Talk:History of the United States (1865–1917)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Needed themes
This is a very nice beginning, and I understand that this is a work in progress, but three themes that should certainly be included/expanded are 1) the Spanish-American War and American Imperialism; 2) the rise of organized labor; and 3) immigration, sweatshops, demographic shifts, etc. Danny
Orphan factoid
Orphan factoid:
- On July 28, 1866 the Metric Act of 1866 became law and legalized the standardization of weights and measures in the United States.
Please adopt. --mav 06:27, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Garbage in, garbage out
you can't be serious, of course HS history texts are obscenely POV, and often factually innacurate. Please, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not yet another opportunity for leftist propoganda. The kids get enough of that at school, why do you think I read the reference books so much as a kid? Precisely to get away from this sort of PC whitewashing, mental facist newspeak rewrite of history. Sam [Spade] 12:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can't make sense out of the comments above. If you have any evidence, though, against my restoration of factual content, please let me know here on talk. 172 12:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your content is POV. Read NPOV. Sam [Spade] 12:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'll be interested if you can back up this claim with factual evidence. As ususal, you are not doing so here. 172 14:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
examples
- The Army did not keep miners off Sioux hunting grounds. Yet, when ordered to take action against bands of Sioux hunting on the range according to their treaty rights, the Army moved vigorously.
Vrs.
- Some historians feel that it was biased for the US Army's to fail to prevent miners from Sioux hunting grounds, especially in view of their haste (when ordered) to take action against bands of Sioux hunting on the range according to their treaty rights.
- This version inserts an unsourced interpretation of the facts. And what is worse, because of the ambiguity inherent in weasel words, it introduces the possible implication that this interpretation is a minority opinion and needs to be pointed out as such. Further, it gives no indication as to what alternative interpretations there may be of the facts. older≠wiser 15:37, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- This is a minority POV, when we are talking about ALL historians (thruout time) who have commented on this subject. Shall we cite some 19th century historians on the matter? Sam [Spade] 15:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
and
- This policy allowed more plundering of indigenous lands by waging an assault on the communal organization of tribes, which caused further disruption of the traditional culture of the surviving population of the indigenous West.
- While I agree this uses a POV-laden phrasing, "plundering", do you dispute the basic factuality of this or simply the phrasing?older≠wiser 15:37, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Not really, as I said above this is essentially my POV (I am very favorable to native americans and the abuses they suffered) but the phrasing is entirely unencyclopedic. Sam [Spade] 15:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- OK, but I don't see how your version is an improvement. older≠wiser 16:29, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- What is 'essentially your POV' or whether or not you are 'favorable to Native Americans' is irrelevant. What is the other POV? You haven't explained this. You cannot dispute the neutrality if you cannot even make a statement of another possible POV. There is no neutrality dispute if you cannot cite any credible evidence disputing the factuality of this sentence. (I doubt that you can or will. After all, I know that you're just here because you've been going through my user history trying to pick fights with me whenever possible for months.) 172 16:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Vrs.
- This policy allowed what some historians feel was "more plundering of indigenous lands" by waging an "assault" on the communal organization of tribes, which caused further "disruption of the traditional culture of the surviving population of the indigenous West".
- As in the first example, there is the possible implication that "some historians feel" marks this as being a minority opinion and does not offer any alternative interpretation. Further, the supposed quotations are unsourced. older≠wiser 15:37, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- As above, it is a minority opinion out of all historians who have commented on such matters. Modern does not = correct. As per the quotations, this is a meta-policy issue, which I'm not sure how I feel about. i will say that quoting stuff which is not sourced is quite common on the wiki, and tends to reflect POV (either of the comments, or of the editor making the quotes, perhaps both? ;) Sam [Spade] 15:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
vrs.
- This policy has been widely condemned.
I think it is obvious which of these is POV, and which is neutral. Sam [Spade] 14:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Using weasel terms is a poor way to address (alleged) POV problems. You haven't responded to 172's request for evidence. older≠wiser 14:48, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't agree whatsoever with any of that. However, if you think clarification that a certain position is POV rather than an objective, encyclopedic fact is a "weasel word", then perhaps we aught to simply delete the moralizing and stance taking within the article entirely Sam [Spade] 14:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- See my comments interspersed above. I think you are attempting to "neutralize" what you percieve as a biased POV without clearly articulating what any possible alternative might be. The essence of NPOV is not simply removing POV, but presenting relevant POVs in context. This doesn't really clarify anything, only makes for mushy, mealy-mouthed reading (not unlike those much disparaged high-school textbooks). older≠wiser 15:37, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Well than perhaps you can do better. Brilliant prose or no, the article must be NPOV. Of course this is a process, group editing and all, but we can't be taking sides and moralizing in the article, while still upholding the ideals of the project. Sam [Spade] 09:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What does the above have to do with providing evidence to back up your removal of factual content? 172 15:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Something about improving an article, rather than trying to win a debate, perhaps? Sam [Spade] 15:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I could not even debate you if I wanted to do so, given that you did not even bother to make a claim and support it with evidence. This conversation seems to be a dead end. 172 16:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you would like to join the discussion RE: article content, please do so. I don't come to the wiki in order to engage in personal antagonism. Sam [Spade] 16:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is not personally antagonistic to ask an editor for evidence backing up the removal of factual content. If you are not going to bother to do so, there can obviously be no discussion regarding article content. 172 16:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The discussion is above, scroll up. Sam [Spade] 16:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Recent edit
On my last edit, I didn't mean to revert the material concerning the American army and the Sioux. That was inadvertant, sorry. I did mean to edit the line about the Ku Klux Klan, for which I provided a citation. - Nat Krause 06:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, that clears everything up... Thanks for the edit. It was an improvement. 172 17:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
NPOV
The destructiveness of the Union invasion and defeat of the South, followed by exploitive economic policies in the defeated region after the war, caused lasting bitterness among Southerners toward the U.S. government. This failure of the Federal government to effectively reunite the country contributed to the government's failure for many decades to enforce the civil rights of the formerly enslaved African-Americans in the South.
- exploitive, caused, failure... to effectively reunite, contributed to, failure to enforce the civil rights... = POV.
- Sam [Spade] 21:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that history upsets you. But I'm not in the position to rewrite it for you. 172 01:17, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- While the Union invasion was certinally destructive and many of the following economic policies were exploitive, that paragraph is in no way a complete or accurate analysis of post-civil war North/South relations in the United States; and the language used has a palpable pro-Southern tilt, blaming everything on the Union's "destructiveness" and "exploitation" and the Federal government's "failure." These things happened, but they are not the whole story. Much more importantly, though, this paragraph should clearly not be the intro to the article; this is an article about U.S. history from 1865-1918, not just an article about North/South relations in that period. I would have no objection to the sentiments expressed if they were moved from the intro to the section on reconstruction and detailed more thoroughly.
- --Aquillion 07:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- These are good observations... When I was rewriting most this article a few months ago, the three parts that I unfortunately left incomplete were the intro, Reconstruction, and the origins of the First World War. (The paragraph quoted above isn't my work.) This left several much of the article, along with the intro, in need of considerable expansion. I hope to get around to this soon-- at least if someone doesn't beat me to it -- and split this into two articles (one on 1865-1898, the other on 1898-1918). So the issue ought to be completing an incomplete article, as opposed to challenging its neutrality. 172 07:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that history upsets you. But I'm not in the position to rewrite it for you. 172 01:17, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well whichever, personality conflict aside, we all seem to be on the same page about what needs to be done. The article is lcearly too long and broad in focus, and splitting it up and adding needed content would likely help rebalance things here. Sam [Spade] 14:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I could get this done in no time. But the page is protected, as you insist on removing important chunks of info without providing a single bit of evidence challenging the neutrality of content in question. If you'll stop deleting/reverting, I'll be able to complete this article. 172 08:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well whichever, personality conflict aside, we all seem to be on the same page about what needs to be done. The article is lcearly too long and broad in focus, and splitting it up and adding needed content would likely help rebalance things here. Sam [Spade] 14:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't quite see the basis of your argument - neither yours nor Sam's edits were very... controversial-seeming, and there was no need for you to revert... ugen64 00:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Sam Spade, I just want to point out that your revert of 172's revert to the original anon's edits was badly done for reasons other than POV/NPOV controversy. Clearly you must not have looked at the edits very well. They were full of bad and confusing grammar. I'm disappointed that you should have actually purposefully reverted into bad quality edits. If you disagreed with the way it was written, you should have rewritten it yourself. I'm for NPOV but not at the expense of article quality. Some of the anon's contributed text was even confusing. I would have reverted it (partially-- not the good edits) just for that. I urge you in the future to write rather than revert. DG 01:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have to agree that the neutrality of this article is deeply questionable. The aforementioned uses of wording - which occur throughout the article - are totally innappropriate to an encyclopedia article. This is meant to be a historical article, and yet it is written with distinct slants in most sections (for example, there is a subtle pro-Southern slant in the section about Reconstruction, and in the sections about labour relations one cannot help but notice the pro-labour viewpoint) and, what is worse in my opinion, the article is not written in a historical style. It is very difficult to describe what I mean by that - perhaps I can demonstrate with an example:
- "Unskilled labor (often child labor), with its repetitive and monotonous tasks, was quite alienating. Toilers coped with hazardous conditions, virtually no system of insurance against accidents, wage cuts, long hours, and unpredictable cycles of mass lay-offs and unemployment. Tensions between labor and management increased."
- Should be replaced with something more like:
- "However, relations between employers and workers in the flourishing new industries were often strained. Workers frequently experienced poor working conditions, long hours, relatively low pay and unpredictable employment cycles. Without recourse to the law to settle disputes over pay or working conditions, and with the suppression of unions common, resentment among workers towards their employers was common."
- Now, that isn't an enormous improvement - it doesn't have nearly enough detail, and could do with some examples of worker-employee conflicts and unsympathetic state laws - but it's a start. It also doesn't use ridiculously biased words like 'biased' and phrases with outrightly Marxist agendas such as 'alienation'. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a liberal, left-wing European who's all in favour of improved working conditions, but I am also a history student and an encyclopedia-Nazi. This is meant to be an authoritative, rich source of information, and this article just doesn't cut it. Substantial changes need to be made, and I'd suggest breaking it down into a set of mini-essays on each subject. Can I get some other opinions on this?
- Also, it is common practice for historical texts to use the phrasing 'some historians say' without providing sources when dealing with particularly contentious areas of historical debate. It would, of course, be much better to try and find a way to phrase such sentences without using that rather inelegant phrase - try simply stating all sides of the argument, or sticking to the facts rather than getting involved with the interpretations. Polocrunch
Recent changes
WehrWolf, I'm not sure exactly what part of my changes you found so objectionable. I can understand why you'd be upset, since I rewrote many things that you'd contributed to and directly undid a few of your minor changes; but I'd prefer it if you'd address the issues individually instead of reverting everything I did, collectively, all at once.
The introduction issue was addressed above; the old intro was clearly POV, and in case was certinally too specific. This is not just an article about the aftermath of the civil war.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the United States was trying to build a colonial empire. This is historical fact. As the article notes, that was what all newly industrialized nations of the times were attempting to do; many relative newcomers, including the United States, were challenging the Imperial powers of the age by trying to establish colonial empires of their own. At the time, in a pre-decolonized world, colonies were the unit of national power and the primary goal of every great nation. Therefore, there is nothing new or controversal in referring to the Monroe Doctorine, combined with US adventures in the Philippines and Puerto Rico, as the 'rise of U.S. Imperalism'; that was exactly the spirit in which they were intended.
The section of the article on the indigenous population contained, before I revised it, the phrase "This policy allowed more plundering of indigenous lands"; my revisions there were primarily intended to do away with that line, since its language seemed rather POV.
In the section on Reconstruction: You cannot say, outright, that carpetbaggers as a whole moved south to profit through graft and corruption. First, it's not true (some of them certainly did, but not all); more importantly, though, that phrasing is obviously POV. Saying that they were "widely accused of graft and corruption", as I did, is the NPOV way to say what you were trying to say.
WehrWolf says: OK for "widely accused" regarding carpetbaggers. But the introduction para on reconstruction is factual and accurate. Wehrwolf 14:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Samuel Gompers did not singlehandely redirect the American labor movement; there were obviously many other factors. Therefore it is logical to say that he 'helped turn' it, not just that he 'turned' it. Aquillion 22:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Other Perspectives
While I am glad this article is not underplaying imperialism, the rise of sweatshops, or the displacement of Native Americans, it is really underemphasizing many of the traditional elements of the history of the United States during this period. What about the rise of US technology and industry? The immigration boom? The growth of the US public education system? I have started adding some of this material, but we really should include some of these elements as well. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does this seem Keynesian to anyone else?
eRipley 02:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) As an adherent of the Austrian school of economics, this article seems POV in favor of Keynesian economics. I don't know if there is any way to address the history of America without resorting to a POV of some kind in economics. As a matter of fact, it may well be impossible to discuss economics in a true NPOV way, especially in a historical context.
- What specifically bothers you? And perhaps it would be better to take one or two key elements (creation of trusts, development of corporations) and explain them from multiple views. Basically, though, any economics would be good, until I added the industrialization section, this was all straight from Howard Zinn -- a good author with good points about who gains and who suffers, but not the only word in American History. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The discussion of trust and anti-trust seems to rely on the basic Keynesian approach. Recent work in Austrian theory suggests anti-trust is motivated by the jealous competitors who were unable to compete in a laissez-faire environment. Also missing from the history is the huge impact on basic prices the "robber-barons" ushered in. I turned to the Wikipedia for more info on this period only to find this a work in progress. :-) I don't know how much of the hard research has been completed, let alone fully analysed. eRipley 03:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't see it, write it. Remember, though, that anti-trust regulation, right or wrong, was a major motivator in US policy in this period, so it may not be too worthwhile writing a lot in this article. Perhaps you should include a reference to Alternate Economic Views of Trusts and write an article there, linking to it from this article. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Homestead Act and other western farming matters
are not discussed anywhere herein. I think they would either go here or in the prior history section of US covering the Civil War period. Perhaps someone with this information could write something on these subjects, as having a healthy argricultural base was a pre-existing condition for the rise of the US industrial economy.
Liberty Cabbage?
Out of idle curiosity i saw this
"Domestically, anything German, including language and culture, was shunned during the war (for example, sauerkraut was re-dubbed "liberty cabbage").
under the ww1 part I was wondering if that is correct
Citations continue to be needed
The basic issue with this article is that it violates central tenets of Wikipedia: verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.
Not one alleged fact in this article is sourced. Historiography is crucial for the credibility of this article. A brief bibliography does not substitute for sourcing within the article.
Wikipedia has standards. They are not being enforced here. This is not a whim. It is policy. This page will be flagged for the absence of specific citations. Citing sources will be a service to readers, especially student readers who will know that we enforce policy against sloppy research techniques. Skywriter 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article
From Rosenzweig's article: "The 1865 to 1918 entry only briefly alludes to the Spanish-American War but devotes five paragraphs to the Philippine war, an odd reversal of the general bias in history books, which tend to ignore the latter and lavish attention on the former. The essay also plagiarizes one sentence from another online source. [...] The sentence was lifted from the United States Information Agency’s (usia) online history textbook, available at http://odur.let.rug.nl/~ usa/H/index.htm".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Garbling history
Historical events tend to attract the attentions of "editors" of all stripes. I always know prior to opening an article on history that I will probably see hundreds of versions of the events in the article. This article is filled with mumbo-jumbo. GhostofSuperslum 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Civil service reform act
I've included the Civil service reform act of 1883 as it is surely an important even in US history. However, due to the structure of the article, I wasn't sure where to include it, and put in in "Progressive era" (where it talked about political corruption, bosses and all, of which the spoils system surely is related to, in some way or another). To prevent "garbling history", as our editor puts it above, the whole passage (if not more) would certainly benefit from a rewrite, giving it some coherence. A draft can be made through Wikipedia:Subpages if there's a volunteer. Tazmaniacs 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Nigger" Killing Business?
Not being very estute in the matters of racism, could some one please define this in context? MPA 13:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp-ctc-panama-canal-opens.jpg
Image:Stamp-ctc-panama-canal-opens.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Imperialism
Even read this article and its section on US imperialism. Nothing new here. Standard history. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Supposed image of Crazy Horse
Image:CrazyHorse.jpeg
This image, and others, have been argued over for a century. The people who he belongs to have repeatedly said that there is no image of Crazy Horse. This photo should be removed for VERIFIABILITY if not for the tackiness of displaying it. There are endless PD verifiable photos that don't need the words 'possibly the man in the above photo' underneath.
It certainly doesn't belong in an article of major importance ... and it's an example of shabby scholarship, at best, to suggest that his own people are wrong. Twang (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)