (I was curious, not complaining), but oh well. Regarding sources, I've only seen you quote "Taylor (2001)" in your broad conceptual argument. Actually you haven't even quoted him, but, regardless, the sourcing of specific facts isn't relevant to this discussion. You like to throw out a bunch of sentences that aren't disputed (like "There was a history prior to the Lousiana Purchase.") that frankly come off as snarky and thoroughly unjustified condescension, and that ignore the reality both that the Settlement section already contains appropriate "non-Anglo" info (including on the Spanish, Dutch, and French) and that the Anglo colonies have to be the primary focus of any rational attempt to outline US history. You also keep misusing the term "modern research". None of the stuff you're citing is new. People choose to write about different topics. This isn't an article about Peru, or even Alaska; it's about the United States, and due to length constraints it's in an extreme summary form, so it's important to focus on covering the most salient, pertinent information to the topic at hand. All I'm saying is that when advocating for your edits you'd be better off explaining specifically in your own words why it's important to our US oriented article, and how well it would integrate into the existing text. Taylor can't help you with that. VictorD7 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously people writing books called French Colonial Louisiana and the Atlantic World or A Creole Community on the Louisiana-Texas Frontier will mention French colonial settlement. That does not mean it is relevant to this article. TFD (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. Why do I use "insert". I suppose to distiguish between editor commentary. "Snarky and throughly unjustified condescension" That is a bit hostile. I believe there needs to be expansion, although limited, on the Dutch, French, and Spanish in the Settlements section. In my opinion this answers why there was a French and Indian War, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Mexican American War. The evidence of the Taylor (2001) quote validation is the modern research done by Bond (2005) and Burton-Smith (2008). TFD, notice how these dates are after the Taylor (2001) source. There is the Miller (2010) source on early Russian communities. Can anyone notice the progression in research in studying non Anglo European colonizers. All the sources I have given are in the 21st Century. This does not in anyway ignore the importance of the Anglo European colonial community and the Founders. The research on non Anglo colonizers, in my opinion, enlightens the reader on Anglo colonization and gives a better historical perspective. France and Spain were real competitors for the United States. I don't understand all the resistance in expanding non Anglo colonization. The Spanish were a threat to American up until the Spanish American War. The French were a threat to America when they took over Mexico during the Civil War. This is why I favor expansion in the Settlements section. Remember the British during the 1600s were at constant war with the Dutch. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You still need to explain why the fact that some historians write books about French colonialism it is relevant to the article. And you continue to miss Taylor's point. He is saying that the colonial history of all territories is relevant to the U.S., whether or not those areas became part of the U.S. Bridgetown was just as much, or even more so, a major city in the British colonies as New York or Boston. Quebec and Acadia were just as important as or more important that Louisiana to English settlers. New England colonists persuaded the British government to deport Acadians to Louisiana, Wolfe defeated Montcalm, the departure of the French and the Quebec Act provoked the U.S. revolution, Canada was invited to join the revolution, then invaded by the American army. If you want to follow Taylor, then you need to mention all this. TFD (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

TDF. Yes. I am all for the above inclusions since what modern research is expanding U.S. History to include other nations. I agree. The French colonized Louisiana and the Spanish colonized the South West. Russia colonized Alaska and California. The Dutch Colonized New York. Are you in agreement that the Settlements section needs to include these countries. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The settlements section should only include those countries if we also include the settlements of Quebec, Mexico and the West Indies. I do not see why you are having difficulty understanding what Taylor said, that not only should colonial history include the 13 colonies, but all the colonies in North America. You however in total disregard of your source, want to include the territories that became part of the U.S. while neglecting territories that did not. TFD (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, the books by Bond and Burton-Smith were specifically about the Louisiana area, so of course they talked about it. They're not the first books about Louisiana, but even if they were that provides no emphasis guidance to an article about the US. You've identified no trend. This has nothing to do with "modern scholarship". Bond wrote about Louisiana, Taylor wrote about continental settlement (actually had the word "North America" in the subtitle), and our article is about the United States. Three different topics. By contrast, your sentence on the French/Indian war and the other items represents a legitimate way for you to argue for your edits. That's how you should pursue this, dropping the Taylor/"modern research"/conceptual talk.

Of course you're free to reject my advice. I'll probably let y'all sort out these proposals, but if there's a broader effort to turn the US settlement section into a continental piece then I'll likely intervene again. If it's expanded in length enough to include things like the tiny Russian settlements in Alaska or other stuff, then at the very least there must be population figures and other facts included to illustrate their relative insignificance to broader national development, and comments emphasizing the primacy of the Anglo colonial effort in creating American culture and institutions, lest readers be misled by a multi-cultural kaleidoscope that distorts context and diminishes understanding. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. Your hostility has made even proposing an edit in the article extremely difficult. I don't want to be your prey anymore. It is virtually impossible to make any edits in the Settlements section. As far as I know you have never made any constructive commentary, always belittling or name calling. This has to stop. You and TFD seem to team up and castigate any edit proposals I have made. I think I will stick to the Taylor (2001), The America Colonies I bought at Barnes and Noble then put up with your tripe. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, that was a disappointingly irrational, hostile, and transparently false reply to my above comments. I'd put my constructive commentary on Wikipedia up against yours any day. I'd almost be embarrassed to even stoop to make the comparison. VictorD7 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I was commenting on the extreme resistance to any edit I have proposed, like trying to move against a hurricane wind. I could have said "The sky is blue." That would have been met with "What color blue?" "Sometimes the sky has clouds" or the "Sky is black at night only lighted by the moon and stars." I hope we could have worked together with a bit more cooperation than the put downs. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually when I tried to work with you on the first Settlement paragraph you stridently refused, threw out a bunch of off the mark if not totally insane personal attacks, and then ran off to admin to complain. After you were shot down on every level, instead of taking retaliatory personal action I was generously still willing to work with you, and I think once you settled down we actually did a decent job working together and developed an edit that corrected the salient issue and improved the article. I even let you make it and use the source you had picked out. Then when you started this section to add a new edit, I stayed out of it and only eventually stepped in to dispute part of the rationale you were using that could have potentially impacted the scope of the entire section in a way I strongly disagree with if it had gained traction, but not to oppose your proposals themselves. If anything I was just giving you helpful advice. Frankly I've been very patient. VictorD7 (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)