Talk:United States/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Edit ‘civil war and reconstruction era’.

'Civil War and Reconstruction era', proposed edit:

From the beginning, inherent divisions over slavery between the North and the South in American society ultimately led to the American Civil War.[93] Initially states entering the Union alternated slave and free, keeping a sectional balance in the Senate, while free states outstripped slave states in population and in the House of Representatives. But with additional western territory and more free-soil states, tensions between slave and free states mounted with arguments over federalism and disposition of the territories, whether and how to expand or restrict slavery.[94] Beginning in December 1860, conventions in thirteen states declared secession, then formed the Confederate States of America, and the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal.[96]

The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. 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,[97] made them citizens, and gave them voting rights. These Amendments lead to a substantial increase in federal power.[98] aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves.[100], but following the Reconstruction Era, throughout the South Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans.[100]‪

end proposal. This is now short enough to merge logically an abbreviated 'industrialization' section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I Understand the need to mention broad themes, but the history section should not be stripped of hard facts. The civil war was by the far the bloodiest in American history: [[1]] The number of people killed as a result of the war needs to stay in the section and it should probably be added for emphasis that the number of deaths caused by the civil war was larger than all of our other wars combined. I'm pretty much against all of these proposed changes to this section. The section is already small and the proposed changes just make it even smaller and unnecessarily vague. My biggest problem with the proposed changes is that they do not even fix the worst inaccuracies of the current section. It is a gross understatement to simply say: "Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans" African Americans didn't merely lose the right to vote, Jim Crow laws discriminated against them on virtually every level and those laws were not even the worst aspects of southern life after the civil war. The section needs to mention that white supremacy was kept in force through violent tactics, most notably lynching - (unsigned) Lance Friedman

Before these latest proposals I was thinking about merging these sections too, but since that's apparently already been rejected (see below), this might be a good time to reconsider presidential dementioning. It's difficult to discuss the Civil War without mentioning Lincoln (though possible, as this proposal shows), and he's widely regarded as a giant in US history. I suspect cadiomals and I would have reinserted Washington at the end of this process anyway, possibly as a lone exception. If we aren't merging the sections, maybe this one should be expanded back a little to include Lincoln, especially since "Jacksonian Democracy" is still mentioned in the earlier Expansion section. We could limit overall presidential mentions to two, Washington and Lincoln (two and half counting the semi-Jackson reference), or maybe four for chronological balance, including FDR and Reagan since they're widely seen as the most important presidents of the 20th Century. The frivolous individual mentions (Joseph McCarthy, Gloria Steinem, most recent presidents, etc.) should be removed either way, but we can mention 2-4 salient presidents without ruining what we're trying to accomplish with this streamlining. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7. That balance makes a kind of sense, we mention presidents Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan.

Much closer than fifty years, and we are not talking history from historical scholars, it's current events from political scientists. So we have good historical context through LBJ or Nixon, then start to lose it with the moderns. Reagan will be controversial, but maybe the juxtaposition with the end of the Soviet Union will be enough to carry him into the summary by name. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

insert - I thought we had agreed to retain the Lincoln mention. Did you change your mind, or are you planning to reinsert that later? VictorD7 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Lance Friedman. Worse than the terrorist KKK still monitored by the FBI, --- the harder fact is that in the post-civil war years, the "White Leagues" carried out a program of assassination, killing school teachers of African-Americans and members of the Republican Party down to caucus attendees, black, and white if they did not leave when ordered. See Foner's Reconstruction:America's unfinished revolution: 1863-1877. But that hard fact does not relate directly to this article on contemporary U.S., because no party has its members systematically assassinated by night riders carrying lists of victims in the modern era. The subjection of African-Americans in the century 1863-1963 is encompassed by the proposal link Black Codes as discussed in detail there for the purposes of the summary here in a country article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying the white league was worse is not a good reason for deleting all mention of the terror tactics that were used to put white supremacists back in power and keep them in power for a hundred years This section needs to have links to such topics as lynchings and the nadir of american race relations . Also, i see no effort has been made to correct the gross understatement that suggests jim crow laws merely resulted in many african americans losing their right to vote. This section still needs additional changesLance Friedman (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You're engaging in cherry-picked hyperbole. Whites took power because they were the majority. People can reach more in depth info about mistreatment of minorities and other important historical details through embedded links. Remember this is a very broad historical summary. VictorD7 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Victor, as usual you need to check your facts. African-Americans made up the majority of the population in several states.. In other states they came close to a majority and there were significant numbers of non-African-American people who for a variety of reasons were willing to vote for fair-minded politicians who favored African-American equality. Also, white-supremacists didn't simply take and hold power in all the southern states, they monopolized it using unconstitutional laws and terroristic violence to discriminate against African Americans in virtually every level of life.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Friedman, you're wrong as usual. Blacks were a majority in two Confederate states (MI and SC), and I was talking long term, as you presumably were. In the short run it was often whites who were disenfranchised per Reconstruction (why black Republicans were representing southern states in the US Congress). The black vote was ultimately reduced through discrimination, which the text mentions, but the people you call "white supremacists" would have assumed power whether any lynchings took place or not, whites becoming the majority even in the two states I mentioned. A majority of lynching victims were white until 1886, with the record high year being 1892 with 230 total lynchings (for all reasons). By the 20th Century they fell to a few dozen a year, and sharply declined starting in the 1920s until petering out to almost none after 1950. VictorD7 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Victor, lets go back to what U originally said "whites took power because they were the majority" Now U R changing what U said to say U meant over the "long term" they were the majority. You are again simply wrong. In Mississippi African Americans made up the majority of the population from 1860 to 1930 - 70 years. In South Carolina African Americans were more than 50% of the population from 1860 to 1920 - 60 years. In Louisiana African Americans were 50% of the populations from 1860 to 1890 - 30 years. These are short time spans in your mind??? In other Southern states African Americans were very close to being the majority of the population. If you have any interest in accuracy here is a link to the stats: Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States Also, what do you mean when you say: "but the people you call "white supremacists" It is just me calling them white supremacists? R U trying to argue that the people supporting lynchings, various bombings of "undesirables": Harry T. Moore, mountains of discriminatory laws/regulations, and umpteen other terrorist murders and maimings were not white supremacists???Lance Friedman (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

insert - Friedman, I was responding to your comment about "keep(ing) them in power for a hundred years". You even mentioned the "black nadir", which is usually associated with the early 20th Century. You're the one trying to shift the topic back and forth, not me. You also claimed "several" states had black majorities (LA was really too close to decisively call, and skewed by a high mulatto count with nuanced social ramifications, including black slave owners). You're wrong on every level. Most southern states had white majorities (all of them eventually would), and those majorities tended to grow over time. Either way, let's not pretend they would have had black supremacy if not for lynchings. As terrible as it was, lynching was a small percentage of murders, and racially motivated lynching a smaller subset still. And I wasn't making any commentary about the description "white supremacists", though I'm generally careful about categorical descriptions by niche ideological aspect across broad swathes of time and space. The bottom line is that we already link to Jim Crow discrimination, with that page containing further links. With so much important history on other topics left totally unmentioned, we don't have space in this brief summary to dwell too long on the details of black mistreatment in various states. VictorD7 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Lance, your difficulty in characterizing the country as Jim Crow is that Jim Crow was essentially segregation in all areas of life, not just disenfranchisement and that was widespread, --- but the supportive regime of Klansman terrorism in 'Civil War and Reconstruction' was both intermittent and restricted to the deep South, not characteristic of the entire country. Disenfranchisement is key because as soon as blacks could vote in Alabama, most Sheriffs elected there were African-American. And they ended the practice of lawmen looking the other way at Klan activities.

On the other hand, during the 'Industrial Age' the Second Klan had its greatest numbers in Indiana and Ohio in the 1920s. Did you want to work in a link to Ethnic violence, or the Klu Klux Klan articles? At some level, since modern scholars now combine treatment of Civil War and Reconstruction, due to continued violence of the eras, or due to the intention of integrating the freedman into economy, politics and society --- it would be easier to expand on the KKK if the sections were combined into 'Civil War and industrialism'.

It would be easier if we combine the sections since the KKK growth in the North came directly from the first Great Migration of African-Americans 1910-1930 out of the South into northern industrial cities. And as you seem intent on including a fuller treatment of the KKK, we can best do that if we address 1870-1930 including both north and south in a consolidated section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

TVH, could you answer the inserted question I asked you above about presidential mentions, please? VictorD7 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I like mentioning four presidents: Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan, and four population totals at 70 year intervals 1790, 1860, 1930 and 2000. Did you want to take these overview elements? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly support. Though I'm flexible on the precise years for population (if people would prefer to shift them around), and I do want to retain the current colonial era mention. VictorD7 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

'aftermath proposal'

Virginia Historian, The fact that organized activities of the KKK fluxuated and varied from state to state does not mean that it should not be mentioned in a section about reconstruction. I am also aware that there were lots of other violent white supremacists organizations such as the white league, the red shirts, the White Citizens' Council the Mississippi Plan along with many others. We are obviously not going to mentions all of these groups in the article, But, in a subsection about reconstruction we should at the very least mention one of the these groups.

Regarding your idea of merging this section with another, I think a better solution to your valid concern is to slightly expand the title of the subsection to something like "Civil War, Reconstruction , and Racism in the United States" or "Civil War, Reconstruction, and its Aftermath" or "Civil War, Reconstruction and the Nadir of American race relations. I'm open to other suggestions.

Also, we need to mention at least some of the violent tactics that were used to further white supremacist goals. The subsection needs a sentence like this: "In the years following the civil war Lynching in the United States became a notorious tactic used by many white supremacists to intimidate, punish, and terrorize people who were perceived as threatening or violating various traditions and laws." The link to bleeding kansas should also be put back in the subsection. If anyone thinks these small changes will make the history section too big, i'll point out that in the earlier history subsections there is still a ton of dubious and/or trivial material that is not more important and in many cases less important than my proposed additions. For example we mention the1846 Oregon Treaty (even though it was the Treaty of Washington (1871) that finally settled the border dispute with the UK) Do we really need mention either treaty at all? We have weird sentences saying the Indians taught the colonists how to fish and hunt? (As if fishing and hunting was something unknown in Europe during the colonial time period?) Do we really need that in the history subsection?. We also mentions tons of obscure religious revivals and awakenings. My major point is --- if we have room for all of that, we also have room for the small additions that I have proposed.

Finally changes need to be made to the wording of some of the sentences in the subsection. Do we really think that it is correct to say a peoples "freedom" was "ensured" by various amendments when they were actually deprived of virtually every fundamental right from voting in elections to public bathroom usage. The sentence on the amendments "ensuring freedom" needs to be changed to something more appropriate such as the amendments "ended legalized slavery in the United States""Lance Friedman (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Where I concur. Lets use "Civil War, Reconstruction, and its Aftermath" for a working title -- the promise to the freedman was not fulfilled in this era. Try out your “In the years following…” sentence. Bleeding Kansas is noteworthy, should go back in, --- the Northern representatives voted together for the first time as a bloc, Democratic, Free Soil, Republican, Anti-Mason, what have you --- to deny Buchanan’s push for a slave-soil Kansas statehood --- due to the manifest ballot box terrorism. Should keep 1846 Oregon Treaty since that opens the flood of immigrants, --- the Treaty of Washington is housekeeping after the fact, pretty much following the generally agreed to latitude established to the eastward, Polk's blustering notwithstanding.

Let’s drop the hunting and fishing reference in colonial, though there should still a reference to inter-cultural cooperation, especially on the frontier, even as the frontier moved. The First and Second Great Awakenings were major social movements, larger than socialism or anarchism that we should also keep in 'Industrialization'. The freedom, citizenship, and voting were “guaranteed” as a promissory note in the amendments, but not "ensured" through enforcement, thus --- the check bounced at the time, as implied by the words of MLK in his “I have a dream” speech. Would you take a turn at the sections along these lines that you have suggested? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning specific groups is a frivolous and undue level of detail for this summary article, and I oppose Friedman's lynching sentence. If we mention the crimes you suggest, what about other crimes throughout American history? What about the huge murder rate spike in the mid to late 20th Century across the entire nation? Focusing on regional, racially motivated crimes of a certain period looks like soapbox cherry-picking. The Civil War itself is barely mentioned, so we shouldn't devote too much time to the preface or aftermath. The "freedom" clause occurs in the context of specifically mentioning slavery, is accurate, and is entirely appropriate. It's not like the 13th Amendment didn't have teeth. Slavery ended suddenly and stayed ended. The various religious awakenings were major societal/cultural movements that impacted more people (including blacks) than anti-black discrimination did, and have to remain. VictorD7 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Victor, The murder rate is discussed in other areas of the article, we don't need to repetitively mention such a contemporary issue in the history section. Also, the europeans who came to the United States brought with them their various religious views. The impact of "revivals" and "awakenings" that periodically occurred is being overstated in this article. We definitely don't need to have repetitive sentences with repetitive links in this article. For example do we really need to have links to the same modern evangelism page in both the history section and the religion section? TheSalem Witch Trials probably had more influence on American thinking than these repetitive religious revivals sentences and links.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Historian, do you want to write a draft for the subsection, or should I, or would somebody else like to?

How about something like, draft #2 -- this is the last sentence of "Civil War, Reconstruction and aftermath" ?

In the years following the civil war lynching became a notorious tactic used by white supremacists to terrorize violators of Jim Crow and racial segregation, both North and South. National reaction to the extemists led to criminalizing lynching as a federal offense following anti-lynching crusading during the Progressive Era.

---end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal for reasons laid out below. I'll ask you to try and remember the big picture. Lynching was one of many tragic episodes in history, and this section is being written at such a broad level of summary that singling it out not only for mention but with multiple sentences is extreme undue emphasis. Lynching was only a sliver of anti-black discrimination (one directly impacting a tiny percentage of the population), a topic which is already summarized more appropriately with the broad Jim Crow description and link. Perhaps we can expand that sentence if necessary, but adding two new sentences focusing on lynching would be ridiculous, and certainly not conducive to a stable article. Are we going to discuss some or all of the topics I listed below too? If not why not? VictorD7 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Other violent episodes aren't discussed, Friedman, like the crime wave of the 1920s-1930s (led to the development of a robust FBI), the New York Draft Riots (where mobs of Irish immigrants and other Democrats roamed around murdering every black person they came across as an anti-Lincoln protest), for that matter race or other types of riots in general, the larger lynching picture (mostly white victims from the 1700s to the 1880s), the serial killer phenomenon, the ongoing inner city gang war issue, etc.. There's certainly no racial crime rate breakdown, or mention of the fact that blacks commit a majority of murders despite only being around 13% of the population. Such a mention will ultimately be necessary in the Crime section for context unless the current racial incarceration breakdown is deleted (as it should be), but by your logic why not add it to the History section? Then there are other important historical developments currently excluded, like the rise of the electronic mass media and its impact on culture, the rise of the US as a scientific/technological superpower by at least the late 19th Century (mentioned in the Science section, but not discussed in detail there or at all in History), the great migration from the northeast to the south and west in recent decades for economic opportunity (actually probably should be discussed somewhere), the rise of trial lawyers and the impact of tort abuse on both vendors and consumers (just look at all the silly tags products feel they have to have now; e.g. "Don't touch flame!"). Frankly the rise of sports as a prominent feature of daily American cultural life (for all races) in the 20th Century (which in turn has had a major ongoing influence on the rest of the world) is of more historical import than racially motivated lynching. The Sports section doesn't discuss this from an historical perspective. The bottom line is that this a very brief summary--for the most part specific major battles aren't even mentioned--so this is not the proper forum to indulge a selective fixation on regional, low level violence of a certain type in a certain period, or to turn the section into a New Left narrative. Your attempt to equate the sequence of religious awakenings that heavily shaped American culture in distinctive, persistent ways with the Salem witch trials is absurd, though one could almost make as strong an argument for including the latter as for your proposal.VictorD7 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Lance, I'm working real hard to agree with you on your 'aftermath paragraph', then you want to toss in something about the Salem Witch Trials equal to the Great Awakenings? The Salem Witch Trials were unique in American colonial history for their slaughter even for New England, and without parallel either in Middle Colonies or in the South, -- but witch trials and burning at the stake were common among Europeans at the time. Frederick Turner wrote something about the value of human life on the frontier; self-destructive practices were not generally extended here, and women certainly attained greater status. I think there are a couple of cases in Virginia of dunking 'witches' to near drowning, a few Baptist preachers had ears cut off in Virginia instead of burning at the stake as in Europe.

On the other hand, social historians credit the First Great Awakening with self-government and breakaway from established churches as precursor to the American Revolution. The Second Great Awakening is credited with fueling the Abolitionist Movement in the 'burned over' district of New York state and then Civil War. The number of witches burned at the stake does not compare with the significance of the Great Awakenings on the American Revolution or the American Civil War in this general summary history of the United States.The religious intolerance of the Salem Witch Trials was not typical of colonial regimes, or of national practice; what was typical was rather something of more religious toleration and freedom compared to European practice of the time, for Early Colonial 1600-1700, or Late Colonial 1700-1775, or Revolution and Early Nation 1775-1830. Stay focused on 'aftermath'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Victor, the promise of the three Civil War/Reconstruction Amendments was not fulfilled. Some kind of short explanation needs to be made as to how the promise is not kept in this section to set the stage for the 1960s Civil Rights movement. There is a consideration for narrative flow for one kind of violence, lynching, and its resolution in national anti-lynching law, but I do not agree that that narrow consideration opens the door for a flood of episodic accounts of 'violence in America' as discussed in Richard M. Brown's Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American Violence and Vigilantism or others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the coverage proposed isn't narrow, though the topic is. I linked to the historical stats showing that lynchings of all kinds of any race only totaled a couple of hundred in the peak year, and a few dozen per year in the 20th Century until dwindling down to the single digits by the 1930s and vanishing soon after. The low level nature of this violence would be misrepresented by prose granting it space on par with the actual fighting in WW2 and the Civil War, easily misleading readers. The entire Korean War, in which 36,500 Americans died, is summed up by the single sentence: American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–53, and that's pre-streamlining. Longer US historical surveys than this one don't mention lynching. There are plenty of directions we could take the narrative, and most of my hypothetical examples impacted more people (proportionally, not just absolutely) than lynching did. I agree with you about the importance of both capturing the broad nature of anti-black discrimination and setting up the Civil Rights movement (and in fact we may need to add to or alter that commentary to reflect the fact that civil rights legislative efforts long predated the 1960s, with a rich history from the 1860s to anti-lynching measures pushed in the 1920s to the Eisenhower signed Civil Rights Act of 1957 and beyond; an ultimately passed civil rights bill on adoption being part of the 1994 Republican Contract With America; though we apparently don't have room for details), but I think that's already accomplished with your earlier proposal on Jim Crow laws and disenfranchisement. Lynching was an infinitesimal proportion of the black experience, even the discrimination experience. Indeed it had already ended long before the 1960s version of the civil rights movement. While the Jim Crow article broadly describes systematic black discrimination, it's telling that the word "lynchings" only appears once on the page (though with a further link). This proposal would dedicate more space to black lynching in the US article than currently exists in the Jim Crow article. Is there a reason why the Jim Crow language doesn't adequately set the stage for the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s? I also agree with you that the promise of the three Amendments wasn't immediately realized, but that seems to already be covered by Friedman's addition of the word "technically" to the voting rights portion, deletion of the word "equal" qualifying "citizens", and the Jim Crow/disenfranchisement sentence. If that sentence is truly insufficient maybe we could expand it to something appropriately broad like: "But following the Reconstruction Era, throughout the South Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans, and blacks faced systemic discrimination in various ways in both the North and South.[97]"...or something along those lines.VictorD7 (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That just might 'answer the mail'. I concur with a Draft #4: "But following the Reconstruction Era, throughout the South Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans, and blacks faced systemic discrimination including some forms of terrorism in both the North and South.[97]". That includes Lance's link to 'Lynching in the United States' as one of the kinds of terrorism. Lance? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I just went ahead and wrote up a proposed draft for the subsection. Feel free to make changes or give input.Lance Friedman (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution ended legal enslavment of the nearly four million African Americans who had been slaves, made them citizens, and promised them voting rights. The war and its resolution led to a substantial increase in federal power aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states as well as fostering equality before the law. But following the Reconstruction Era, throughout the South Jim Crow laws soon deprived most African Americans and some poor whites of voting rights and throughout the United States Africans Americans faced systemic discrimination. In addition, lynching became one of several violent tactics sometimes used by white supremacists to terrorize and intimidate perceived violaters of racial segregation and racist ideas in both the North and South.Lance Friedman (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I like the balance, it may be too long. I like the balance. Maybe the last sentence shortened and lynching balanced by anti-lynching:

...and throughout the United States Africans-Americans faced systemic discrimination.[5] Lynching was one of several extralegal tactics used to enforce racial segregation.[6] but its terror gave rise to a national Anti-lynching movement.

While that mentions lynching as an important part of the landscape in the aftermath of Reconstruction and during industrialization, it references the counter of self-help mobilization by African-American leaders such as Ida B. Wells and their national political alliance with Progressives to address the issue when local majorities are destructive of minority rights. Victor? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I was willing to support your Draft #4 as a compromise, but this new proposal isn't substantially different from the earlier Draft #2 I explained my opposition to in the paragraphs above. At this detail level lynching is irrelevant and mentioning it at all is undue emphasis that will mislead low information readers about its nature and scope, particularly when the broader phenomenon of vigilantes lynching criminals since colonial times isn't mentioned at all. By contrast, general anti-black discrimination is relevant at this summary level, though already adequately covered by the Jim Crow sentence. The whole point of me adding the "systemic discrimination" segment to that sentence was to replace "lynching" with something more appropriate, addressing implied concerns that the explicit "disenfranchisement" mention was too narrow, despite the Jim Crow link covering other types of discrimination (including a link to the lynching article). Even your shortened version here would blow up what's currently a single sentence of 106 characters into a paragraph sized inclusion of almost 400 characters, half of which focuses on lynching. That's moving in the wrong direction on multiple fronts. For the record, the last time this article received a "good" rating in a status review the segment only read: "The resolution of the disputed 1876 presidential election by the Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction; Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans." That's it. That article version had its own flaws and shouldn't be our sacrosanct guide by any means, but it's worth noting given all the expressed concern over restoring "good" status.

If we're going to mention lynching I like your addition of the anti-lynching movement, but I have to yet to see a rational argument why we're singling out a tiny sliver of discrimination for expanded discussion rather than much broader and more historically important elements like housing discrimination or legally forced public segregation (e.g. schools). The point of using terms like "Jim Crow" or "systemic discrimination" is that they're summary umbrellas encapsulating the narrower issues. The new proposal would be like retaining the current, very vague Korean War sentence and following it with a long sentence about the Battle of Heartbreak Ridge, blowing apart proper contextual perspective. It wouldn't require a cynic to suggest that "lynching" is being selected here for its sensationalism and emotive impact, in hopes of shaping the worldview and mindsets of the low information readers I mentioned before. What's next? Adding the mass school shooting phenomenon to the Contemporary section? And are we going to describe the course of black lynching history, how it sharply declined in the 1920s and effectively ended before the 1960s era civil rights movement, or are we just tossing it out there like a bomb and leaving it?

Side note - the Anti-lynching movement article is very brief, about the size of a short subsection here, and needs expansion. Perhaps the most prominent champion of anti-lynching legislation was President Calvin Coolidge, hardly a "progressive". Woodrow Wilson, the president most iconically associated with the "progressive" movement, had a far different record on civil rights.

I can support the changes Friedman proposed to the earlier sentences, but can we replace "African American" with "black"? Isn't it time to mature beyond the former? I don't mind keeping the link, but the wording is confusing from an accuracy standpoint since the freed slaves weren't widely viewed as citizens (aka "Americans") until the 14th Amendment. The same section uses "white", and stylistic concerns aside, it'd save space, which is ostensibly one of this project's chief goals. Also, as a slight tweak, how about saying...Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibited slavery, made the nearly four million blacks who had been slaves U.S. citizens,[20] and promised them voting rights. Along with all the appropriate links. VictorD7 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Victor, I noticed you reverted the changes that I put in place. I implemented them because Virginia Historian seemed supportive of many of the changes and you seemed to have lost interest in the discussion. Let us know what you think needs to be changed in the proposed draft.Lance Friedman (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Friedman, you left for four days after TVH and I agreed on language, and then you suddenly return, drop a proposal, and edit it into the article a few hours later, ignoring TVH's commentary on it to boot? On top of that you claim to believe I had lost interest in the discussion? I figured TVH was waiting to hear from you, since he had ended by asking for you by name. I was wondering if you had lost interest. Please refrain from making unilateral, knowingly contentious edits to sections currently under discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess we can agree on the following change: Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibited slavery, made the nearly four million people who had been slaves U.S. citizens,[20] and promised them voting rights." I only made one small change from what Victor wanted. Instead of fighting over whether African American or black is the better word. I assume Victor will not have any problem with us just calling the former slaves people? Assuming no one objects, I will implement these changes Saturday afternoon.

Victor, regarding the end of the paragraph, please do not exaggerate. I did not "blow up" a single sentence into a paragraph. I did not add a paragraph to the subsection. I am simply proposing we add one sentence and slightly expand a sentence that is already in the subsection. All this is in an article that is filled with tons of less important trivia. There is currently a whole paragraph in the food section that has no sources and is trivial in nature. It is the second paragraph in the food section. If nobody objects, I will delete it tomorrow. That will more than offset the addition of these tiny additions to this subsection.

Also, It is simply wrong to say the panoply of violence committed by white supremacists among which lynching was the most notorious was an "infinitesimal proportion" or a "tiny sliver of discrimination" More than 5,000 people were lynched in the United States after the Civil War. That is more than the Americans killed in the Spanish/American and more than the Americans killed in the 911 terrorist attacks. The impact of the lynchings went far beyond the thousands of victims that were murdered. The intentionally well publicized "events" were designed to intimidate and threaten an exponentially larger group of people. Also, the Tuskegee Institute stats are widely considered to be an undercount because they used very strict guidelines when they documented cases. Their numbers do not even include lynchings from the most violent years following the Civil War because the Institute was not founded until 1881. Their stats also do not include people who were murdered in events such as the Colfax massacre, or bombings: Harry T. Moore, or horrible maimings: Isaac Woodard and various other kinds of violent and illegal activities that were used to establish and underpin white supremacy. These crimes were often committed by sheriffs, members of the police, and even Governors. It was routine that the people committing these crimes were never prosecuted or convicted. Virtually all of this state sanctioned violence was designed to punish both black and white people who were perceived as threatening or not properly respecting white supremacist beliefs. We obviously cannot add all of these things to the article, but at the very least we need to mention the most notorious tactics white supremacists used to maintain their "way of life."

Victor, I just have to add that a lot of your reasons for opposing these small additions are just plain silly. We have whole sections in this article devoted to science and mass media. These small changes do not mean we need to add more info about those topics AND does any fair-minded person believe the changes require us to add info about tort reform and I'm quoting you Victor: "the silly tags products feel they have to have now" ????????? That is supposed to be as important, or more important than the thousands of people who were were violently lynched and the exponentially larger number of people threatened and intimidated by such violence????????? Also, Virginia Historian has already told you and I agree with him that adding this small addition does not mean the history section or the rest of the article will be flooded with episodic accounts of violence such as and I am quoting you again "the serial killer phenomenon" or what you describe as "the mass school shooting phenomenon" Please stop repeatedly rehashing these arguments over and over again after people have already explained why they disagree with what you believe. It often seems like you can rarely win an argument on the merits and instead you just try to exhaust people by endlessly throwing out a repetitive stream of red herring arguments.Lance Friedman (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Victor, let's stay focused on Civil War, Reconstruction and aftermath. It is true that lynching "sharply declined in the 1920s and effectively ended before the 1960s era civil rights movement." But it was significant in the period under discussion. No, I do not want to "just toss it out there like a bomb and leaving."

That's why I want to provide some sort of closure in the Civil War and Reconstruction section as a transition into Industrialism, before opening the section on industrialism, or maybe this is another reason for combining the two sections into "Civil War, Reconstruction and Industrialism". Lynching led to anti-lynching movement and progressive era national criminalization of lynching.

Politicians like Wilson and Coolidge picked out pieces and parts of reform movements to garner widespread support for their campaigns and programs, none were 'purists' or 'captive' of such a diverse movement subject to so many regional variations. (Some scholars note southern progressive suffragettes were against black women voting in their state reform successes.)

But, the excesses leading to widespread lynching led to a national reaction against it, and we should not mention one -- as important as it was once then, -- without mentioning the successful reaction against lynching which persists to this day. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with VictorD7 that there is no need to mention lynching in such detail. We could simply have an umbrella sentence about extralegal tactics used by white supremacists. We could even just merge that into the preceding sentence, producing something along the lines of " and throughout the United States African Americans faced systematic discrimination, including violent tactics such as lynching which targeted perceived violators of racial segregation." Rwenonah (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah, I am not sure what you mean when you say "such detail" you basicly just seemed to propose what I wrote. The only thing that you seemed to eliminate was the mention of racist beliefs. I am open to changes but I think just mentioning racial segregation without mention the racist beliefs underpinning that segregation makes the sentence rather weak and unnecessarily vague. We have already eliminated all mention of the [[klu klux klan} in the subsection without replacing it with links to the White League and Red Shirts (Southern United States) groups that were key to white supremacists coming to power in the south. The subsection is not overly detailed. It is actually seriously lacking in key details compared to the rest of the United States article.

Virginia Historian, I think it might be a little difficult to provide much positive closure in this particular subsection. That will probably have to wait for the civil rights era subsection. As you point out the reasons for the decline in lynching are complex. One of the major reasons for the decline is that racists simply shifted to more covert violent tactics such as bombings and shootings as groups like the NAACP increasingly began publicizing lynchings in ways that did not benefit white supremacists. I know we would all like to put a sunny/pleasant face on this subsection, but it just isn't possible if we are interested in accuracy.Lance Friedman (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Friedman, you got almost everything wrong again. Not only did I not "exaggerate" the proposed bloat, I gave the actual character counts involved, and even that was referring to TVH's shorter (and superior) version, not your absurd one that's been rejected by multiple editors. Our detail level here is controlled by pertinent comparison, which is with the rest of the History section, not the freaking food section (you should also refrain from any unilateral removals on that for now as it merits its own discussion), or the economy info box, or any other oranges you want to compare to the apples. This is a history section, not a history article.

Your "sunny face" accusation is trite BS. By your logic you're trying to put a "sunny face" on the Korean War by not mentioning the Battle of Heartbreak Ridge ((3,700 US casualties; 25,000 NK/Chinese casualties), or any other specific battles in history, some much bloodier. The Tuskegee Institute counts a total of 4743 lynching victims over an 87 year period. Those are victims of all races in all parts of the country for all reasons (which often included accusations of serious crimes). Tuskegee lumped people of Mexican and Chinese descent together with "whites", and there was lynching for various reasons from the west coast to the northeast from the late 18th Century through the early 20th. During the period Tuskegee covered there were typically 40-70 a year. Over the last decade alone (2003-2012) there have been at least 159,476 murders. Even during the late 19th Century, when the population was smaller, lynchings were a tiny percentage of murders.

I agree that racially motivated lynching's sociopolitical nature gives it elevated historical importance, but enough to warrant singling out for special mention in a summary of this brief scope? In Los Angeles alone over 5,750 people were killed by gang violence in the 2000s, a phenomenon with massive sociological ramifications for the larger inner city populations throughout the nation. Even 19th Century lynchings often included sociopolitical motives and impact other than the anti-black post Civil War violence being discussed here, and yet there's no proposal to include any of that in the article. You complain about a few thousand black lynching victims not being singled out for special mention, but millions of blacks were forced into segregated schools for an even longer period of time, and yes, that was a more historically important phenomenon than lynching because it covered so much of the population. Sure, it would be covered by the broad "discrimination" mention, but so would the far rarer phenomenon of lynching, especially if we added TVH's suggested "including some forms of terrorism" segment in the language he and I agreed to before you disappeared for a few days. Tort abuse (I cited tags as an illustrative example of its impact) is also more historically important than lynchings because it's had a dramatic economic impact and has altered the way virtually all Americans live their daily lives, including by threatening to kill entire industries. Perhaps you're trying to put a sunny face on trial lawyers. Regardless, simply claiming that we don't need to add this other stuff isn't an argument against adding it.

The Spanish American War is more important to a summary history of the US than lynching because it represented government action on behalf of the nation as a whole, changed the face of entire future nations like Cuba and the Philippines, and altered the USA's standing in the world. Al Qaeda terrorism is more important than lynching because of its larger geopolitical impact, because it's terrorizing the entire population, because terrorists are pursuing and will likely one day acquire NBC weapons, and because it's not just about body count anyway, but the destruction of key national infrastructure (the nation itself). Many of the other items I mentioned, like the rise of mass media and its impact on culture, are far more important than lynching, but not covered at all in this brief summary section.

Friedman, you have no idea how to construct an argument, much less judge one. Between us I'm the only one arguing on the merits, and no one has presented a rational counter so far. Your argument amounts to repeatedly saying "it's important". You see things as an ad hoc list of issues, and have no grasp of how to examine a topic (like history) with perspective. I understand that not everyone has the same level of acumen and knowledge, but you could have at least tried to explain why you think lynching is more important to the history of black discrimination than school segregation (for example), and more important to the US than the other things I've laid out. Is it more important to the black demographic than the stunning rise in out of wedlock births and single parent homes in recent decades, blacks' strong embrace of Christianity in the 19th Century, and their achievements in the 20th Century? It's telling that the African American page doesn't mention the word "lynch" in any variation once, though there are a few vague references to "violence". That's because there's a lot more to postbellum black American history than lynching. You would have the United States country article focus more on lynching than the African American article does. For other Wiki perspective I'll note that the Germany article only spends two sentences on the Holocaust, the deliberate extermination of 11 million civilians (many its own citizens) by the government, one of the most impactful events of the 20th Century. Country summary article history sections aren't the proper forum for adding cherry-picked details about random items you feel are important because you read a book about it recently or some such garbage.

You also failed to explain why you object to changing "African American" to "black" when I explained how the latter is less problematic from a slave to citizen perspective, and a space saver. You simply indicated opposition to "black" by proposing "people" instead. No, Friedman, the racial aspect is important so I would rather use "African American" than "people" there, if you're truly opposed to just using "black" for some bizarre reason.

Oh and Friedman, please look up the word "exponentially", or at least stop using it, because you clearly have no idea what it means. You would have benefited greatly from some math classes.

TheVirginiaHistorian, the point of my Coolidge/Wilson commentary was really just that "progressive" sometimes becomes an overly broad label, and that not every reform movement should be chiefly identified with that tag, even if many progressives supported it. My "bomb" comment was mostly rhetorical, since I'm assuming we won't be tracing lynching to its conclusion in the early to mid 20th Century, or probably revisiting it all in later periods given space concerns. I've been waiting for a rational argument in favor of discussing racial lynching in this summary section. It appears none will be forthcoming, but, all the above said, in the interest of moving this process forward I'll be willing to go along with your wording on the sentences in question, with the caveat that I'd like to change "and throughout the United States Africans-Americans faced systemic discrimination" back to "and in both the North and South Africans-Americans faced systemic discrimination" (or "blacks", if you agree that it's silly to say "African Americans" three times in one paragraph), given the Civil War era context. I don't want readers to maybe assume "throughout the US" really means the greater south and (largely still unsettled) west, with maybe parts of the lower Midwest, when some of the most checkered racial history in this country belongs to cities like New York and Boston. I reserve the right to revisit this issue at a later date, and I'll say that I'm less optimistic than I was about this project's chances for success if this pattern continues, where an editor who can barely read and write is repeatedly and energetically trying to pull each period into a New Left narrative. VictorD7 (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

edit break

Agree with TheVirginiaHistorian and VictorD7: Also, I'm seeing a lot of devisive language creep into this conversation and onto the page. Victor, thanks for cleaning that up. i.e."white supremacist" is 20th century hyper-speak activist language. We need to keep this sort of sophomoric prose out of the encyclopedia. It comes off highly presentist, academically naive and overlooks much. Back in the day virtually everyone harbored feelings of preference about their own race. This still continues to this day in most countries around the world. Even many blacks who resented mulattos, regarding them as those with 'tainted' blood, thought they were better -- or "superior" if you prefer. Indians by and large were also "racist" and highly territorial, or "xenophobic", if you prefer 20th century phraseology. re:Lynchings. Is this an appropriate topic for the Independence and expansion section? While these certainly did occur they were mostly isolated, so let's not try to give the impression that independence and expansion went hand in hand with lynchings. Besides, lynchings of blacks was mostly a post Civil War affair, so this really doesn't fit in with the topic of Independence and expansion. The country had long since been independent after the Civil War. Let's try to keep the discussion and any edits made to the page accurate, objective and neutral. -- Gwillhickers 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So, we are looking at the concluding statement in “Civil War and Reconstruction”, considering Lance and Victor, Rwenonah and Gwhillhickers points of view and my giving up any mention at this point, of the resolution ending lynching by black leadership in a national anti-lynching campaign which is embraced by the Progressives for a successful conclusion, --- the consensus is, ---,

"But following the Reconstruction Era, throughout the South Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans. Blacks and whites faced systemic discrimination and extralegal violence to enforce segregation both North and South, including some forms of terrorism singling out African Americans.[97]"

The issue has been how to treat violence by men trained to violence during the period of exceptional violence following a civil war. Violence needs to be addressed even in this summary, not to say cursory treatment. We have placed the worst of it, linked inside "terrorism" in a subordinate clause so as not to over emphasize it, and omitting the White Leagues and the Red Shirts, but lynching is still in there, as the consensus --general agreement-- warrants. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I said I could go along with your most recent proposal including the lynching and anti-lynching link:

...Lynching was one of several extralegal tactics used to enforce racial segregation.[6] but its terror gave rise to a national Anti-lynching movement.'

Have other editors specifically opposed that shortened version? It's not perfect, but better than most of the alternatives. While I also said earlier I could support the "terrorism" version (draft #4), that was a compromise too and still amounts to throwing out the aforementioned bomb (albeit a vaguer one) and leaving it there. Your newest version piles up new stuff: "extralegal violence" and "terrorism", which is arguably redundant in this context or at least worthy of consolidation.VictorD7 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you want a try at consolidation without losing the element of violence which others deem so crucial to fairly representing this Reconstruction and aftermath era? I am fine with either, or close to

A. ..."Lynching was one of several extralegal tactics used to enforce racial segregation.[6] but its terror gave rise to a national Anti-lynching movement.", or

B. ..."Blacks and whites faced systemic discrimination to enforce segregation both North and South, including some forms of terrorism singling out African Americans.".

I appreciate your effort to accommodate to a general agreement -- consensus-- on this difficult point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I could live either with of those for now, in the interest of advancing this process. I probably prefer A, since if we're going to mention the violence and/or link to a lynching article we should at least mention the response to said violence (whether explicitly saying "lynching" in the text or not). Links aside, B is superior as a summary historical statement at this detail level, since lynching per se isn't given undue weight. However, it suffers from the unresolved "tossed bomb" flaw. Also, if we go with that version "singling out African Americans" is probably superfluous. There's no reason the sentence couldn't end at "terrorism" (if not sooner). Which do you prefer? PS - a third alternative might be to use B and tack on a clause like "..terrorism, sparking national movements against the abuses." That way we'd also be setting the stage for the broader civil rights movement (which long predated the 1960s), at least in the text. VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So let's call this C, and it's the one I prefer: "Blacks and whites faced systemic discrimination to enforce segregation in both the North and South, including some forms of terrorism, sparking national movements against the abuses."

Thoughts?

I concur. I think that your C serves all angles the best. It's about the same word count, but thanks for including "sparking national movements", since Ida B. Wells and others were activists in the aftermath of Reconstruction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence needs something more at the beginning so that it fits in better with the previous sentence and ends the subsection, the word white also needs a qualifier, & I don't think we even need the words "to enforce" How about the following: "'Over the subsequent decades in both the north and south, blacks and some whites faced systemic discrimination including segregation and some forms of terrorism, sparking national movements against these abuses." I'll also add the yale article as a cite. Does anyone have a problem with those changes? Also, does anyone have any problem if I change the second from the last sentence to this: But following the Reconstruction Era, throughout the South Jim Crow laws soon deprived voting rights to virtually all African Americans and some poor whites. I think deprived voting rights is clearer and more easier to understand than the word disenfranchisement and I think it important to mention that some poor whites were also deprived of voting rights. Any problems with these minor changes?Lance Friedman (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Lance: Concur. I think it'll do. Though white voter numbers are cut in half at the Underwood Constitution in Virginia. Integrated Farmers Alliances fail throughout the South due to outside disruption enforcing segregation beyond the reach of the law. It's hard to convey that sort of nuance here concisely. I concur with your changes. Thank you for your efforts at general agreement - consensus - in this process. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It would have to be "deprived virtually all African Americans and some poor whites of voting rights.", not the grammatically incorrect version Lance proposed. Rwenonah (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Rwenonah. I like it, looks like we are all on board for a general agreement - consensus. All please stick around for the next section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with qualifying "white" in the terrorism sentence, but I prefer "effectively disenfranchised most blacks and some poor whites" to "deprived voting rights to virtually all African Americans and some poor whites" (or the grammatically correct version). "Disenfranchised" is more encyclopedic and should be clear to most readers (and quickly educational for kids who don't already know who click on the link). "Effectively" is important for accuracy because they weren't officially stripped of voting rights, but through a combination of typically population wide measures that disproportionately burdened the illiterate and poor, and readers might be misled otherwise. Plus this version saves space. What's the Yale article? Is there a link? VictorD7 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning poor whites seems in order. However, is "terrorism" the best word we can use? Terrorism suggests bombs, hijackings and beheadings. Esp after 911 that word has taken on more of a specific meaning along those lines. And linking this to Lynching suggests this was the common practice, where as I understand it, lynchings, though sensational and horrible, were relatively uncommon, compared to the average violence and plain ol' murder. Also, must we say extralegal violence? I think it's more than generally understood that violence is illegal. Here is how I would suggest the closing statement read:

Blacks and poor whites faced systemic discrimination and extralegal violence to enforce segregation
both North and South, often involving the murder of various African Americans.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have similar concerns, except that not all terrorism is lethal (certainly not in this case), and at least "extralegal" differentiates it from legally sanctioned government violence. VictorD7 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

While all terrorism is not necessarily lethal it's generally considered as such because most of it indeed has involved murder, or its attempt. Also, using the term 'extralegal' suggests there was legally sanctioned violence to distinguish from, so unless there was, officially, we shouldn't use it, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the "extralegal" segment has already been dropped. Maybe instead of "some forms of terrorism" we can say "occasional vigilante violence". That way the total segment would read:

But following the Reconstruction Era, throughout the South Jim Crow laws soon effectively disenfranchised most blacks and some poor whites. Over the subsequent decades, in both the north and south blacks and some whites faced systemic discrimination, including segregation and occasional vigilante violence, sparking national movements against these abuses.

How's that look? VictorD7 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I rendered that as the following, for a last, last, last last try:

"But following the Reconstruction Era, throughout the South Jim Crow laws soon effectively disenfranchised most blacks and some poor whites. Over the subsequent decades, in both the north and south blacks and some whites faced systemic discrimination, including segregation and occasional vigilante violence, sparking national movements against these abuses."

Maintaining the link at "disenfranchisement" for those unfamiliar with the word, and linking vigilante violence to lynching to maintain the consensus.

Gwhillickers, there was plenty of legal violence, most notably against strikes in the post reconstruction era, by police, militias, and army. Pinkerton armed forces were hired to protect property, so their excessive force was still classified as legal by the right. Extralegal violence of the lynching kind was done without the cover of official sanction found in a posse or militia call up, though they too could, did perpetrate racial atrocities. It may be that the current language has been stripped of another useful word, "terrorism", but the literature in American historiography has not yet abandoned it to mean exclusively modern applications. But I will yield on another point, we all have.

My interest remains, collaboratively writing a couple of history sections in a country article. I would be surprised if there were another round of each participant tweeking the sentence in turn, --- but then, I am easily surprised. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If one little subsection (which in reality the vast majority of visitors will not bother to read) and sentence can cause such needless arguing and nitpicking, now I just feel as though we can only maintain a decent level of quality, as users who obsess over precise semantics and unsubstantial fine detail which most visitors won't even notice will make the goal of reaching GA a long arduous process that will seem less worthwhile. I don't know how anyone who doesn't have OCD would engage in days of debate over the inclusion of one little sentence on lynching/race crimes that ultimately has no impact. It does not bode well in terms of the successful major streamlining that the rest of this long article really needs. How can we efficiently continue this process without obsessively dragging out small unsubstantial issues? In the coming days I will be making whatever streamlining edits I can in the rest of the article that seem unlikely to be disputed. Cadiomals (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There should be no problem with keeping the anti-lynching link in there too. I just left the links out last time because I was in a hurry and focused on the text. Go ahead and make the edit and then let's see where we are in terms of anyone complaining. VictorD7 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, using the term 'extralegal' seems appropriate, given the activities of Police, militia, Pinkerton, et al. I was thinking in terms of civilian/mob violence only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Now on to the Industrialization section. We should also be thinking about how and when we're going to go back and put the agreed on presidential mentions in. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Start the request at 0915(UTC) Mac and hurricanes (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Start time: 0915(UTC). Mac and hurricanes (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I'm afraid that I can't understand your request; please be more specific about what needs to be changed. LittleMountain5 04:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Request in Military

The very last sentence in the Military section reads "Approximately 90,000 U.S. troops were serving in Afghanistan in April 2012;[298] by November 8, 2013 2,285 had been killed during the War in Afghanistan." I may be confused but I believe 8, 2013 2,285 is a typo or mistake of some sort. I'm not sure exactly what went wrong so don't know how to change it. Thanks. --Jacksoncw (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I just realised I was actually confused. It's early in the morning and I read the sentence totally wrong. My appologies; this section can be closed. However I believe the date and the number of people killed might be switched around so it isn't confused by anyone else. --Jacksoncw (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

One small change needs to to be made to the Cold War and Civil Rights era subsection

The groups opposing the civil rights movement were not white nationalist groups they were white supremacist groups. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and make this change.Lance Friedman (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There's quite a few more changes needed than just that, but I'm sure we'll get to it eventually. Though I personally don't see much difference between the two. White supremacists believed in the supremacy of the white race while desiring either a fully white nation or a segregated nation fully ruled by whites. I prefer using "white supremacist" too since it's the more common term but it's the least of the issues so we won't get hung up on it. Cadiomals (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There were white nationalist groups that aligned with black separatist groups, on account of their mutual desire for segregation. This does not, however, mean that white nationalist groups were in any way supportive of the civil rights movement. Therefore, I don't believe the change should be made unless sources can be provided. --Jleon (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Jeon, can you provide some sources for what you are saying about the white supremacists during the time period that we are talking about? You may be confused about the time period that we are talking about which is the 1950's and 1960's. The KKK, white citizens councils, and elected officials who supported white supremacy during this time period had little, probably no contact with any sort of black separatist groups. Cadiomals, while white supremacists and white nationalists have similarities, they also have significant differences. The white supremacists of this time period particularly those among the elite very much did NOT want a fully white nation or even real separation. They very much wanted to have lots of African Americans to provide cheap menial labor. White supremacists often even thought very fondly of the Africans Americans who were cleaning their floors or cooking their dinner, as long as they remained in that kind of servile role. I am going to go ahead and switch terms tomorrow I agree with you that there a quite a few additional changes that need to be made to the article. I am going to go ahead delete references to "black nationalists such as the Black Panther Party" These groups were not simply fringe groups in the United States, they were tiny fringe groups even inside the African-American community. They also did not gain any kind of significant electoral power anywhere. The black party wasn't even founded until 1966. Cadiomas, I will delete them tomorrow if you agree with me. It is also inaccurate to describe Malcolm X as a black nationalist. He denounced black separatists. I have more mixed feelings about having him in the article. I think W. E. B. Dubois probably had much greater historical impact than Malcolm X. This is an unrelated topic. but I would also like to delete the trivial unsourced second paragraph in the food section. If you agree with me on that, I will also delete that paragraph.Lance Friedman (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't care much about your initial proposed change and was leaning toward letting it go, but now that you're expanding it I'll say that I oppose all these changes. We're going to be rewriting the section before long anyway. Better to wait until then. I'm not sure we need to mention any of these groups on any side in the 1960s, and maybe none or almost none of the individuals, but we can discuss that later. VictorD7 (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Lets stay on topic, the changes that I am proposing need to be made for reasons of accuracy. Is anyone here trying to argue that white supremacist is not the most accurate word to describe the people supporting Jim Crowe, the KKK, white citizens councils and similar things? unsigned Lance Friedman

White supremacists did indeed support "Jim Crow, the KKK, white citizens councils and similar things", but segregation in some areas had broader support --- versus --- the vigilante activity of the KKK, white citizens councils, which were more certainly white supremacist. --- But "supremacist" is better than "nationalist" for the Reconstruction-aftermath period, its just not inclusive enough for the segregation-Jim Crow aspect --- were we to return to this section to rehash it. --- if we are not deleting the term altogether. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I was thinking something simple, broad, and to the point like "segregationist" would be be better in that context, if we end up having such a description at all. VictorD7 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Victor, what do you think was the ideology motivating Segregationists? Are you saying they were not white supremacists? Segregationist was of course the prefered euphemism that the more respectable racists liked to use to describe themselves on camera in public. It conjures up the myth that they were only supporting a simple little system of separate but equal opportunities for everyone. We have already gone over this issue in the reconstruction era subsection. Saying the civil rights workers like MLK were simply fighting against segregation is a gross understatement of the racial discrimination and violence occurring at this time. If anything we should mention one of the infamous crimes of the time that motivated activists and presidents to do more for African American equality. For example, the Christmas day bombing that killed Harry T. Moore and his wife. Or the gouging out of the eyes of Isaac Woodard by a southern sheriff, that crime inspired Harry Truman to act on widespread discrimination in the U.S. military. We already watered down the reconstruction era by deleting all mention of the KKK or any of the other violent white supremacist group that were key in returning white supremacists to power. We are also incorrectly calling the state sanctioned terrorism that occurred in the south "vigilantism." (As if the perps of these crimes were not routinely being committed by and/or shielded by white supremacist state officials from sheriffs to judges to governors?) Victor, do you think that is all made up nonsense? Virginia Historian, I have no problem with broadening the description of the people who were supporting discrimination. For example, if you want we can call them racists and white supremacistsLance Friedman (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It'd be more efficient and less problematic to avoid speculating on such motives and simply describe positions in NPOV language. Believe it or not, many people actually believed the "equal" part of separate but equal, especially if they didn't interact much with blacks, while others just wanted separation but didn't care about equality or supremacy per se. That's irrelevant to this article though. As for "vigilantism", the murders in question (which weren't just in the south), were illegal (even in the south), and were typically carried out by private individuals regardless of whether law enforcement tried very hard to punish the perpetrators. But let's not start that back up again right after we've finished extensive debate on the segment. Time to move on. As for your latest proposal, the thrust of this project will be removing undue detail, not adding mentions of specific crime victims in a section that doesn't mention Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Frederick Douglass, Thomas Edison, Babe Ruth, George Washington Carver, Henry Ford, etc.. It's about context and perspective. VictorD7 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

VIctor, you are being a little hypocritical. You and other editors have already said that you are planning to add various people to the subsection. Also, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison are already in the science & tech section. We don't need to repetitively mention them again in the history section. Regarding you rather inane assertion that it is just "speculation" as to what motivated people who supported discriminatory policies, most of the leading Southern Governors and Senators of the time quite openly praised white supremacy and routinely made racist statements on record. If you like I can provide multiple quotes. They were also very often members of the white citizens councils which we have already acknowledged were white supremacist groups. It is simply dishonest and silly for anyone to argue that racism and white supremacy were not the main motivators behind the panoply of discriminatory policies and violence of the time period. A short sentence about Isaac Woodard would be a good addition to this civil rights era subsection for the reasons I stated above. Lance Friedman (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Friedman, your drivel missed the point. Motivation isn't our concern for this topic at this detail level. Unless your "multiple" anecdotal examples can magically prove what all segregation supporters thought and felt (and really even if they could), it's best to go with a broader, more straightforward, more accurate, less POV description. If we mention them at all. The "various people" we agreed to add to the History section are four salient presidents, particularly George Washington. You're trying to get people mentioned who are only notable for being murder victims. You're not exhibiting a reasonable perspective. I'm also starting to wonder if your goal is simply to derail this process, since you've already admitted you oppose the consensus for streamlining the later History subsections. Regardless, finishing the Industrialization section is next on the agenda. Let's not skip ahead. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The leading elected officials supporting these discriminatory practices as a matter of routine described themselves as white supremacists, belonged to white supremacist groups, and repeatedly said grossly racist things on the record. Also, a myriad of critically acclaimed mainstream sources describe them as racist and white supremacists. I am still wondering why you never state what you think was motivating the supporters of this pervasive and violent discrimination? Just because you don't know or don't want to say is not a good reason to make this subsection more vague and less accurate. Regarding Isaac Woodard, I am guessing that you did not even bother to read the wiki article that you so vehemently want to forbid from mentioning. He was not murdered, he was an African American veteran who had his eyes gouged out by southern sheriffs who were never punished in anyway. Also, I am not simply wanting to add it because it was a terrible crime. Multiple sources say that this horrific crime inspired President Truman and many other people to do more to fight the panoply of discriminatory practices that were victimizing African Africans Lance Friedman (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Woodard story. Earlier you mentioned Harry Moore and his wife, who were murdered. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the others I listed were important for a lot of reasons too, and are far more notable than Woodard and Moore. If the section doesn't have room for the former, it certainly doesn't have room for the latter. Heck, it likely won't be mentioning Truman either after the streamlining, so one if his inspirations would certainly be undue. Unduly emphasizing certain details while omitting other, more important ones is what would be inaccurate, as it would present a distorted view of history. We're also not mentioning Nat Turner, Marcus Garvey, Winfield Scott, George S. Patton, Robert E. Lee or any number of important historical figures who would take precedence over your crime victims. You still don't realize that this is supposed to be a quick summary. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with Viktor here. That's an extremely broad term and doesn't cover everybody. But that's implying that everybody needs to be covered which, as was said earlier, does not need to happen during the streamlining process. You're getting a little worked up over this seemingly minor matter. You make a lot of claims but I'm not sure all of them are true and you're definitely trying to give this subject undue weight. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Victor and Jacksonw. Seems there is a singular effort here to insert exceptional and isolated stories into the narrative so as to emotionally 'woo' the reader into assuming that this sort of thing was common place. And of course, the more angry or outraged you make the readers the less you actually have to explain yourself. Same old hat. i.e.Keep the masses angry and divided against themselves. Should we mention all the white people who defended and represented blacks in their struggle for equality -- or would that throw a wet blanket on the fire that's trying to be started here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Simple, crude propaganda

The economy is fueled by an abundance of natural resources...

This is wrong, not to mention that such extremely simple God-bless-America pap is extremely embarrassing. So, too, is other similar language that appears throughout the article.

Regarding "American abundance" I present from a chapter from the Oxford History of the British Empire (1998):

[F]requently invoked in propaganda literature [about the American colonies] was the emphasis given to abundance. […] 'a place beautiful by God, with all the ornaments of nature, and enriched with his earthly treasures...' Meadows and woodlands abounded with game, rivers teemed with fish, and the skies darkened under huge flocks of birds. Abundance and plenty, a cornucopia of earthly delights […] as in the first creation.

Really rather embarrassing, it sounds like it's pitched to a potential investor.

And simply plain wrong: the US economy does not have an abundance of natural resources in any broad sense; rather, the country has been massively deficient in many, and many vitally important ones, for many decades. For example, one can consult G. Kolko, Confronting the Third World (1988) to learn that US minerals imports "doubled from 1950–54 to 1965–69, and increased by half again over the next five years." Goes on to note a similar story for iron and ferroalloys ("imports grew from 32 percent in 1950–54 to 44 percent in 1975–79"), and all other metal ores ("by 1970–75 were 40 percent of consumption"). In terms of reserves, postwar growth was outside the United States ("principally in the Third World").

A review by Congress's Office of Technology Assessment in the mid-1980s found that, of 86 materials reviewed, the US was self-sufficient in barely a quarter of them, with another 50 coming from "diverse or stable" sources. "Fourteen absolutely vital materials, without which the United States literally could not function militarily and would be seriously hobbled economically, came primarily from central and southern Africa as well as the U.S.S.R."

Kolko goes on to reiterate that, for advanced economies, some resources are crucial in ways belied by the amounts of them that are used.

This article used to be OK, but what happened to it? 86.176.255.225 (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Importing some items doesn't change the clear fact that the US has an abundance of natural resources, often including the imported items. For example, the US is a net importer of oil and one of the world's largest oil producers. The extra use is a function of the powerful economy, which is fueled (in this case literally) by the domestic production. VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

under the "Industrialization" section, I believe that there needs to be a mention of railroad infrastructure and growth in the period starting from 1850 and ending in roughly 1918. Here is a map showing railroads in 1850 and 1860. Here is a map detailing their expansion by 1918. I understand that railroads have a rich documentation and discussion on Wikipedia already, but I believe them important enough to be included on the main page about U.S. history, rather than the current cursory mention of "transportation" 129.133.127.183 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

The flag field is wrong.

65.32.200.86 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It seems fine to me. Hot Stop 04:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The field is in the correct position. Kap 7 (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian wars

Last time i checked, indians are from India. Wars in this country have been with the native Americans. Just because "someone" was looking for India when they "discovered" america, doesnt mean we have to continue to call them what they are NOT, Indians.

---

3 march 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.33 (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources still call them the American Indian Wars. Your personal distaste over the name itself doesn't appear to affect reliable scholarship on the matter. --Jayron32 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Natives of the continent in question have no more direct relationship to Amerigo Vespucci than they do to the Indian subcontinent. The hundreds of native communities who were consulted in the development of a national museum dedicated to their cultures elected to call the museum the National Museum of the American Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.227.102 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 March 2014‎

washington d.c.

There is no such thing. Its D.C. for district of columbia. Hence the license plate DC and not WDC. Also no official mentioning from the government. People might call it that way, but its not correct. 3 march 2014----- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.33 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia favors using the most common name for a subject, not it's "official" name. Which is why he's called Bill Clinton and not "William Jefferson Clinton". Likewise, since all reliable sources refer to the city as "Washington, D.C.", we'll continue to do so at Wikipedia. That some sources note the correct (but trivial) fact of the official name of the city is irrelevant to practices here. --Jayron32 05:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

After the incorporated town of Arlington, DC was returned to Virginia, Anacostia, DC, Georgetown, DC and Washington, DC were later consolidated into Washington, DC. And that is what street addresses read throughout the District, including correspondence to the government of the District of Columbia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

New Netherlands? New Amsterdam?

Why aren't the Dutch even remotely mentioned in this article? Why mention the English and the French but not the Dutch? It's a little disrespectful even... One of the smallest nations in the world which controlled the biggest naval force in the world? And let's not forget that even Britain was once under Dutch government. I mean no offence or disrespect toward the other nations who played a part in US history, but the biggest part was played by the Brits and Dutch.

Quote: "In 1602, the government of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands chartered the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie), or VOC with the mission of exploring it for a passage to the Indies and claiming any uncharted areas for the United Provinces, which led to several significant expeditions which led to the creation of the province of New Netherland."

ref: [[2]] 217.121.86.187 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to understand that this is a summary article meant to be an overview of major points including those on history. The Dutch are mentioned in History of the United States where there is a lot more detail, but ultimately their presence was only in the New York area and had too little impact on overall American history to be salient enough to mention here, especially since we are trying to keep that section quite brief. Once the British took control they were obviously the ones who caused the rest of American history to unfold the way it did. At most one sentence can be added in Settlements to mention that Dutch territory in the Northeast was taken by the British but only if someone else wants to add it. Cadiomals (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Dutch basically made the loans which made the American Revolution possible. And we got two Roosevelt presidents out of the deal. Maybe a sentence would be fair, all things considering. You shouldn't have to go to war to make it into the history section. The Dutch territory of New Amsterdam was absorbed by the British into their New York colony in 1665. or The British absorbed the Dutch territory of New Amsterdam into their New York colony in 1665.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If the Dutch are to be mentioned (which I'm neutral on), I prefer the following wording: The English gained the colony of New York with the capture of New Netherland from the Dutch in 1664. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Condensed version of World War I, Great Depression, and World War II

I don't think this takes away much at all, it is basically a more condensed version of the same section, taking away just a few details that are not immediately relevant or salient and merging some sentences to be more concise.

The United States remain neutral at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, though by 1917, it joined the Allies, helping to turn the tide against the Central Powers. President Woodrow Wilson took a leading diplomatic role at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and advocated strongly for the U.S. to join the League of Nations. However, the Senate refused to approve this, and did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles that established the League of Nations.[106]

In 1920, the women's rights movement won passage of a constitutional amendment granting women's suffrage.[107] The 1920s and 1930s saw the rise of radio for mass communication and the invention of early television.[108] The prosperity of the Roaring Twenties ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression. After his election as president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with the New Deal which included the establishment of the Social Security system.[109] The Dust Bowl of the mid-1930s impoverished many farming communities and spurred a new wave of western migration.

The United States was at first effectively neutral during World War II's early stages but began supplying material to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program. On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to join the Allies against the Axis powers.[110] Though the nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers,[112] it emerged from the war with even greater economic and military influence.[113] Allied conferences at Bretton Woods and Yalta outlined a new system of international organizations that placed the United States and Soviet Union at the center of world affairs. As an Allied victory was won in Europe, a 1945 international conference held in San Francisco produced the United Nations Charter, which became active after the war.[114] The United States developed the first nuclear weapons and used them on Japan; the Japanese surrendered on September 2, 1945, ending World War II.[115] -- Cadiomals (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we change "ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that triggered the Great Depression" to "ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression"? The causes of the Depression are too complex to be boiled down to a stock market crash, though this adjustment would remain neutral about the cause. Also, we should lose the part about the war supposedly enriching the US. That's fiercely debated, especially given the era's widespread rationing of basic consumer goods. What's universally accepted is that the US emerged with even greater relative economic strength. How about saying instead that "Though the nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers,[112] its homeland escaped significant damage and it emerged from the war with even greater relative economic and military power."? As for the rest, the detail level may be too high compared to what's happening in the rest of the History section (nuclear weapons yes, but do we need to list the specific bombed cities?), but those are the two main points I wanted to make now. VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'll note here that there was an agreement between at least TVH and I that no one explicitly disagreed with to later go back and add a few population updates at periodic intervals, maybe four or five in all, to provide a sense of scale in growth. There was also an agreement to end up with four named presidential mentions, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. Keeping Wilson would make that five, which I can live with, but we should be conscious about what we're doing. VictorD7 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I made tweaks with respect to some of your above concerns. I don't know how to remove mention of president Wilson without sacrificing a good chunk of detail, so maybe we can up it to 5. As for mentions of population growth, I'm not sure where to fit that in right now, but it isn't highest priority and I think we can consider where to fit them in once all sections have been streamlined. Cadiomals (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. Yeah, we're going to have to go back and reinsert the early presidents anyway at the end, so I figure we'll deal with the population mentions then. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Name of federal district

The correct name of the federal district is the "District of Columbia," not "Washington, D.C." Washington is a coterminous city within the District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.227.102 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 March 2014‎

You see, you must have sources to change the way things are written here, or resources to change the way things are done. You will get the same answer as to the previous unsigned "washington, d.c." section above, Wikipedia prefers common usage, in this case, Washington, DC. is what street addresses read throughout the District, including correspondence to the government of the District of Columbia and the United States Government.

First, change all their letterhead addresses, then update Wikipedia to the new order you have imposed --- or ---, when all the electronic and hard copy forms for 'city and state' are rewritten to allow for "DC" in the state blank to omit a city in the required field, whichever comes first. You have a kind of geopolitical logic on your side, but we will await events. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

Somehow, the Transatlantic Slave Trade is not mentioned in the history of the United States of America - over 500,000 Africans were brought to the U.S. by forced migration, and descendants of these enslaved Africans brought to the United States by force make up the largest minority. Africans and descendants of Africans were responsible for the economy dating all the way back to the 1600's (bringing agricultural methods to the south that were unknown previously), hence the perpetuation of slavery for over 200 years. They played a large part in the American Revolution, and the Civil War -just to name a few - and it's sad that this group, who is INTEGRAL to the history of this country, is completely missing from the entire description. 173.3.160.212 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Already done Although the federal government criminalized the international slave trade in 1808, after 1820 cultivation of the highly profitable cotton crop exploded in the Deep South, and along with it the slave population.[79][80][81] this is already here. The history sections on this article is definitely going to be somewhat limited as the article's scope is much broader, there are separate articles regarding History of the United States and Slavery in the United States where that sort of detail would be much more thoroughly discussed. Cannolis (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This person obviously barely read into the article. Slavery is already mentioned in the lead and by doing a simple Ctrl + F I found there are 16 mentions of slavery and slaves in the History section. Cadiomals (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A side issue brought up by the requested edit, I thought the largest ethnic minority was German, followed by Irish, Latino then African-American and Asian (east and south), African and Middle-eastern. Do we have current statistics, how is the world now conventionally divided for the purpose? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

edit. Industrialization

Edit 'Industrialization' section. proposal:

In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe supplied a surplus of labor for the country's industrialization and transformed its culture.[102] Immigration policies were Eurocentric by restricting Asians from immigration and naturalization beginning in 1882.[103] National infrastructure including telegraph and transcontinental railroads spurred economic growth, greater settlement and development of the American Old West. The end of the Indian Wars further expanded acreage under mechanical cultivation increasing surpluses for international markets. Mainland expansion was completed by the Alaska Purchase from Russia in 1867. In 1898 the U.S. entered the world stage with important sugar production and strategic facilities acquired in Hawaii, then Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines were ceded by Spain in the same year following the Spanish American War.

The emergence of many prominent industrialists at the end of the 19th century gave rise to the Gilded Age when the U.S. economy became the world's largest. It was a period of extravagant affluence, worker injury and concentrations of monopolistic power that led to the rise of Populism, Socialism, and Anarchism in the U.S.[105] This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, a period of significant reforms in many societal areas, including alcohol prohibition, women's suffrage, regulatory protection for the public, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition and attention to living conditions for the working classes.

end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to leave in the sentence on immigration being Eurocentric and barring Chinese. This is fairly notable as the US has always struggled with how and to what extent it should accommodate its many immigrants. Cadiomals (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Worthwhile it is. Eurocentric policy against Asian immigration and naturalization is replaced with its source. I hope no one believes the 1882 statute is still in force; the WP U.S. lede should not make it seem so. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

--- Aside. Still, no source obtains for WP U.S. lede policy, blanking those who have chosen to be naturalized as U.S. citizens in Pacific island territories of Northern Marianas, Guam and American Samoa. I will await another editor's initiative before resuming the discussion. But the question remains, What could be the unsourced POV behind it, why do islander referendum, legislatures and constitutional conventions not count at WP --- so that they are excluded in the lede in this 21st century article though sourced by U.S. Code in force ---, not even in a footnote? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This subsection just like the civil war subsection is already very small. I do not think removing hard facts such as "In 1914 alone, 35,000 workers died in industrial accidents and 700,000 were injured" improves the section. Also, deleting the last armed conflict of the Indian Wars is not an improvement and why have you made this strange language change regarding Hawai? Why has Hawai gone from being "overthrown in a coup" to being vaguely "acquired"??? This kind of language change somehow makes the subsection more concise?Lance Friedman (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why include that strangely specific sentence on immigration policy when the section doesn't discuss it otherwise? Are we going to add exposition on immigration policy shifts at various other points in history? VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose combining 'Civil War and Reconstruction' with 'Industrialization' under a new heading, Civil War and industrialization. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm against merging the sections. They are two distinct subjects that are pivotal in understanding American history and only marginally related. They should not be scrubbed of hard facts and unpleasantness and then mashed together.Lance Friedman (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Lance Friedman. What are the reasons for these changes? TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It started with the Native American, Settlement, and Expansion sections being too detailed relative to the rest of the History section and also written in such a style that it read like a middle school textbook. The rest of the History sections were/are not as dire, but I raised my issue with how the Cold War section was structured and TVH went ahead and did condensed versions of the other sections. As these are not unilateral changes controlled by Virginia alone, you guys are free to add your input about what info you think should be kept in or how you think things should be worded. Also, I think it's fine to keep Civil War and Industrialization as separate sections even if they are shortened, as they are quite distinct aspects of US history (though they overlapped). Overall, our ultimate purpose is in reclaiming and doing a major clean-up of this article by going through all the sections one by one and making sure everything is well-balanced, so it becomes worthy of at least Good status again. Cadiomals (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Two sections it shall remain, although 'settlement and expansion' could be broken into two were we addressing a history article, but we are not, so I thought it economical to combine sections as we can for this survey summary, inasmuch as Civil War, Reconstruction and Industrialization overlap chronologically.

"Worker injury" is more concise than "In 1914 alone, 35,000 workers died in industrial accidents and 700,000 were injured". Who says 1914 is representative of the period 1860-1920? Is Worker's Compensation to be addressed here or in the economic safety net? Too much detail for here.

This section is not to compete with History of the United States in hard facts of detail. In any case, it should not be revealing facts not salient enough to cover there. Likewise at the first Hawaiian coup, Queen "Lilli" Liliuokalani successfully petitioned the Democratic President Cleveland to restore her throne, at the second coup she unsuccessfully petitioned the Republican McKinley. The palace guard was British-trained and surely a match for the off-loaded Marines in the event, had it come down to fighting. --- But "Hawaii was acquired" is more concise for this summary survey.

I agree with Cadiomals, the first few sections were marred by triumphalism, the last few sections by presentism. I want to shorten the too-long article, and for a modern country article it seems to me the first place to start is with the lengthy "history" section which is treated in much more elaboration and detail in History of the United States. This subsection is not to replicate that feature article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The purpose is streamlining what consensus determined was an overly long section in an overly long article, addressing quality concerns, and coherence. I'd ask Friedman not to make erroneous assumptions about TVH's motives, though the former should examine his own since a desire to add "unpleasantness" isn't any more legitimate than a desire to "scrub" it (and one man's "unpleasantness" isn't necessarily another's, as issues like abortion, tort law, affluence, single parenthood, business regulation, and certain wars illustrate, so that's an unhelpful characterization anyway). Here TVH mostly just consolidated a few sentences. And being a "hard fact" doesn't automatically merit inclusion in a brief summary section. There are countless "hard facts" we could add. VictorD7 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The last paragraph needs rewriting for neutrality. "Gilded Age" is propagandistic language and its presence here is frivolous, though I'm fine with linking to that page since it includes lots of useful facts. The entire last paragraph is sourced only by Howard Zinn's book. As the GA page observes, wages and living standards increased dramatically during that period, which isn't mentioned here. Our focus should be on the dramatic economic development, which saw the US become the world's largest economy (another salient fact worth mentioning), benefiting consumers and workers as well as "industrialists", rather than just regurgitating political protest signs. We should mention that there was a rise in industrialists and in movements like socialism, progressivism, etc., but not use Wikipedia's voice to state that one caused the other. Revolutions and reform movements have often started among relatively well off classes and people (see the French Revolution, or the recent student heavy US Occupy Wall Street crowd), and it's easy to argue that late 19th Century workers were better off than previous generations had been. I support removing the "fact" about worker injuries since there was no historical context (earlier or later era numbers to compare it to), but if we're to retain mention of "worker injury" here at all (which certainly existed in the grueling farm work of the previous several millennia), it should be in the context of saying that reform movements arose to address x, y, and z (injury, monopoly, etc.), rather than accepting the premise that x, y, and z caused the reform movements to arise. That may seem like a subtle nuance but it's an important one for the sake of neutrality. Frankly the final sentence already seems to handle all that adequately, so the earlier segment may be unnecessary. Here's a potential alternative:

Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century produced many prominent industrialists and the U.S. economy became the world's largest. The period also saw the rise of the rise of Populist, Socialist, and Anarchist movements. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, which saw significant reforms in many societal areas, including women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, regulation of consumer goods, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition, and attention to worker conditions. VictorD7 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I added the temperance mention which was a huge deal at the time and ultimately resulted in the 18th Amendment. VictorD7 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how mentioning the "Gilded Age" is "propagandistic" at all, as it is a very commonly used word in academia that encapsulates the affluence that was built on top of terrible working conditions and widespread corruption, alongside the overall increase in wages and eventual increase in living standards. We should not just say that certain movements arose (such as socialist and progressive movements) without clarifying the events and conditions that spurred them. It is universally accepted that the Progressive Era was spurred by the widespread corruption and exploitation that existed at the time. Shying away from mentioning the dark sides of industrialization is not helpful to the reader at all. Cadiomals (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The rest of your post underscores the propaganda I mentioned. Most of what you said is BS (speaking of grade school text books...). Regardless, that type of opinionated description is POV language. Neutrality, remember? It's also unnecessary. If we're no longer quoting the Declaration of Independence, we certainly don't need to include a colorful literary quote used for political effect. BTW, do you have an answer for my question above about the cherry-picked immigration policy sentence? VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you get off calling well-documented facts BS/propaganda when there is extensive primary evidence documenting the tough conditions for many laborers and immigrants at the time alongside the overall increase in wages. It would take no more than one or two sentences to mention the circumstances driving change in those times to clarify for the readers, and I would agree with adding mention of rapid economic development and population growth and adding "reform movements arose to address x, y, and z" rather just saying "reform movements arose". If you're just going to "call BS" on salient and well-documented facts because you don't like seeing capitalism portrayed as anything other than good, I will just wait on input and consensus from others. As for the immigration sentence, I'm not married to it. Cadiomals (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I called BS on your characterization--"terrible"; "affluence..built on..widespread corruption"; etc.--not on the actual fact you repeated about wages simultaneously going up in what was America's greatest period of economic development. The first was mostly myth perpetrated by leftist historians for much of the 20th Century because they had an ideological interest in promoting the perception of need for expansive government economic interventionism. Sure there was corruption, but that was true before and since. Jackson started the spoils system, and the opportunity for corruption and abuse has grown with government's size. Heck, Obama's IRS was caught red handed suppressing conservative groups, the administration opted to investigate itself (the old special prosecutor law was allowed to expire), and it recently came out that the woman in charge of the investigation (whose identity had been a secret) has made numerous separate campaign donations to him, so no one's shocked by a lack of indictments or interviews of victims despite a key figure already having pled the Fifth. Corruption never went away. Worker conditions back then may seem "terrible" by the standards of our time, but that would be true of earlier times too, and whether the improvements since owe more to government regulation or free market response is highly debatable. Regardless, "terrible" is an opinion. Even if every academic agrees with the sentiment it's still inappropriate POV for our purposes.

Just because a protest movement arises at a particular time doesn't necessarily mean we should make assumptions about its causality. A rise in wages might "spur" the creation of a movement, if it's accompanied by higher expectations and more leisure time for certain people than previously existed (more free time for agitation). That doesn't mean things are really worse than they had been before. The French Revolution largely started among the elite classes and France had one of the most well off populations in Europe anyway. The "99%ers" camped out in New York a couple of years ago were themselves among the world's top 1%. My point is that true causality can be debated, and we shouldn't necessarily equate it with whatever the group's stated purpose is (no matter how sincere). However, as I said, I'm fine with stating said purposes, as long as we phrase it that way (e.g. "campaigned for higher wages" and/or "wanted improved worker safety") rather than as cause or by embracing their political arguments at face value in Wikipedia's voice.

And shelve your bias accusations. I sometimes state my political views on the Talk Page to illustrate points but I'm the one editing for neutrality here. You're the one defending the insertion of pure political opinion. Is that because you're determined to make capitalism look bad? We've been removing details, but the text should still be factual rather than opinionated. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

One fact we should consider adding is total population, possibly around the turn of the 20th Century (give or take a couple of decades), as a rough guide for scale since the section doesn't mention population after the "2.1 million" on the Revolution's eve. VictorD7 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The point of editing for conciseness, saving some few hundreds of characters each section, is meant to be neutral without altering the substance of the pre-existing text, hence almost all citations remain in place.

I like the addition of Prohibition because a) women’s movements noticed men beat their wives under the influence, so it should stop, and b) worker’s movements noticed drinking a quart of beer (that's how it was bottled) at noon on the farm as a habit --- cost the loss of a hand in machinery in the factory, and c) Evangelicals thought the stuff should be shelved til the Second Coming or be damned.

“Gilded Age” coined by Mark Twain, is a pretty standard reference, found in American historiography in chapter headings and book titles. Again, links to key concepts such as "Gilded Age" incorporate hard facts that do not lend themselves to a summary account.

Total populations might be limited to four mentions akin to our rationing to a limit of four presidents. At the first census 1790, the Civil War 1860, the end of the Third (?) Wave of immigration 1930(?), and at the millennium 2000? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember my textbooks as a little kid having a chapter called "The Guilded Age". I'm hoping more recent books have matured beyond that, but either way it's POV, and delivered with sensationalistic literary flair at that. One thing cadiomals got right above is that the phrase essentially means things were "terrible" for most people. That the facts seem counter to that is beside the point. Virtually everyone of all political stripes, including most history writers, would agree with the statement "Hitler perpetrated great evil", but that doesn't mean the sentence is appropriate for his bio in Wiki's voice (though a similar sentence near the end uses quotes and is attributed). Should we toss in a "robber barons" reference too? Because my textbooks also had that claptrap, and some academics still use the once popular but equally stupid phrase. That said, again, I am fine with retaining a link to the page for the reasons you state, but we frequently alter link titles in the text here for contextual appropriateness and I'm still waiting for someone to make an affirmative argument for keeping the literary POV "guilded age". If we can alter the wording of the Declaration of Independence, why stay wedded to Twain's direct quote? VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And I support your four points proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I would agree to your revision to "economic development" -- can we get a third editor to sign on? My original intent was to simply edit for conciseness, with minor tweeks for completeness or balance. "Gilded Age" seems to have its aficionados, I left it in.

I note that you used the link to "Guilded Age" in the phrase "Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century", so at some level you have already offered a collegial compromise, a link to the 'hard facts', but using language in the narrative which is actually more descriptive for the general reader -- for those who were not raised on the "Gilded Age"-chapter-heading textbooks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Virginahistorian, I think you should have posted a second draft of your disputed civil war/reconstruction era changes before instituting your major alteration of that important section Please do not make major revisions to the industrialization section without first posting a second draft of your disputed proposals on this talk page. Unless you are for example correcting inaccuracies, there is no rush to make these changes and unlike the previous history subsections these sections are not overly long. I'd also like to add that lack of current coverage or mention in the mediocre History of the United States article is not good reasoning for not mentioning something in this article. Both articles need improvement. Both articles need a mix of broad themes and important facts. The history section of this article should not become a smaller/vaguer duplicate of that mediocre article. One final word about recentism, throughout its history the U.S. has grown in physical size and has grown exponentially larger in population. Taking that into account the later subsections of the history section are kind of smallish and they earlier subsections are probably still too big.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But early generations had a disproportionate impact on shaping the culture, laws, and society, so it'd be a fallacy to assume a period where the population happens to be larger merits more coverage in the history section. By that logic world historians would mostly just focus on the present and recent past, and would have to switch jobs and become reporters. Regarding sectional quality, the later sections are worse than the early ones were (except for the chaotically constructed NA contact section). The Cold War/Civil Rights section and Contemporary Era sections are especially messes. Currently the article doesn't mention George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln, but does mention Joseph McCarthy, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Malcolm X. That's an untenable situation that needs rectifying. VictorD7 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please note that the term should be spelt, in links, "Gilded Age" or "Guilded age", not "Guilded Age". Creating a link to the last links to a twenty-first century fantasy comic, which could result in some strange mix-ups.Rwenonah (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ha Ha, that's what I get for typing too fast while multi-tasking. I'll note that I had spelled it correctly in my other comments above though, and in all my links. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lance Friedman. The Civil War edit had your input, your input was preserved in the extended quote as you wished, and placed at the end of the section as a summary conclusion of the entire section. You did not dispute that emphasis, I took you at your word and incorporated it. The estimate of loss in our source is underestimated, but the object is to edit for conciseness without making any substantial changes. One may say 'and aftermath' because one need not merely parrot the source in a near plagiaristic paraphrase, and these estimates are just that, approximations in time and space.

What now? The proposal is more concise without leaving out any editor's objection. The section is important, it is important that it be well written with all editor imput. The proposal did not alter the assessment that the Civil War Amendments, or Reconstruction Amendments, belonged in the Civil War section. Modern Historians such ad Eric Foner date reconstruction from 1863, hence the title of his 1988 volume, Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution: 1863-1877. He treats the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments there in a narrative rooted in the Civil War, which is commonly done in American hisoriography.

But you chose to edit the Amendments without discussion. Please do not edit this important section without discussion on this page, --- while telling me not to do what you are doing, --- when I am not doing it. That is a kind of WP page disruption. To what common purpose? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Historian, As you well know, I have been discussing these edits in the relevant section above this one. And unlike your edits, my recent edits have been relatively minor. Unless someone choses to dispute an edit, this talk page obviously doesn't need to be clogged up with discussion of an edit.Lance Friedman (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revision notes are longer than your discussion here, and your edit reversions are a sign that they were too abbreviated to be persuasive. Use this space instead for discussion. See another effort at accommodating you above relative to your interest in the KKK. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Is anyone going to continue this discussion? I'd hate to see all of this discussion be archived and forgotten about without any resulting changes being implemented in the article. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely returning to it. I think people may have needed a break after doing the previous section. It'll be picked again soon, maybe after the Olympics. It would be untenable to leave the History section halfway finished, worse overall than it was before. VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm all for the continued improvement and streamlining of the History section, but I took a break and ignored the discussion when the pettiness began to return (wherein how one sentence is worded had to be a days-long argument) and as I also began focusing on other articles. I will soon be proposing in a new section a condensed WWI and II section, removing some least necessary details while not sacrificing big events. We should also begin to look at how "Cold War and Civil Rights era" is going to be restructured to conform with the changes in prior sections. And if so we should also not revert to long-winded political discussions by keeping the wording as neutral and concise as possible. I propose condensing the section into two long paragraphs (one discussing civil rights and the other the Cold War) or three short paragraphs as we remove the unnecessary listing of the achievements of recent presidents and focus only on big picture events. Cadiomals (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the following is the draft as discussed thus far:

In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe supplied a surplus of labor for the country's industrialization and transformed its culture.[102] Immigration policies were Eurocentric by restricting Asians from immigration and naturalization beginning in 1882.[103] National infrastructure including telegraph and transcontinental railroads spurred economic growth, greater settlement and development of the American Old West. The later invention of electric lights and telephones would also impact communication and urban life. The end of the Indian Wars further expanded acreage under mechanical cultivation, increasing surpluses for international markets. Mainland expansion was completed by the Alaska Purchase from Russia in 1867. In 1898 the U.S. entered the world stage with important sugar production and strategic facilities acquired in Hawaii. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were ceded by Spain in the same year, following the Spanish American War.

Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century produced many prominent industrialists, and the U.S. economy became the world's largest. The period also saw the rise of the rise of Populist, Socialist, and Anarchist movements. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, which saw significant reforms in many societal areas, including women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, regulation of consumer goods, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition, and attention to worker conditions.

So is there a consensus to implement these changes to the Industrialization section? Are there any further comments about this new version? --Philpill691 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with that. I would have returned sooner but I'm still trying to wrap up a couple of things. I think a few of us agreed that the "Asian" immigration line could be removed since it lacks context and the section doesn't deal with immigration policy shifts at other points in history. VictorD7 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• This looks just fine. Nothing major is stripped away from the original version, all main points remain covered, it's just significantly more concise. The only thing I would leave in is mention of light bulbs and telephones, considering they were landmark inventions. Discussion has been extensive enough, we've waited weeks and we can't remain at an impasse leaving the section half-finished, lest our efforts were in vain. Later I'll submit a proposal for the restructuring of the Cold War and Civil Rights section so we can finally finish up with this section. Cadiomals (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the Asian immigration sentence, and the later mention of the 1965 immigration bill for equity (which didn't explain what the bill was), but since the article does describe late 19th Century immigrants as largely coming from "Southern and Eastern Europe", and some origin is covered in the Settlement section, we could restore the 1965 mention with a sentence explaining that since then (or following it, depending on wording and placement) most immigration has come from the third world. VictorD7 (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Victor's deletion of the Asian immigration sentence. Why should this article discuss where immigrants didn't come from? Seems out of place to me. --Philpill691 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. There is no context as to WHY these socialist, populist and anarchist movements were so popular during this period, such as corruption, extreme disparities of wealth and terrible living/working conditions for the working classes. This context existed to some extent in the previous version. Not only that, the wikilinks now are to generalized articles on socialism and anarchism, whereas the previous version linked to articles that pertained to the development of these movements in the United States. This minor tweak, with an additional citation to a reliable source, would resolve the issue:

Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century produced many prominent industrialists, and the U.S. economy became the world's largest. The excesses of the unregulated economy created extreme inequalities and social unrest that prompted the rise of populist, anarchist and socialist movements. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, which saw significant reforms in many societal areas, including women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, regulation of consumer goods, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition, and attention to worker conditions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the links in detail, but the extra prose you want would be excessive detail containing POV causal assumptions. VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Those additions come right out of a popular university-level textbook, which counts as a reliable source. But fine, I'll revise further:

Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century produced many prominent industrialists, and the U.S. economy became the world's largest. The excesses of the unregulated economy created The extreme inequalities and social unrest during this period prompted the rise of populist, anarchist and socialist movements. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, which saw significant reforms in many societal areas, including women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, regulation of consumer goods, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition, and attention to worker conditions. C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, I can tweak the wikilinks so they point to US specific movements. Second, is there a way for us to provide more toned down context that you would agree with? Though I would not word it exactly how CJ did because it is a tad POV, I would agree that some context is helpful instead of saying movements and events simply popped up from no where. All movements arise from disillusionment. Though this may be a recycling of lengthy discussion that already took place, what do you think would be safe wording to augment that sentence? Cadiomals (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the part about the unregulated economy (see above) which presumably was the source of the controversy. What's left seems entirely reasonable to me. Few would dispute that significant income/wealth disparity and social unrest existed during this period. We are, after all, talking about the Gilded Age.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that actual causes of movements can be complex and debatable. When a specific legislative change takes place and a movement to combat that change develops, it's clear cut. But broad political movements like "anarchism" and "socialism" are complex ideologies that grow for many reasons. The much broader "populism" comes in countless varieties and is even harder to pin down. There are many who argue that such movements are at least as likely to arise because of increases in prosperity and free time as worsening conditions. Sometimes it's purely the result of new ideas rather than underlying societal changes. It's easy to argue that some Central/Eastern European immigrants bringing Marxist sentiment had as much to do with it as anything. This seems to be about Griffin wanting to stamp the period with the label "extreme inequalities", and one of the textbook sources already used there is Zinn's, a notorious Marxist polemic and part of a New Left movement that defines itself as standing in opposition to what it calls "consensus history". If we get into the root causes of socialism and anarchism, then proper perspective would demand that we spend even more time explaining America's far more dominant ideology of free market capitalism, which the current section really doesn't get into at all (the closest it comes is the land privatization mentioned in the early colonial period). After all, socialism and anarchism were ultimately fringe ideologies, lucky to get a mention here at all. I think simply mentioning their appearance and linking to their US version articles (which I am fine with) is sufficient for this quick summary article. All that said, I'm willing to compromise as long we use vaguer, less POV language. No one denies that the industrial revolution (particularly the second phase of the mid to late 19th Century) was accompanied by cultural shocks in both the US and UK; indeed many scholars credit the once maligned Victorian era values with helping society remain stable through the transition. How about we say:

Dramatic changes were accompanied by social unrest, and the rise of populist, anarchist and socialist movements. That way we provide the temporal correlation while remaining neutral on causality. People who want more details on the fringe movements can click on the articles. It also has the benefit of getting us out of starting consecutive sentences with "The/This period...". Better flow. VictorD7 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Victor's last. The word 'inequality' and 'unequal' does not appear in the populist, socialist or anarchist articles. I would list them in the order of their membership numbers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we gave relatively neutral context without making unsourced assertions. That's that. Cadiomals (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with sources in the intro.

The sources given for the following statement; "[...] being the world's foremost economic and military power, a prominent political and cultural force, and a leader in scientific research and technological innovation.[29][30]" does not in any way mention that the US are in any way superior, and certainly not a leader of, neither research nor technological innovation. 29 does mention military power and passingly mentions military technology when speaking of the past (i.e. not the present), but even then does not mention anything regarding actual scientific research nor modern technology: i.e., the latter half of the statement completely lacks sources and as such gives a biased impression. 81.227.4.20 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern regarding citations. The US is a military and economic power and the current sources support this. Note that the last part of the sentence says the US is "a" leader of scientific research and technological innovation, not "The" leader, as in, it shares the spotlight with several other developed countries in this respect. Regardless, this can be supported with a wide range of sources and statistics that show the number of patents in the country and the amount of research it produces annually leads the world. Nothing in the sentence claims the US is superior, it just acknowledges the country's notable standing in the world as a "superpower" which is not denied by any international sources. If the current sources are deemed unsatisfactory I could easily find a couple more. Cadiomals (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, the number of patents a nation holds/creates/etcetera per year does not, as such or in-and-of-itself, in any way prove or support the claim that a given nation is scientifically significant or even good; it merely means that there's a lot of patents, nothing less, nothing more. Even further, a lot of research (almost all of the research in philosophy, the fine arts, the humanities etcetera) does not lead to any form of patent-making, as progress in those areas rarely lead to new products: hence, having a lot of patents applied for (or having a lot of patents) does not in any significant way speak of academic or research excellence. I shall not argue about the US "being a military and economic power", as I never intended to say (and indeed, said the opposite of) that that claim was not supported by the sources, since, well, it was (and is). And, as a side-note, the amount of "research produced" does not imply that the research is of any significant quality or even has any impact in the world of academia or research at large; just that there is a lot of it. If you can "easily find" a couple of sources that support the statement that the US is a "a leader of scientific research and technological innovation", I would recommend that you add them. 81.227.4.20 (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can read any history book or article or any scientific journal and you will find the huge amount of transformative contributions the US has made to science & technology in the past and present. It's not up to me to look up information for you or to find sources that you as an individual find satisfactory. There are a variety of sources within the body of the article that are not included in the lead. In fact, it has never been necessarily required to include sources in the lead since it is (ideally) supposed to be a summary of sourced information in the body. As such, the brief claim made in the lead is more than valid and far from biased. Cadiomals (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or just look at hard science Nobel Prizes over the past half century. Aside from a few online message board posters, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone anywhere who would dispute the lede's understated observation. VictorD7 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring a section name

For many years, up until March of 2013 (one year ago) the name of the current "Income, poverty, and wealth" section was "Income and human development" until it was changed to "Personal income" by one user and then shortly after "Income, poverty and wealth" by another user with little to no justification. Not long after the article became a sh*tstorm. The former long-standing name was and is more all-encompassing especially given its newly restored brevity from when it was bloated up to go into heavy detail on "income, poverty and wealth". I know since it's been a year this is long overdue, but I will be bold and restore it to its rightful name and if anyone really disagrees with can abide by WP:BRD and take a vote on it. Cadiomals (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a question: doesn't "human development" imply an even broader topic scope that could invite editors to shove in material from a whole new slew of topics (education, health, etc.)? VictorD7 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It kind of does, although the fact that we have separate sections for education and health would discourage most logical editors from doing this, and the section name has worked for years without that ever being a problem. "Income, poverty, and wealth" always seemed unusually long and it would be nice to get rid of those commas, but I will revert it until someone can come up with a new name or another solution. It's difficult to come up with a neat name due to lack of precedence. If we didn't go into such detail on income here it wouldn't need a subsection of it's own, as almost no other country articles elaborate on income and wealth distribution this much. But because it is a major issue in US politics editors are biased towards giving it more weight than other aspects of the economy, which I don't think is necessarily appropriate for an "objective" encyclopedia. If we could cut down on some info in that subsection (as well as a little in the main Economy section) it could be merged into the rest of Economy without it looking too long, and if Good/featured status is a long term goal that may be what's best. Some people may argue, "why cut down on so much relevant and informative detail", but a universal characteristic of Featured articles happens to be their conciseness, and that's not something I decided. Cadiomals (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your sentiment that the section should be seriously trimmed, and maybe folded into the Economy section while just retaining some topline info. VictorD7 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with sources in the intro.

The sources given for the following statement; "[...] being the world's foremost economic and military power, a prominent political and cultural force, and a leader in scientific research and technological innovation.[29][30]" does not in any way mention that the US are in any way superior, and certainly not a leader of, neither research nor technological innovation. 29 does mention military power and passingly mentions military technology when speaking of the past (i.e. not the present), but even then does not mention anything regarding actual scientific research nor modern technology: i.e., the latter half of the statement completely lacks sources and as such gives a biased impression. 81.227.4.20 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern regarding citations. The US is a military and economic power and the current sources support this. Note that the last part of the sentence says the US is "a" leader of scientific research and technological innovation, not "The" leader, as in, it shares the spotlight with several other developed countries in this respect. Regardless, this can be supported with a wide range of sources and statistics that show the number of patents in the country and the amount of research it produces annually leads the world. Nothing in the sentence claims the US is superior, it just acknowledges the country's notable standing in the world as a "superpower" which is not denied by any international sources. If the current sources are deemed unsatisfactory I could easily find a couple more. Cadiomals (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, the number of patents a nation holds/creates/etcetera per year does not, as such or in-and-of-itself, in any way prove or support the claim that a given nation is scientifically significant or even good; it merely means that there's a lot of patents, nothing less, nothing more. Even further, a lot of research (almost all of the research in philosophy, the fine arts, the humanities etcetera) does not lead to any form of patent-making, as progress in those areas rarely lead to new products: hence, having a lot of patents applied for (or having a lot of patents) does not in any significant way speak of academic or research excellence. I shall not argue about the US "being a military and economic power", as I never intended to say (and indeed, said the opposite of) that that claim was not supported by the sources, since, well, it was (and is). And, as a side-note, the amount of "research produced" does not imply that the research is of any significant quality or even has any impact in the world of academia or research at large; just that there is a lot of it. If you can "easily find" a couple of sources that support the statement that the US is a "a leader of scientific research and technological innovation", I would recommend that you add them. 81.227.4.20 (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can read any history book or article or any scientific journal and you will find the huge amount of transformative contributions the US has made to science & technology in the past and present. It's not up to me to look up information for you or to find sources that you as an individual find satisfactory. There are a variety of sources within the body of the article that are not included in the lead. In fact, it has never been necessarily required to include sources in the lead since it is (ideally) supposed to be a summary of sourced information in the body. As such, the brief claim made in the lead is more than valid and far from biased. Cadiomals (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or just look at hard science Nobel Prizes over the past half century. Aside from a few online message board posters, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone anywhere who would dispute the lede's understated observation. VictorD7 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring a section name

For many years, up until March of 2013 (one year ago) the name of the current "Income, poverty, and wealth" section was "Income and human development" until it was changed to "Personal income" by one user and then shortly after "Income, poverty and wealth" by another user with little to no justification. Not long after the article became a sh*tstorm. The former long-standing name was and is more all-encompassing especially given its newly restored brevity from when it was bloated up to go into heavy detail on "income, poverty and wealth". I know since it's been a year this is long overdue, but I will be bold and restore it to its rightful name and if anyone really disagrees with can abide by WP:BRD and take a vote on it. Cadiomals (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a question: doesn't "human development" imply an even broader topic scope that could invite editors to shove in material from a whole new slew of topics (education, health, etc.)? VictorD7 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It kind of does, although the fact that we have separate sections for education and health would discourage most logical editors from doing this, and the section name has worked for years without that ever being a problem. "Income, poverty, and wealth" always seemed unusually long and it would be nice to get rid of those commas, but I will revert it until someone can come up with a new name or another solution. It's difficult to come up with a neat name due to lack of precedence. If we didn't go into such detail on income here it wouldn't need a subsection of it's own, as almost no other country articles elaborate on income and wealth distribution this much. But because it is a major issue in US politics editors are biased towards giving it more weight than other aspects of the economy, which I don't think is necessarily appropriate for an "objective" encyclopedia. If we could cut down on some info in that subsection (as well as a little in the main Economy section) it could be merged into the rest of Economy without it looking too long, and if Good/featured status is a long term goal that may be what's best. Some people may argue, "why cut down on so much relevant and informative detail", but a universal characteristic of Featured articles happens to be their conciseness, and that's not something I decided. Cadiomals (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your sentiment that the section should be seriously trimmed, and maybe folded into the Economy section while just retaining some topline info. VictorD7 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Cash Rules Everything Around Me" critique

This article is full of puffery and outright exaggeration. The main points of this critique by Quinn Norton should be incorporated into the article and the most significant controversies should appear in the introduction as per WP:LEAD. EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not going to include points from some twenty-something woman's rant blog. Not sure if joking/trolling but still have to answer seriously. Cadiomals (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also interested in opinions which address the points raised in Quinn's article and the guideline, and which do not attack living people. Why should this article be exempt from the guideline about summarizing controversies in the introduction? There are an abundance of them. EllenCT (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You already know that Wikipedia does not accept amateur self-published media such as blogs as a reliable source unless it is a professional news blog. As for the post itself, none of it contains new or groundbreaking revelations and none of it would be deemed appropriate for this article or its lead. This is my last reply to this topic as it is not even worthy of further consideration by anyone. Cadiomals (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Quinn is a professional journalist with an editor these days. It has really improved her work. Can we please address the points raised instead of the author? EllenCT (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What other country articles could be used as a model? On the other hand, it is hard to get past the third paragraph of a rant that wants the reader to believe that the U.S. pollutes more than China. Nonsense. Seems the editor needs a fact checker. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Which points? This personal opinion piece covers a lot a ground. The best we can say is the writer thinks the US is bad and abuses it's power. Nothing new there. I can find similar opinion pieces for every country in the world. Here are examples of Sweden's failings [3], [4], [5], [6] that are just about as valid by your metric. There will always online criticisms. But this particular article does not warrant inclusion anywhere, much less the lede. Mattnad (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If most countries' articles don't follow the guideline of calling out the biggest controversies, does that mean the guideline should not apply to them? If so, would you support a change to the guideline making that exception clear to editors? Do you believe China has produced more total accumulated pollution than the US, or just started doing so on an annual basis in the past few years? EllenCT (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

On country controversies in their article introduction, I wonder what the wikipedia country project would say, I suppose. I'm not sure the introduction is the place a general reader looks for them. Controversies are generally of a political nature related to the governmental regime as represented in political parties, or by their absence, depending on the practice of fundamental human rights found there. The reader would look under a section on governance were that of interest.

Interesting questions, whether the pollution fogs in Shanghai equal those in early industrial London, probably so, and whether we should hold industrialists 150 years ago accountable for today's pollution equally as culpable as the Chinese today. Probably not --- and it is easier to work with the living concerning the problems of our time. Today we know the pollution harms the environment, and the 21st century Chinese have not chosen to match the 21st century standards in their anti-polllution controls as yet.

I do believe the Chinese will pollute less in time, --- but for now, the writer needs a fact checker for current pollution or for aggregations of pollution per capita supplied, pollution per kilowatt produced, over years or decades on a comparative bases, depending on what the writer is trying to say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two concerns I have. 1) the source - a personal opinion piece, whether or not an editor is involved, is not generally the first place I'd look for material, and 2) putting a list of criticisms in the lede of a country article is not encyclopedic. Here's the Britannica article as an example of how a lede gets written. This is a macro level article and it should reflect that.Mattnad (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: what is your opinion on the cumulative amount of pollution currently affecting human health? EllenCT (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A controversy about a country, to me, would be legitimacy. For example, whether Crimea's declaration of independence was legitimate. But it is proper to mention in the lead how the U.S. differs from other countries and other industrial countries, which is already done particularly in the last paragraph. Incidentally much of China's pollution is caused by providing cheap goods for the U.S. TFD (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am struck by the fact that in the U.S. where pollution was less regulated, rivers could catch on fire. And when the pollution stopped, life recovered in the rivers. All pollution is not forever, some of it can be mitigated when man stops continuous augmentation. In a curious way the earth seems to be able to balance itself if given a chance.

As TFD suggests, it is well that it is the U.S. negotiating with China to pollute less. Perhaps it will have some influence because of their economic connectedness. One could imagine a carbon tax in the U.S. applying to imports, not just domestic regulation --- which has on balance produced a cleaner environment here and downwind --- remember "Canada's" acid rain? when it stopped, the foliage returned to the Shenandoah National Forest. Hawaii and Pacific territories are downwind from China. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Literature, philosophy, and the arts

As I was combing through the Culture section looking for ways it could be streamlined and trying to pinpoint unsourced statements, I found that the "Literature, philosophy, and the arts" section seems to contain little more than a rattling off of random people and movements, some of which have little relevance today and some which have no sources. There should be a way for us to condense the section and leave only the movements and figures that had the greatest impact on American culture, but as someone who is admittedly not an expert on fine arts I don't know if I can be a good judge of that. If you don't feel like going over there right now, here is just one paragraph which exemplifies what I'm talking about (a haphazard listing of people and movements):

In the visual arts, the Hudson River School was a mid-19th-century movement in the tradition of European naturalism. The realist paintings of Thomas Eakins are now widely celebrated. The 1913 Armory Show in New York City, an exhibition of European modernist art, shocked the public and transformed the U.S. art scene.[450] Georgia O'Keeffe, Marsden Hartley, and others experimented with new, individualistic styles. Major artistic movements such as the abstract expressionism of Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning and the pop art of Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein developed largely in the United States. The tide of modernism and then postmodernism has brought fame to American architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Philip Johnson, and Frank Gehry. Cadiomals (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree; I feel that this subsection could use a fairly major overhaul for conciseness, as has been done in other parts of this article. I also would not be the best person to do this; I’m pretty clueless about a lot of the specifics of fine arts. If nobody here feels up to it, I suggest we seek external help from someone (or a group of people) who is knowledgeable in this area. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for condensed & streamlined Cold War section

The current version of the Cold War section is a mess of fairly random details incongruous with the rest of the section. I removed some domestic details with the goal of leaving mostly "Big Picture" historical events. As such, a recentist focus on political scandals and shifts in domestic policies such as taxation and spending that have happened throughout history are not as pivotal as the social movements and Cold War events that had the biggest impact in shaping world and national history and which are given higher priority. Another peculiarity I want to fix is the only double image left in the History section, and especially with content shortening I wish to simply replace it with one iconic image of MLK Jr. in his "I have a Dream" speech. Feel free to voice your concerns so we can quickly reach an agreement and have these changes implemented:

After World War II the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed for power in what is known as the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact, respectively. While they engaged in proxy wars and developed powerful nuclear arsenals, the two countries avoided direct military conflict. The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored. American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–1953. At home, the US experienced sustained economic expansion and a rapid growth of its population and middle class.

The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race" in which the United States became the first to land a man on the moon in 1969, via the Apollo Program. A different government initiative oversaw the development of ARPANET and TCP/IP, the basis for the Internet.[118] Amidst the presence of various white supremacist groups, particularly the Ku Klux Klan, a growing civil rights movement used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination, with Martin Luther King Jr. becoming a prominent leader and figurehead. The movement would see the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.[120][121][122]

A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the ultimately unsuccessful Vietnam War. Meanwhile, a counterculture movement grew which was fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. In the 1970s, the American economy was hurt by two major energy shocks and complicated relations with the Middle East. The 1980s brought a "thaw" in Soviet relations. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 finally ended the Cold War.[135][136][137][138][139] Cadiomals (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple quick thoughts:

• How about we replace your Space Race sentence with something slightly more concise: The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race," which culminated with the United States landing a man on the moon in 1969 via the Apollo Program.
• Should this article really name specific individuals from the Civil Rights Movement when it doesn't even name individuals from the Revolutionary period? The mentions of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X seem unnecessary for this broad summary article. What's truly important to the country's history overall is the movement, not the individuals involved in it.

--Philpill691 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If others can agree I can remove mention of Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and the Black Panthers while leaving only MLK Jr. who was the iconic figurehead of it all such that it would be unfair to remove him. The condensed version of the Space Race statement can be easily implemented except I would not use "culminated" as many space missions were initiated after. Cadiomals (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad attempt, but I'm going to have some commentary and maybe alternate proposals later when I get some time, within the next couple of days at most. There should be no rush to implement. We all knew this would be the hardest section to do. I think the old Cold War/Civil Rights section needs more rewriting than the others, not just streamlining. I agree with you in principle that it should cover the basic events rather than be a list of people or incidents. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In what way do you feel the cold war and civil rights parts need re-writing instead of just condensing?... It is already pretty bare bones with my version and I did plenty of re-wording. As a matter of fact I did not find it very difficult at all, it was just a matter of leaving in the most prominent historical events. I further modified the civil rights part with this reply. Cadiomals (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If anything I think it trimmed too much on balance. See below. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposals

Here are some concerns:

• The current article completely omits the Cold War's vital ideological component.
• The new proposal gives short shrift to the period's last couple of decades in what may be overtrimming.
• There was an agreement to end up with 4 presidential mentions, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan, a relatively stable dynamic due to its chronological balance. I apprehensively went along when a single editor decided to retain Wilson (more important than Jefferson, who doubled the nation's size?) but there's no way Reagan gets cut. That would leave a partisan as well as chronological imbalance and lead to inherently instability. Editors would come along and think, with justification, that we were stacking up mentions of Democrats. For good or ill, most analysts see FDR and Reagan as the century's two political giants. Reagan's shift from "containment" to "rollback" alone was a huge deal that's vital to mention in a Cold War section. They're still building monuments to him in Eastern Europe, and he's more identified with the Cold War's climax than at least any other American figure. His role in shifting domestic policy for the long term was huge too. It wasn't just "a shift in taxation and spending". It was a combination of tight monetary policy (soaring inflation vanished and we've enjoyed relative price stability since), dramatic tax reform (ending inflationary bracket creep that had automatically raised taxes on most Americans for years, reducing brackets, simplifying code, capital gains reduction, taking TMR from 70% to 28%, etc.), deregulation, and domestic spending restraint, though I umbrella all that under "free market oriented reforms" and link to the "Reagonomics" article, sort of like the FDR/"New Deal" treatment. Partial reversals in the following two decades left most of Reagan's reforms intact. His influence was such that Clinton later proclaimed that "the era of big government is over", and in recent years even Democrats with completely different ideologies have started to publicly associate themselves with Reagan, Obama saying that "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not", and that he wanted to be such a transformational figure. Several years ago in a Discovery tv series/contest Americans voted Ronald Reagan the "Greatest American" of all time, beating out guys like Lincoln, MLK, and Washington. The guy was reelected in 1984 with the biggest landslide in US history (since electors started being chosen by popular vote), and is undeniably iconic.
• The current article focuses on some niche developments (like the 1960s counterculture) while ignoring some far more important broad trends, like suburbanization, women entering the workforce, etc..

To address these concerns I threw together a rough draft that combines elements of the current article, Cadiomals' proposal, and some stuff I added. Since it's all verifiable, sourcing can wait until after we agree on text. Proposal B shaves off about 600 characters in length from the current article version, and at 2268 is roughly halfway between it and Cadiomals' proposal. It would also be close to the character average of the subsections we've already streamlined (sans the short Native American prelude, which doesn't contain specific history), and would be shorter than Ind. and exp. (3290) and Settlement (2810), and a little longer than the others. I also added an even shorter version that's 1530 characters (not counting whatever ref. numbers get added, which would have only marginal impact) and is almost exactly the same size as Cadiomals' proposal, though lacking in some of proposal B's broad societal information. In both I replaced the isolated "oil shocks" mention with "stagflation", since that was the broader phenomenon, and had multiple causes. The shorter version would be shorter than every streamlined subsection but Industrialization (and the NA prelude). The final versions would have more links; I just added a few to some of the key new concepts. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal B (longer version)

After World War II the democratic capitalist United States and communist Soviet Union jockeyed for power and ideological supremacy in what is known as the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact, respectively. The U.S. developed a policy of "containment" toward Soviet bloc expansion. While they engaged in proxy wars and developed powerful nuclear arsenals, the two countries avoided direct military conflict. The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored. American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–1953.

At home, the US experienced sustained economic expansion and a rapid growth of its population and middle class. Construction of an interstate highway system transformed the nation’s infrastructure over the following decades. Millions moved from farms and inner cities to large suburban housing developments. Rock and roll's development in the South revolutionized popular music and spawned numerous globally influential subgenres. The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race" in which the United States became the first to land a man on the moon in 1969.

A growing Civil Rights movement used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination, with Martin Luther King Jr. becoming a prominent leader and figurehead. A combination of court decisions and legislation, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sought to end to racial discrimination. A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the ultimately unsuccessful Vietnam War. Meanwhile, a counterculture movement grew which was fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. The launch of a "War on Poverty" expanded entitlement and welfare spending.

The 1970s and early 1980s saw the onset of stagflation. After his election in 1980, President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free market oriented reforms, and transitioned from a foreign policy of containment of Soviet influence to a more aggressive "rollback" strategy. The end of stagflation was followed by robust economic growth. The invention of the transistor by Bell Labs in 1947 had ushered in the era of consumer electronics, and by the 1980s personal computers were becoming common. After a surge in female labor participation over the previous decade, by 1985 a majority of women over 16 were employed. Increasing Soviet weakness led to a "thaw" in relations in the late 1980s. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 finally ended the Cold War.[135][136][137][138][139] VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal C (shorter version)

After World War II the democratic capitalist United States and communist Soviet Union jockeyed for power and ideological supremacy in what is known as the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact, respectively. The U.S. developed a policy of "containment" toward Soviet bloc expansion. While they engaged in proxy wars and developed powerful nuclear arsenals, the two countries avoided direct military conflict. The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored. American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–1953. At home, the US experienced sustained economic expansion and a rapid growth of its population and middle class.

The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race" in which the United States became the first to land a man on the moon in 1969. A growing Civil Rights movement used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination, with Martin Luther King Jr. becoming a prominent leader and figurehead. A combination of court decisions and legislation, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sought to end to racial discrimination. A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the ultimately unsuccessful Vietnam War.

The 1970s and early 1980s saw the onset of stagflation. After his election in 1980, President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free market oriented reforms, and transitioned from a foreign policy of containment of Soviet influence to a more aggressive "rollback" strategy. Increasing Soviet weakness led to a "thaw" in relations in the late 1980s. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 finally ended the Cold War.[135][136][137][138][139] VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of proposals

I prefer the longer version at this point. I'd suggest moving the internet sentence to early in the Contemporary section. The internet didn't become historically relevant until the 1990s, so having its primary mention tucked into the 1960s can mislead readers. Maybe something like: The internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's 1960s ARPANET project, became widely available for popular and commercial use in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. Also, I prefer keeping the double image, but if we can only keep one it should be the Cold War one. The Cold War directly impacted far more people and certainly had more global impact. Thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also prefer the longer proposal B over the skeleton that is proposal C, but I think we can find a middle ground with some of my concerns based on B:

• I feel the descriptors you used in the first sentence of B are overly simplistic and should just be left out.
• Would rock and roll really be considered a "big picture" detail?... given that the overall subject of the section is about the cold war and civil rights, its inclusion seems out of place. We really don't mention music at all in the History section, something like that would go in Culture.
• We should remove "The end of stagflation was followed by robust economic growth. The invention of the transistor by Bell Labs in 1947 had ushered in the era of consumer electronics, and by the 1980s personal computers were becoming common" Lest we mention every high and low in the US economy, and the development of the revolutionary internet easily trumps higher consumption of consumer electronics
• We should change Increasing Soviet weakness led to a "thaw" in relations in the late 1980s. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. to the shorter The 1980s brought a "thaw" in relations with the USSR, and its collapse in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. You yourself were advocating against unsourced causal assertions.

Those are the only issues I have with that one. I think it would be a good compromise to agree with them. I also agree with transferring mention of the Internet to contemporary history. Cadiomals (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The transistor is seen as one of the most important inventions in human history, and the broad electronics consumer industry is more important than the internet, since it includes the machines on which the internet exists, but I can compromise by agreeing to that deletion. For the record with the rock segment I was going for a salient example of American innovation with enormous global cultural impact, but I can also compromise by removing that and the "robust growth" sentence. One exception - I would prefer mentioning Soviet weakness rather than just have the USSR suddenly collapse. What if we said Increasing Soviet weakness was accompanied by a "thaw" in relations in the late 1980s.? If you're strongly opposed to it though I can drop the "weakness" segment entirely and just use your latest sentence. The only thing I'd insist on is qualifying the 1980s with "late", since the "thaw" occurred later in the decade.

Regarding the opening Cold War "descriptors", I'm open to changes but we really should mention the struggle's essential ideological component, instead of just pretending it didn't exist. Maybe it'd be different in an even shorter summary, but here we've actually got a section with "Cold War" in the title and enough space to mention the ideological divide. The current article does mention the US opposing "Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored", but relying on that alone leaves the section's ideological coverage cherry-picked and confusing. Only the "third world" is mentioned, and the relevance of "left wing" isn't explained. Identifying the USSR as "communist" would do that. I'm not sure what you mean by "simplistic"; it seems like a broad, accurate description appropriate for this detail level. The USSR was evangelical communist. The USA was evangelical democratic capitalist (and is mentioned as the chief example of democratic capitalism in the linked article). I chose that label because it captures both the democracy and capitalism aspect that differentiated America's system from the Soviet Union's. Do you have an alternative wording suggestion? VictorD7 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Below is the modified version based on your agreements. It includes my alternate wording in the first two sentences. It is better for this copy-paste to be the draft we shape. Once everything is in order we can wait a day or two for possible input from a third party:

After World War II the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed for power during what is known as the Cold War, driven by an ideological divide between capitalism and communism. They dominated the military affairs of Europe, with the US and its NATO allies on one side and the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies on the other. The US developed a policy of "containment" toward Soviet bloc expansion. While they engaged in proxy wars and developed powerful nuclear arsenals, the two countries avoided direct military conflict. The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored. American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–1953.

At home, the US experienced sustained economic expansion and a rapid growth of its population and middle class. Construction of an interstate highway system transformed the nation’s infrastructure over the following decades. Millions moved from farms and inner cities to large suburban housing developments. The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race" in which the United States became the first to land a man on the moon in 1969. A growing Civil Rights movement used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination, with Martin Luther King Jr. becoming a prominent leader and figurehead. A combination of court decisions and legislation, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sought to end racial discrimination. A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, a counterculture movement grew which was fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. The launch of a "War on Poverty" expanded entitlement and welfare spending.

The 1970s and early 1980s saw the onset of stagflation. After his election in 1980, President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free market oriented reforms, and transitioned from a foreign policy of containment of Soviet influence to a more aggressive "rollback" strategy. After a surge in female labor participation over the previous decade, by 1985 a majority of women over 16 were employed. The late 1980s brought a "thaw" in relations with the USSR, and its collapse in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. [135][136][137][138][139] Cadiomals (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism is an economic system, while communism in this context refers to both the economic system and form of government, leaving an unbalance. Is there a graceful way we can mention the liberal democracy element too? After all, it's no coincidence that every NATO member was a democracy while every Warsaw Pact nation was a totalitarian regime with one party rule and/or sham elections (ala Saddam Hussein or North Korea). VictorD7 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Greece and Turkey were ruled by military juntas, and Portugal was an out-and-out fascist dictatorship; only since the 80's has every country in NATO been a democracy. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they were all along, but for the record both Greece and Turkey were democracies when they joined NATO, with periodic coups occurring in those unstable countries in the following decades. It's debatable how "fascist" Portugal was by the time it joined NATO, but, regardless, following the establishment of democracy in the 1970s it remained in NATO, and NATO members were a lot more comfortable with it being democratic. Clearly it would be disingenuous to deny that the liberal democratic versus totalitarian component was a major aspect of the Cold War's overarching ideological divide. VictorD7 (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to put it in "graceful" neutral terms without adding a whole new sentence. You're referring only to first world countries, but third world countries played as much a part in the cold war, with both powers helping to support authoritarian regimes so long as they conformed to their respective economic systems. While NATO countries were mostly democratic, if we are saying what "drove" the cold war and take actions in the third world into account it seems to have been much more a rivalry between right-wing and left-wing economic systems than governance systems, as the west did not care if a third world country was authoritarian or not so long as they were anti-communist. So to me, leaving it simply in terms of "capitalism" and "communism" is more broadly encompassing. Do we need to get hung up on this though? Cadiomals (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's overstating it. The US generally encouraged liberal democracy where possible (it sometimes wasn't one of the options in the third world), while the Soviets really never encouraged pluralistic liberal democracy long term since it was contrary to their ideology (like Hussein, they gave lip service to "democracy", but it wasn't liberal democracy). A classic laboratory example is Korea. Which one is democratic, the US or Soviet ally? The Cold War was driven by broad based ideological differences, including individual liberty, rule of law, and pluralistic democracy. "Capitalism" (an old Marxist term) is a vital component of that, but I'm not sure it's adequate. Radio Free Europe was pro capitalist, but was hardly merely capitalist. The immediate concern was often whom a country might side with, not the economic system per se ("better our authoritarian than theirs"), with socialists tending to side with the USSR, but that doesn't change the fact that the overarching concern driving the conflict was broad ideology, including liberal democracy. Those "first world" nations were largely democratic because the US rushed to prop them up and ensure they were so in the chaos following WW II, when it looked like chunks of western Europe might go communist too. I still might propose alternative language on this point in the future, but since we seem to be at least very close to an agreed on text, for now I'll stay pat and see if others have input. VictorD7 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, what I mean is that "anti-communist" doesn't just refer to opposing an economic system, communism also being a political system (with economics as a subset). Take Afghanistan. The Mujahideen were hardly raging capitalists, but they opposed the communist regime and were fighting Soviets so it was in the US interest to support them. That strategic move doesn't mean the US didn't care about capitalism. A struggle being ideological in nature doesn't mean that every single tactical move on the board has to totally represent the primary players' fundamental ideological divide with precision, particularly in cases where that wasn't possible. But the nations under US influence generally became more democratic over time; certainly the ones they had direct military control over did (including in the third world). Look at Japan, West Germany, South Korea, Taiwan (heavy US protection at least), Grenada, and Panama. Even Nicaragua has been a stable democracy since the Sandinistas were finally forced to hold real elections and voted out, the people voting the widow of a Contra leader into power. And of course the Cold War started soon after US calls for free elections in eastern Europe were rejected by the Soviets. Ignoring that basic reality of the Cold War's character diminishes this article's quality. VictorD7 (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

a) Overall, the passage is much improved. --- “ideological divide between (liberal) (democratic) capitalism and (totalitarian) communism” is a pretty conventional way of describing the divide, I would concur with Victor, and go with “…between democratic capitalism and totalitarian communism…”

b) “A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the ultimately unsuccessful Vietnam War.” is a sentence that fails to comprehend Vietnam’s largest trading partner today is the United States. That is a different outcome that in Iraq, where the same French, Russian and Chinese have oil contracts before and after Saddam Hussein following U.S. withdrawal. "A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia around the unification of Vietnam, and following U.S. withdrawal, the U.S. became a united Vietnam's largest trading partner."

c) The proxy hot wars with major U.S. troop involvement against Russian advisors and technical support would include Korea, Vietnam and First Gulf War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

a) Hmm, I still consider those words to be uncomfortably loaded and simplistic. Even Victor admitted that supporting democracy in third-world countries while fighting the threat of communist takeover was not often an option even if it was ideal. After I implement the changes maybe we'll think of something, but overall it seems you are in agreement with the passage as a whole... b) It is considered "ultimately unsuccessful" in that the US did not succeed in defeating the Viet Cong, but I can still remove those words and it won't have much of an impact. c) We removed mention of the Gulf War; it doesn't seem to be a big chapter that fits in the context of the rest of the section.

Thank you for you replies, I will go ahead and implement overall changes and any future concerns can be addressed. Cadiomals (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Voice of America (VOA) and United States Information Agency (USIA) both promoted liberal democracy across totalitarian and dictatorship borders in multiple languages and through U.S. Embassy reading rooms, -- and independent of any military sales by treaty which Victor referred to before. Yes, the revision should be put into place. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if it publicly expressed support for democracy through such instruments, would you describe the US's handling of the Cold War in Latin America, and the overall history of latin america, as one in which the it helped sustain transparent liberal democratic governments with freedom of expression, based on this source?

Your linked column has a propagandistic skew to say the least, and is short on facts, conveniently remaining vague about the precise nature and level of US involvement in the various countries it lists. While there were certain significant interventions by Washington (like Nicaragua and Grenada, which I mentioned), in most cases the "coup" stuff is BS peddled by Marxists for decades, and there's a history of exaggerating US support and even knowledge of events in Guatemala and other places during periods of upheaval. That said, even if you accept the piece at face value, it doesn't change the fact that the democracy/totalitarian divide was a major driving force during the Cold War. Heck, the US and Soviets cooperated on certain things, like spaceship docking in 1975, but that didn't mean the Cold War wasn't going on. Exceptions are just that. Besides, the separate, later "third world" sentence is ambiguously enough worded to leave room for your alternative view of the Cold War even if the democracy/totalitarian language was included in the opening segment focusing on the primary NATO/Warsaw Pact theatre. VictorD7 (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The scholarly distinction at the time held totalitarian regimes were more abusive of human rights than dictatorships. Dictatorships would admit some participation in world free market economies, whereas totalitarian regimes would not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)