Talk:Manifest destiny/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moving Forward

I have some stuff in the wings that will hopefully inject a bit of enthusiasm into getting this article from where it is now to something much better. Much, much better. I can be horrible about proofreading, and Wikipedia's eccentric (creative?) reference format can take some getting used to. Anyhow, point being, let's use this new section to comment and improve any changes that are made beginning... Now. HappyHippo69 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Greene 2006? 2007? some other year?

There is one orphan havard reference in the article, Greene 2006; it's tagged as such. It was added in this August 2012 edit by an editor who hasn't been active lately. I'm guessing that it probably was meant to refer to the 2007 edition of Laurence Greene (2007), The Filibuster: The Career of William Walker, Lightning Source Incorporated, ISBN 978-1-4325-1515-7. That book is not previewable online, though, and I have no access to a dead tree copy. Also, the pp=1-50 page range in the cite seems very broad considering the narrowly focused assertion being supported. Could someone please check this, add the missing full citation, and do whatever related cleanup is needed? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

'The unity of the definitions ended at "expansion, prearranged by Heaven"'

I take issue with this statement. It effectively asserts that all supporters of MD were "unified" in their belief of supernatural justification for the doctrine. Secular supporters of MD did exist. The prior idea, of "building a new heaven" is justified, in the metaphorical (not necessarily Christian) sense of the word. I could split the difference and say "The unity of the definitions ended at expansion based on American ideals", or something similar. I just think the assertion that MD was uniquely based on religious beliefs cannot be justified. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nyxtia (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

good point -- I fixed it. Many--perhaps most-- religious leaders probably opposed Manifest Destiny (because they were Whigs or anti-slavery). The RS do not mention any prominent religious leaders who spoke out for Manifest Destiny. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Origin

I did not notice the origin of the term in this article. I apologize if this topic is unnecessary as I did not read the whole article, but I would think that the origin of the phrase would be in the introduction to the article or at least in an "origin" section. I believe the origin of the phrase is from "New York Morning News" from an 1845 article. Don't have the time to check on the specifics, but if this is not included and this talk topic is not superfluous, please someone correct it.Dougjaso (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)dougjaso

You are quite correct about where it originated. However,the origin of the phrase is discussed partway through the context section towards the beginning of the article.Rwenonah (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Democrats in the first sentence

I know that Democrats used the concept of manifest destiny in their political arguments, but I think it is overstating the case to have the following beginning of the article:

• In the United States in the 19th century, manifest destiny was the widely held belief among Democrats..."

The belief in manifest destiny was held by larger group of white people than just Democrats. It is more of a racial thing than just a one party's political leverage. Here's what the sources say:

• "Manifest Destiny represented nationalistic pride in the United States and the belief that it was God's chosen land. Moreover, many white Americans believed that their ethnicity, the Protestant religion, and the republican system of government made them superior to every other people." Mexico And The United States, page 486, by Lee Stacy.
  • This book argues that James Monroe initiated the first active embodiment of manifest destiny with his Monroe Doctrine, prior to John O'Sullivan naming the concept. James Monroe was neither Democrat nor Whig.
• Frederick and Lois Merk's Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation discusses the beginning of expansionist thought as starting with James Monroe. Pages 9 through 18.
• Shane Mountjoy's Manifest Destiny: Westward Expansion, page 13, discusses how manifest destiny "encompassed several beliefs. These were expansionism, nationalism, American exceptionalism, and, in some cases, the idea of racial superiority." Mountjoy quotes Ernest Lee Tuveson who says that manifest destiny embodies "a vast complex of ideas, policies, and actions." Tuveson says these strains "do not come from one source."
• Manifest Destiny and Mexican-American War: Shmoop US History Guide, page 28. Shmoop points out that presidential candidate and explorer John C. Fremont was an expansionist and a believer in manifest destiny, and he was a Republican. On page 6 Shmoop says that John O'Sullivan was a member of the radical Locofoco faction of the Democratic Party. Shmoop says the concept of manifest destiny predates the Democratic Party, that it was present in Thomas Jefferson's vision of "Empire of Liberty".
• Bret E. Carroll's American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia, page 281, says that manifest destiny came from the Puritans, that it "influenced how Anglo-Saxon men saw themselves, their society, and their nation." More than just Democrats and Democratic Party politics were involved in the beginning. Carroll says that there were many men who "opposed the bravado" of manifest destiny, and that it "nearly split the nation apart" by polarizing men in the 1850s.
• Reginald Horsman's Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism posits that English racial beliefs informed American racial beliefs that the notional Anglo-Saxon race (not really a race but the collection of Caucasian Anglo/Saxon/Celtic/Nordic/Norman peoples found in England) should expand globally and bear the white man's burden of "civilizing" the other races. Horsman casts manifest destiny in racial terms; he shows that its adherents came from all walks of life. Certainly he says that the Free-Soilers and other abolitionist parties were not racist, that there were white men who believed in racial equality, but they were few. The majority of white American men felt that their race was superior. Economic expansionism—an element of manifest destiny—gained a wide variety of adherents, including businessmen from all political parties. Presley Ewing said he would be a Young American (a radical Democrat) if he were not a Whig because he believed in the religious aspect of manifest destiny: he thought that Christianity should expand westward "with the march of civilization".
• Rodney P. Carlisle and J. Geoffrey Golson write in Manifest Destiny and the Expansion of America that manifest destiny "dominated American culture" in the 1820s, with most men interested in the matter.

It seems clear to me that we must tell the reader that manifest destiny was a major political tool used by the Democratic Party, but before that happened the concept was embraced by almost all white American men. In other words, I do not believe that we should put "Democrats" in the first sentence. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

the point is that when people became Whigs or Democrats (about 1830-34) they took sides on expansion. The Whigs were opposed to expansion and Manifest Destiny, the Democrats were all in favor. No one actually says "the concept was embraced by almost all white American men" Did Washington support it? no he did not; Hamilton? no; Federalists (no--they opposed Louisiana Purchase); Clay-no; Webster-no; Randolph--no; Harrison-no; Calhoun-no; Taylor--no; Horace Greeley--no; Lincoln - no. Businessmen??? I can't think of any who spoke out for it (90+% were Whigs and opposed Manifest Destiny). Merk (p 210) says "In 1846-8 the South had shown only a limited enthusiasm forManifest Destiny." ... "dominated American culture" well yes, the Democrats DID win in 1844 and put ManDest in practice (as in Oregon, Texas etc). Bottom line: party split was very sharp on the issue. The reason I think is that Man-Dest was the opposite of modernization, which Whigs promoted heavily. As for the Puritans, Monroe etc they had small fragments of the idea, but the genuine article, historians agree, became a force from about 1843-46 [Merk p 41] Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your argument here ignores the earlier roots of manifest destiny, the earlier proponents of expansion who were not Democrats. Your argument is an excellent one for the idea that the Democratic Party use of the concept and the term should be prominently explained in the article body and of course the lead section, but I don't think you have made any progress in defending the absolutism inherent in Wikipedia telling the reader that Democrats—only Democrats—believed in white racial superiority, American superiority, westward expansionism, economic expansionism, Christian missionary expansion, Christian millenialism, etc. Ernest Lee Tuveson mentions Increase Mather who said America was "our Israel". Tuveson said that if any moment can be shown to have been the start of American millenialist feelings it would be 1771 when young Timothy Dwight IV wrote his poem, "America", which presented a vision of expansion and glory, establishing a national myth. Professor Amy S. Greenberg says that "even in the early years of the republic, many Americans accepted continental expansion as both natural and inevitable."[1] Howard Zinn points to Boston preacher Theodore Parker who railed against the expansionist Democrat plan for war against Mexico even while firmly believing that White expansionism ("the steady advance of a superior race") must eventually overtake the "wretched" Mexican race.[2] Thus, Parker was a believer in manifest destiny while being opposed to Democrat plans based on manifest destiny. You have ignored the non-Democrats I mentioned previously, each of which dissolves the basis for an absolute statement of the sort you prefer. You have ignored Tuveson saying that the various elements of manifest destiny do not "come from any one source." Manifest Destiny did not emerge fully grown from the thigh of the Democratic Party; the unnamed concept existed for decades prior to it being used as a political tool. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

the issue is Manifest Destiny, not the many other beliefs that people held. It was a political issue and the political lines were pretty sharp. As for expansionist ideas, look at the battle over the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, in which Federalists were largely opposed to this expansion. You need to read up on the Whigs. Rjensen (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny is many beliefs rolled up into one. It is not simply a Democratic Party talking point from the 1840s. You need to release this article from ownership impulses and instead let the reliable sources define it. You added "Democrats" to the lead section with this change four weeks ago and I disagree with it strongly as an overstatement.

Previous versions of this article vary widely but none of them state flatly that the concept was only from the Democratic Party. Here's what it looked like in April 2004 a short time after its creation: "Manifest Destiny, meaning "obvious or undeniable fate" was a belief originally held by Democratic Republicans, specifically Warhawks during the presidency of James Madison, that stated the United States was divine and its mission was to spread democracy, the only "fair" practice of government, to the west." This version traces the concept back to Madison, back to the combination party which later split into Democrats and Republicans. Two years later, this version let go of the Madison origins and said instead that the concept "always a general notion rather than a specific policy". It goes on to say in the third paragraph that the phrase itself was first used by Jacksonian Democrats. Later it emphasizes that Republicans picked up the concept in the 1890s. This is the kind of treatment that I picture being best for our article. Tell the reader that the concept is a collection of many popular beliefs widely held by white American men, then move forward to the 1840s and describe the political polarization revolving around expansionism and slavery, and the phrase's first publication. Then continue with the use of the concept post-Civil War. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

the roots of its multiple strands go back centuries--the concept says Merk became important only in the mid 1840s. Everyone agrees that expansion was a party issue with the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians on one side and the Federalists and Whigs opposed. It is true that many people held to Man-Dest-- but they were nearly all Jeffersonians and Jacksonian Democrats (they comprised a narrow majority, winning the White House in 1844 by a mere 1% & losing by 5% in 1848)). The notion that large majorities believed in expansion or Man-Dest is false. Rjensen (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing the issue but you are not answering the reliable sources I have shown which contradict your viewpoint. You will need to show very solid proof in reliable sources if you want to have an absolute statement in the first sentence. Tuveson says manifest destiny did not come from one source but you have written it as such. Greenberg casts the concept as being held by "many Americans", not as solely a Democratic Party plank. Carlisle and Golson say that manifest destiny was a dominant concept in America in the 1820s before the Democratic Party formed. Binksternet (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merk is the key source. He says many old threads came together quickly in the mid 1840s , were given a name in 1845, and became a major political issue esp in 1846 debates on war. The expansion theme was indeed a key position for Jeffersonian Democrats as well as Jacksonian Democrats. Thwey had vocal opponents (who lost as in Louisiana Purchase debate) The majority for Manifest Destiny in 1844 was 49% to 48%. Suggesting everyone believed in it is false -- most rich men, businessmen, bankers, industrialists and planters were Whigs & opposed it, but they were outvoted by poor farmers. Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not notice the origin of the term in this article. I apologize if this topic is unnecessary as I did not read the whole article, but I would think that the origin of the phrase would be in the introduction to the article or at least in an "origin" section. I believe the origin of the phrase is from "New York Morning News" from an 1845 article. Don't have the time to check on the specifics, but if this is not included and this talk topic is not superfluous, please someone correct it.Dougjaso (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)dougjaso

were there people outside of the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian Democratic Party tradition who supported Manifest Destiny? very few indeed and none have been identified. The term is most important in the 1840s when the Dem-Whig rivalry was most intense. The precursor ideas of Manifest Destiny were NOT called anything like "Manifest Destiny", and the great majority of people who promoted the earlier versions were also promoting early versions of the Dem party--such as Monroe, who was selected for president by the Dem-Rep party caucus in 1816 when he defeated the Federalisrs. Rjensen (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lower-caseism re title

Nearly everything I've seen in print or press about this, other than in Wikipedia, is "Manifest Destiny"........obsessive lower-caseism establishing a new standard of non-capitalization of the second word of a common proper/quasi-proper name/term is contrary to WP:COMMONAME and just doesn't look right; if MOS calls for this, MOS is wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Skookum1. The title needs changing. Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's the opposite; many publications have been on an over-capitalization trend in recent decades, as evidenced here, but WP has decided to not go that way, per MOS:CAPS. Since lower case is very common in the literature, it can't be argued that caps are "necessary" here, or that "manifest destiny" is a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia has been going off half-cocked with mis-application of the lower-case "rule", I have to correct lots of stuff all the time, e.g. "Fraser river"......so WP:MOS trumps WP:MOSFOLLOW huh? So the hundreds of publications which use fully-capped "Manifest Destiny" are irrelevant to you, and what Wikipedia's MOS cabal decides is what the world should see??Skookum1 (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, there are always so many errors to correct. Thanks for working on that. But yes, we do have our own style, and it's best to stay consistent with it. Surely you wouldn't say that the hundreds of publications which use lowercase "manifest destiny" are irrelevant to you, and what you decide is what the world should see, would you? Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so how many cites say "Manifest Destiny" and how many use "manifest destiny"?? For ones FROM THE PERIOD I'll wager they're all-caps as it was used as a proper name for a particular agenda. What other "destiny" articles are there that indicate it's a generic use such that lower-case "destiny" has some precedent? or would Oregon country or Oregon treaty be fine with you (the Oregon Treaty is always published like that, even though its proper name is the Treaty of Washington....Skookum1 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I would take that wager, but it wouldn't be fair since I already linked the evidence that you're wrong. Historically, it was seldom capitalized. As the article points out, "The phrase itself meant many different things to many different people." How could that be a proper name? Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To me that's weasel wording (especially that "some" part) and the main meaning is obvious in the context of being an American expansionist agenda and not used by anyone else except when referring to American policy/ambitions.Skookum1 (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the main meaning is obvious in the context of being an American expansionist agenda and not used by anyone else except when referring to American policy/ambitions. But that's no reason to capitalize it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Manifest destiny" can now be found at Talk:Manifest destiny/Old history. Graham87 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit: War of 1812 section, Albert Gallatin

Albert Gallatin should not be cited as a "leading anthropologist" in this section. He was mainly a US diplomat and statesman, especially in his roll negotiating the Treaty of Ghent. Varro Reatinus (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

he was a founder of American anthropology and a leading authority on Indians--a relevant skill re the article. Rjensen (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. On a sidenote, someone seems hellbent on having the US wanting to annex Cananda. Varro Reatinus (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's me! I would list the historians "hellbent" on the same thing, but my fingers would get tired. Rwenonah (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've talked to Ontario history teachers about this issue--seems that the annexation thing was taught in Ontario high schools in the old days but Canadian historians today no longer support that British Imperial nationalism/anti-Americanism. French Canadian students escaped the indoctrination. Rjensen (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ontario history teachers seem like a great Wikipedia source to me. I suppose the opinions of high school teachers now supplant trained historians' published books on the subject? And while we're discussing indoctrination, I could name revisionist history curriculums in twenty countries off the top of my head, including the U.S, France, Britain and Japan. Rwenonah (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"I suppose the opinions of high school teachers now supplant trained historians' published books" well no, not if I can help it. Unfortunately many of our editors learned their history in high school and are repeating what they heard (one clue is they do not cite recent scholarship the way university-trained historians know how to do). Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization?

I noticed the title of the page is "Manifest destiny" but most of the content refers to it as "Manifest Destiny" - notice the D. Which is correct? Based on the content, I'd suggest an edit to the title.

oops - missed the discussion above - never mind.

A majority--i'd say 3/4 of the historians who write about it capitalize both words in the body of their text--they see it as a concept. For example, The Irony of Manifest Destiny by William Pfaff - 2010; Merk and Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History (1963); Manifest Destiny and the Expansion of America by Rodney P. Carlisle, J. Geoffrey Golson - 2007; Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny (2009); Manifest Destiny: Westward Expansion by Shane Mountjoy - 2009, etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Manifest Destiny to promote and defend democracy", seriously?

"The legacy is a complex one. The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Thomas Jefferson and his "Empire of Liberty", and by Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, continues to have an influence on American political ideology."

The idea that manifest destiny had anything to do with promoting democracy is nothing more than an opinion which could be likened to saying that "slavery helped elevate the average African". I'm sure I could find a source to support this absurd example.

Thomas Jefferson warned against foreign entanglements. "President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

George Bush launched a lie-based pre-emptive war...

The entire paragraph is a contradiction filled opinion...

It should be deleted.

Disestablishmentarianism 16:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with your comparison (not that it matters), but given the source is from 1996, I would say that George Bush should be removed from this paragraph, does the source really mention Bush at all? Truly does look like this paragraph needs improvement. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson -- the #1 exponent of expansion in his era--talked about an Empire of Liberty and that idea undepins a lot of 20c-21st c US foreign policy esp in the Middle East. There are many discussions in the scholarly literature-- see for example Charles Philippe David and David Grondin (2006). Hegemony Or Empire?: The Redefinition of Us Power Under George W. Bush. Ashgate. pp. 129–30. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when do we spell democracy O-I-L? Rwenonah (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Page is no longer protected. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Stanley reference

I question the fact that the sentence I added on Stanley's opinions of American motives on the War of 1812 has been removed ( apparently he's "not a reliable source). Since I disagree with that assessment, I suggest anyone who disagrees with the addition explain their objections so we can work it out.Rwenonah (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of your addition, here, seems to flout WP:DUE. Your addition had said, "However, Canadian historian George F. G. Stanley [note: wikilink added] tells us that annexation was the main American goal, and that the Indian raids were merely irritations.", citing George F. G. Stanley, 1983, pg. 32 . A citation of the book containing the text of what Stanley tells us is, of course, sufficient to support an assertion that Stanley told us that. A fuller citation would be Stanley, George Francis Gillman (1983). The War of 1812: Land Operations. Macmillan of Canada in collaboration with the National Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-7715-9859-3. The book isn't previewable online, so I have not been able to confirm that page number 32 there does tell us what you assert that it does. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if the citation was insufficient. I copied/pasted it and may not have been adequately careful to properly cite my edition. I would hope it could be restored in modified form. I also assure you that the book does say said sentence where I said it does. Rwenonah (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary for the edit by User:Rjensen which removed it said, "Reliable Secondary source on American diplomacy or politics--he tossed in a sentence without sources". The expunged text, however, seems consistent re feelings about annexation by some American players described in the paragraph where it would have appeared and with other supporting sources cited there. This expungement still looks to me like if flouts WP:DUE. Perhaps Rjensen can explain further here (I'll leave a note on his talk page) and perhaps a bit of rewording or clarification can lead to consensus about this. Also, perhaps other interested editors (which I am not in re US/Canada aspects of this article) can contribute their thoughts. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanley is a distinguished historian of the Canadian army. he has never pretended to be a scholar of American diplomacy or politics and has written only scattered sentences on these topics-- one of which was chosen for this article. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources on American diplomacy and politics, but Stanley's book is not one of them. Rjensen (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanley's book is a reliable source in every possible way. Just because his book did not focus specifically on " American politics" does not preclude its use in the article. Your opinion that his book is not a reliable secondary source is not sufficient justification for what was, after all, the undiscussed deletion of a referenced sentence - something we're not supposed to do.Rwenonah (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson's "presence"

"To some 19th‑century Americans his presence rested upon the "whole territory" from the valleys of Oregon to the frontier of the Rio Grande/" This obscure sentence is supported by a citation from a biography of Jackson. But what does it mean?--Wetman (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

sharp eye. I checked and it's not in the book so I dropped it. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Bible vs. school book

This edit caught my eye. It reverted a pending edit which sought to change "school book" in the caption to "bible", citing http://picturinghistory.gc.cuny.edu/item.php?item_id=180 in the edit summary. I've cited that source in the caption itself in this edit. I do note that the cited source does not actually say "school book". It says, "In her right hand she carries a book—common school—the emblem of education and the testimonial of our national enlightenment, ...", quoting George Crofutt (who had commissioned the painting). A closer look at the painting in a source which I have not cited shows the book's cover to be titled "School Book". Some other sources (e.g., http://aras.org/sites/default/files/docs/00043AmericanProgress.pdf) say "schoolbook". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Wtmitchell. This source also calls it a school book. Not sure where the IP editor was getting "bible" from. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Question to solve

Can this article solve the following question...

How were the actions of the outsiders examples of their belief in Manifest Destiny?

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thesis statement is incorrect

Manifest Destiny is philosophical belief in and of itself that man can manifest his own destiny by his own free will to choose his best circumstance rather than that his circumstance is at the whim of the destiny of pre-determined fate. People may have expanded westward due to their belief in manifest destiny, but to declare it was manifest destiny itself rather than manifest destiny demonstrated is incorrect. 23.240.200.20 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a novel theory-- you might have trouble finding a reliable source that supports it. Rjensen (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency in dates?

From the article: "Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan coined the term Manifest Destiny in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset, which was a rhetorical tone.[5] It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with the United Kingdom. But Manifest Destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.[6]"

If the term was coined in 1845, how did John Quincy Adams repudiate Manifest Destiny in 1843? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Manifest destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150509193436/http://www.sociologyindex.com/continental.htm to http://www.sociologyindex.com/continental.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

The article is titled in lowercase, but "Manifest Destiny" is capitalized in the article itself. Which should it be? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DOCTCAPS suggests capitalization only when referring to a "specific incident or period." I suppose one could argue either way; it is an idea not derived from a proper name but may also refer to a specific period. Qzd (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Whichever way it goes, the article is now in a state of inconsistency. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Book in Columbia's hand and unconstructive reverts

A higher quality photo of John Gast's painting shows that the book in Columbia's hand is a school book, not a Bible; the words "SCHOOL BOOK" is clearly visible in the painting. User:H.dryad, could you explain to me why you are reverting my edits? It's generally bad Wikipedia etiquette to undo edits (save for reverting blatant vandalism) without an explanation. 207.235.52.106 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

All you need to do is to provide a source from a book, journal or website stating this. All new entries to this article must be sourced. Let me know if you need help formatting the citation. Once the citation is included, your edit will remain. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs) 19:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

David in DC already appears to have settled the matter. Favonian (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. I did find a reference if it is needed. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Sorry, I'm still new to Wikipedia.207.235.52.106 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! Hama Dryad (talk · contribs) 20:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"American People" Seems An Odd Choice of Words

I'm not going to take part in any edit war, and indeed I'm not going to change a word of this article as I find it.

Perhaps to show future readers of Wikipedia that we were not all nuts in the 21st century, I'm just saying I would have thought "European settlers" would have been a better term than "American people" here and there.

There are to this day several, perhaps many, American peoples, and the original white settlers of today's United States only make up two or three of them. I don't know what the slaves of Monroe's day thought about the manifest destiny of the United States, or about the doctrine Manifest Destiny. Could the author of the article perhaps add a note on this? They were, after all, a substantial percentage of the population. Even when multiplied by 3/5.

Just to forestall silly American trumpeters, I've been on record for correct use of the term "politically correct" back to its introduction to ironic use in America in 1966. No, I am not indulging in political correctness here. I am calling out an egregious example of American academic solipsism.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Manifest destiny → Manifest Destiny – Currently the text of the article and the title of the article are inconsistent in terms of capitalization. The article text has used "Manifest Destiny" throughout for at least three years, apparently without controversy. The article should be retitled to match this use. (Alternately, if there is no consensus for this move, the text should altered to use "manifest destiny" throughout.) Deli nk (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. the quotes show that RS heavily prefer the caps: Manifest Destiny. according to google search of university press books Rjensen (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – See previous discussion at Talk:Manifest_destiny/Archive_2#Lower-caseism_re_title. This is not a proper name; not even close to consistently capitalized in sources. We should fix the article instead, to be more in line with MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCCAPS – Not a proper name, not consistently capitalised in RS. As such, downcase RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support a particular manifest destiny, referred to as the "Manifest Destiny" of the United States, as opposed to other supposed manifest destinies of other countries and peoples, like Lebensraum, or of the Church, or Rome, or the Caliphate, etc ; we should have a conceptual article for the generic concept, instead of the specific version found in the United States, here. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I have never heard "manifest destiny" used outside the American context, and the present article contains no content on such a usage. Do you have evidence that such a usage exists, or are you merely creating one out of thin air by associating similar but unrelated ideologies with the term "manifest destiny"? RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen it used for Lebensraum and Nazism before, such as

• The East was the Nazi Manifest Destiny. In Hitler’s view, “in the East a similar process will repeat itself for a second time as in the conquest of America.” As Hitler imagined the future, Germany would deal with the Slavs much as the North Americans had dealt with the Indians. The Volga River in Russia, he once proclaimed, will be Germany’s Mississippi. [3]
• A grand road connected the old city of Nuremberg with the Nazi rallying grounds. Everything, in fact, was built on a grand, imposing scale in order to emphasise the significance of the Fuehrer, the Nazi leadership and the “manifest destiny” of the superpower of the day. [4]
• Nazism was not inevitable; the authors distance themselves from any deterministic arguments (e.g., Hitler as Germany's manifest destiny). [5]

And for other topics

• However, Israel occupies Palestine by right, Isaac was the son of promise, and has yet to fulfill its manifest destiny. Indeed, much of the constant conflict is the result of Israel's failure to fulfill its Divinely appointed manifest destiny. The specific dimensions of the Promised Land have varied in relation to Israel’s obedience to God but the Gaza strip and the West Bank fall within territory that is indisputably Israeli. The territory occupied during the time of King David and King Solomon represents, more or less, Israel's proper boundaries as described in the book of Numbers, chapter 34. [6]

So yes, there are other uses -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In each case, those are direct references to the American concept, not independent "manifest destinies" as you claimed. If anything, your sources prove that "manifest destiny" is not a proper name, but a general description or theory that should not be capitalised per MOS:DOCTCAPS. RGloucester — ☎ 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCCAPS.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per RJensen's comment (which is kind of lost tucked under the nom): "Agree. the quotes show that RS heavily prefer the caps: Manifest Destiny. according to google search of university press books", per the past talk-page discussion linked in Dicklyon's comment and this from the same page. Upper-case "Destiny" remains the common name, and to label a major concept as a proper name, which this seems to be, occurs elsewhere throughout history and Wikipedia. Randy Kryn 15:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In that particular search of "university press" books, I see an average of 4 lower and 6 upper case per page of 10 hits, over the first 5 pages. Even for this selected set of refs, the 60% caps does not meet the usual threshold of MOS:CAPS: "consistently capitalized in sources". If it was 75% as the the discussion you linked claimed, then maybe; but not 60%. Looking at all English books n-grams, we see that the usage including titles and headings has only recently reached 60%. It is not WP's style to follow such trends in capitalization for topic emphasis, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen's data, and even your 60% figure, should easily hoist that "d" into a "D". Manifest Destiny gave Americans a goal, a mindset, which expanded that nation to the detriment of Mexico, Spain, and the Native American Indians. That concept became a major concept in the history of the continent, and for it to be recognized here as just another "destiny" seems anti-encyclopedic. Accuracy, even if it as low as 60 percent (low?), gives a boost to hoisting that "D". Randy Kryn 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manifest destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140615021554/http://picturinghistory.gc.cuny.edu/item.php?item_id=180 to http://picturinghistory.gc.cuny.edu/item.php?item_id=180
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018004944/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1892 to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1892

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

why is this in the lede?

The last paragraph of the lede sound like it was accidentily pasted from the article on the declaration of independence:

The day before finalizing the wording of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail "I am apt to believe that [Independence Day] will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

Should this be removed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed it and moved to Declaration of Independence article.--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manifest destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105071332/http://americanart.si.edu/t2go/1lw/1931.6.1.html to http://americanart.si.edu/t2go/1lw/1931.6.1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manifest destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041016015009/http://www.newhumanist.com/md4.html to http://www.newhumanist.com/md4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Prelude discussion to move review

Non-admin closer Music1201 closed this in under a minute, which goes directly against several closing instructions which ask closers to study the data presented, not just count "votes". To not move such a page about a nation-expanding historical concept from just another "destiny" (?) to it's seemingly rightfully proper name in under a minute, which includes labeling the close, seems to call this close into question. I've asked Rjensen to comment, and maybe this move can be reconsidered or reopened here. I'm surprised none of us, myself included, thought of notifying various Wikipedia history and American history projects about this move, which probably should be policy on such major move requests. It's hard even typing Manifest destiny without capitalizing the "D". Some moves take hours, days, or even weeks of study and contemplation. This was decided in under a minute. Assuming good faith, either a fast reader, researcher, and observer, or NZT. Wikipedia seems almost alone in Search engine results, which should be a major component of a close. Is a Move review the best way to go on this? Randy Kryn 13:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone has edited the page so 'manifest destiny' is now totally uncapitalized, which makes Wikipedia that much more of an outlier on this and, in a personal opinion, makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid. This could be a yuck and a beer bet at historian conventions. Nah, this is one we have to get right and capitalize it. Randy Kryn 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That was me, as I'm sure you know. Note that the RM proposal above complained that "Currently the text of the article and the title of the article are inconsistent in terms of capitalization." This was worth fixing. It also claimed that "The article text has used 'Manifest Destiny' throughout for at least three years, apparently without controversy." That's not true. The majority of the uses in the article were lowercase already. Making it more consistent was not hard (if I count right, I lowercased 9 of 121 occurrences in the article). I left the ones that in quotes and titles capitalized, of course (but I haven't verified all the quotes, so there may be more to be done). Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Knew it was you, wasn't going to toss your name around. Especially on this, which is, come on, you have to agree on some of these, an error on several levels. But it's been an error right from the start of the article's creation (I followed it for awhile, was born as and was a lower-case title). As Mr. Trump would say, sad, so sad. James Polk is turning over in his grave, but I guess he has been since 2002 so he's used to it, it's his 'chan de geste destiny'. Randy Kryn 18:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree why? Dicklyon (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to of course, but it seems so obvious. Kind of like downcasing new deal or Reagan doctrine. Randy Kryn 19:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a whole different deal. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

lol, put up the RMs and I'll pop the popcorn. 2008, back in the day. Randy Kryn 19:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I closed the discussion after analyzing the votes. There is a clear disagreement and the discussion was not leaning toward either "support" nor "oppose." I could not find a relevent policy that would support the move. If you disagree you can just reopen it, since everyone seems to be having a disagreement. — Music1201 ^talk 20:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Music1201. You looked at this for less than a minute and then closed it. Not to overly criticize, for another major closer, at Montgomery bus boycott, read, researched, analyzed, and looked at the sources (well, maybe not) in five minutes. People do a lot of work and analysis during these discussions, every sentence, every point counts, and it's not a matter of counting but of looking and reading. The search engine results alone should have shown that just about everyone capitalizes this. Again, it's not your mistake, the page was created with 'destiny' in lower-case and was that way for years, maybe always. Likely these major RM's should include pings and notices to Wikipedia project groups, such as History and American history. This one seems important enough to discuss further, and hopefully this discussion will make you a better and slower closer. Randy Kryn 23:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I had to revert another close by this editor. Music1201 has been registered on Wikipedia for less than a month which should automatically preclude him from closing move discussions, since non-admin closes should only be carried out by experienced editors. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How did that work out for you, Betty? You reverted a close on a discussion where you supported a move, and the new closer closed it as "not moved" instead of "no consensus". It looks to me like Music1201 has been pretty reasonable in recognizing easy no-consensus cases. Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Except the Girls Gone Wild discussion was not closed as "no consensus", so in this case Music1201's close was misjudged. The closer closed the discussion specifically on the grounds that he found the nominating rational invalid which is fundamentally different to declaring that there is no consensus between the competing arguments. So no, based on that close I don't think he does have a good track record in recognizing a "no consensus" case, and editors are right to have concerns about his inexperience. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Randy, your "under a minute" should be "under two minutes" per the timestamps of his edits. But who's counting? Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The page Betty is talking about was closed at 23:50 and this one at 23:51, so I guess if you benefit-of-doubt stretch it into the start and end of those two minutes that works. More than enough time to decide the fate of manifest destiny. Randy Kryn 20:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And as I've told you a million times, please don't exaggerate. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Professor Jensen's search and comment alone should be enough to support the move. In any event, I have seen both words of this term capitalized whenever I have come across it (except in a few quotations, such as O'Sullivan's original words in 1845, where both words are in small case). Some examples: Book title: Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: Fruits of Manifest Destiny: 1847–1852. Vol. I. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947. SBN 684-10423-7; Book title: Woodworth, Steven E. Manifest Destinies: America's Westward Expansion and the Road to the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. ISBN 978-0-307-26524-1; Pages 48, 51, 104, 107: McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford History of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0-19-503863-7 - a few other uses with both small letters; Page 31: Klein, Maury. Days of Defiance: Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997. ISBN 978-0-679-44747-4; Pages 92, 93, 108, 109: Wagner, Margaret E., Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, Inc., 2009 edition. ISBN 978-1-4391-4884-6. First Published 2002; Pages 258, 323, 345, 349: Long, Jeff. Duel of Eagles: The Mexican and U.S. Fight for the Alamo. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1990. ISBN 978-0-688-07252-0; Pages 73, 166, 326: Borneman, Walter R. Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America. New York: Random House, 2008. ISBN 978-1-4000-6560-8; Pages 42, 196, 210: Eisenhower, John S. D. So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-8061-3279-2. Originally published New York: Random House, 1989; Pages 128, 345, 452: Merry, Robert W. A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, The Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7432-9743-1; and Pages 6, 182: Potter, David M. completed and edited by Don E. Fehrenbacher The Impending Crisis: America Before the Civil War, 1848 – 1861. New York: Harper Perennial, reprint 2011. First published New York, Harper Colophon, 1976. ISBN 978-0-06-131929-7. I do own all of these books and I did check every page cited. Wikipedia's title goes back to a misinterpretation of Jimmy Wales original capitalization principal that only the first word of a title should be capitalized, with a few exceptions. The overwhelming use of this phrase with both words capitalized fits the exceptions. The current title is out of step with reliable sources and academic uses. It doesn't even look right. If I had seen this request for comment before it had closed, I obviously would have favored the move to a title with both words capitalized. Donner60 (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

{{subst:Requested move|Manifest Destiny=Maybe time to look at this again, coming up on a year. Opening this after reading the links and references for this descriptor sentence on the page: "Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan is generally credited with coining the term manifest destiny in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset, which was a rhetorical tone;[6] however, the unsigned editorial titled "Annexation" in which it first appeared was arguably written by journalist and annexation advocate Jane Cazneau."[7], and seeing that the sources upper-case the term. I thought it was better to come here instead of correcting the above sentence which should capitalize the now incorrectly quoted lower-casing. Also on the convincing logic and sourced material from upper-case supporters and Donner60's post above. After a year these may have added further convincing support for a move to upper-case.}}

I fully concur with User:Donner60 and User:Randy Kryn that the correct title is "Manifest Destiny," as indicated by the sources cited. I took a course on the American frontier while majoring in history as an undergraduate. The term is always capitalized in that fashion by historians. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove "Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs)"

There's no citation CheersBaldr The Brave (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

there is a citation to Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America 1815–1848, (2007) pp. 705–06. In general the lede does not require cites except for quotes. Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The citation doesn't mention Lincoln or Grant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldr The Brave (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln and Grant are both covered in the main text, of which the lede is a summary. Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There are enough citations to support that it "was a contested concept". There are not enough citations to support that "historians have emphasized". There is exactly one citation of this, and it is not a historiographical citation that could represent the historical discourse. It is exactly one citation of one historian discussing that it was contested. There need to be more citations of the wider historical discourse. The whole section also overemphasizes this point and does not mention that in fact the territorial expansion aspect of manifest destiny did factually come to pass and therefore while not a universal desire did become the consensus policy that was literally enacted. The intro needs some good NPOV work. Call me FW August (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

People want more citations. Okay here is standard book for graduate students on the historiography of expansionism: "While it is clear that many Americans that time believed in something like the concept of 'Manifest Destiny'... It is equally clear that not all Americans shared this belief.... Every instance of territorial expansion was opposed by some segment of the American public." from Mark Joy (2014). American Expansionism, 1783-1860: A Manifest Destiny?. Routledge. p. 83. -- Note that "?" In the title. On page 84 Joy cites historians Robert Hine, John Mack Faragher, and Frederick Mark as explaining that manifest destiny was a contested concept. Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"Numerous historians have taken account of the contestations that surrounded western expansion" sums it up recently--Andrew C. Isenberg, and Thomas Richards Jr., "Alternative Wests" Pacific Historical Review. Feb 2017, Vol. 86 Issue 1, pp 4-17, quote on p 13. Rjensen (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that fits the bill. Well done.Call me FW August (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

So are we going to move forward with fixing this train wreck of an article?

I see no reason to keep a lower-cased title that would not be tolerated in work product at any decent research university. As the foregoing discussion has shown ad nauseum, the scholarly consensus among American historians (as well as in the frontier studies field in particular) has always been in favor of Manifest Destiny. Anyone who got a perfect score on the SAT Subject Test in World History without even having to study or take a practice test (that includes myself, of course) already knows this. Any objections before I initiate a requested move to the correct article title? --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm just a reader, not an editor, but I came to this talk page to specifically see if there's a reason that it wasn't written as Manifest Destiny on the Main Page. Yes, I'm an American, and no, I didn't get a perfect score on my SAT, but that is how we learned it, and how it was always written in our textbooks. Just two cents to add. 73.53.72.243 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, with MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS being the main criteria here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Manifest destiny → Manifest Destiny – The term is overwhelmingly capitalized in usage, as demonstrated by search engine results and other points on this Talk page. Tkondrashov (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Overwhelming use of caps for both words in the concept. And I'm quite WP:ASTONISHed that this article doesn't reflect it. The only proper use of lowercase would be in talking about "manifest destiny" in contexts other than the U.S. expansion ("it is my manifest destiny to finish this cheesecake"). Since this article is about a specific case, the U.S. expansion, it must be capitalized as a proper noun. WP:Verifiability is paramount. -- Netoholic @ 17:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  60% capped in n-grams is certainly not "Overwhelming use of caps"; it's more like what you expect for a term that frequently appears in titles and headings, as this is. Looking closer, you can see that most of the caps are in "Manifest Destiny and ...", which is common in book titles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I looked at 50 scholarly articles in last 16 years--BOTH spellings are well represented and used by authors, editors and publishers. lower case 'destiny' appears in Western Historical Quarterly, American History, Pacific Historical Review, Great Plains Quarterly, Pennsylvania History, American Indian Culture & Research Journal, Journal of American Studies, American Journalism, New Mexico Historical Review, American Studies, & Journal of the West. And "destiny" also is used by the experts at America History and Life, the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art, and the Library of Congress. Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, Dr Jensen. It seems as though this page is caught in some kind of movement where it gets progressively more and more capitalized, and the title of this page would probably swing the pendulum further. I don't know if this page should involve itself as a referendum, but inevitably it would affect the speed of that swing to some degree. My chief question is what the precedent is for cases like this, in particular why you (or Wikipedia in general) would prefer to leave it capitalized if usage is mixed, given also that common usage is far less mixed than academic usage - Coolcaesar's ironic lack of cool notwithstanding, their position as someone with no significant academic background in history corroborates my experience as well, and it looks downright awkward uncapitalized to me. Tkondrashov (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. - I fully concur with User:Tkondrashov and User:Netoholic. The scholarly consensus on this is overwhelming, as revealed by any cursory search on the open Web and Google Books. I would not be surprised to discover that most of the lowercase usages arose after this article was wrongly lowercased because some inexperienced writer or editor incorrectly assumed the person who lowercased this on Wikipedia actually knew what they were doing. Anyone who took the U.S. History AP course with a competent teacher (mine earned his doctorate in American history from UC Berkeley) knows it's always capitalized. Anyone who took a American history survey course or a frontier studies course at a decent research university worthy of the name knows it's always capitalized. (I could have used AP credit to bypass that particular requirement for my bachelor's degree, but that American history professor happened to be a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for History and I was majoring in history anyway.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolcaeser mentions UC Berkeley--their journal uses lower case--see "The United States’ relations with Latin America have been deeply influenced by two important U.S. principles: manifest destiny and the Monroe Doctrine." linked here Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not consistently enough to even warrant mention[7][8]. Please let's not reduce this to WP:CHERRYPICKING. -- Netoholic @ 09:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at ALL the indexed scholarly articles that discuss manifest destiny in last 16 years--both MD and md are used by scholars, editors and publishers. Rjensen (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"All?" Really? On what databases? As an experienced researcher who took courses in both American history and frontier studies at the college level, I am highly skeptical of your vague and categorical assertions. I suggest leaving this issue to the historians. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coolcaesar, please look at Rjensen's user page or this page concerning the editor's historian status. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Which I was unaware of. Therefore, I apologize and retract my comments above to the extent they could be read as raising any negative implications about User:Rjensen's academic or occupational qualifications. I'll be frank: I got carried away with my emotions. "Manifest Destiny" is how I have seen this term spelled in every history textbook since age 7, and in the vast majority of history books and journals. (One of the school districts in Silicon Valley was giving away old junior high textbooks for free, and I was precocious.) That's why I am frustrated we're having a debate over an issue that was settled decades before I was born.

But to focus again on the subject of debate, if one is going to make categorical statements, it's very important to be very clear about how those statements were arrived at (i.e., the methodology by which one arrived at such conclusions). So that's my concern here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

" I suggest leaving this issue to the historians". And leave the history articles to Fowler? Primergrey (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - If reliable sources are mixed, WP should stick with lower-case. Primergrey (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your position appears to be uninformed and in reliance on User:Rjensen's position. The reliable sources are not mixed at all. The vast majority of published sources use the spelling "Manifest Destiny." Go review the results on Google Books as linked by User:Netoholic above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat my position (with emphasis, this time), then you will please tell me what about it appears uninformed to you. "If reliable sources are mixed, WP should stick with lower-case." I'll add the the closer is specifically instructed to not simply count votes. Primergrey (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no point in having this article reflect a spelling that hasn't been the proper spelling for the concept of Manifest Destiny since 1960. "Mixed" would fairly describe a situation where the sources are half and half. Go look at Google Books as linked above. The pendulum swung in favor of "Manifest Destiny" a long time ago. For example, the Advanced Placement U.S. History Scoring Guidelines favor the capitalized form, as does this course guide for teachers. The AP exams reflect the College Board's careful analysis of the consensus views of American colleges and universities on the subjects tested. The entire point of "Advanced Placement" (as reflected in the very name of the program) is to get colleges and universities to place trust in the rigor of the material taught and tested, thereby enabling students to apply AP credit towards both unit credit requirements at the college level and to waive out of a general education course requirement or a requirement for a particular major.

To be clear, as the Google Books graph implies, it is true that the lowercase spelling was predominant in primary sources in the 19th century and also in secondary sources until around 1950, but we don't write that way any more. Today, secondary sources overwhelmingly refer to "Manifest Destiny," to signal that the writer is referring to a particular cultural concept from a particular time and place.

People in the 19th century liked to write a lot of things in lowercase which look funny to modern eyes. (This is well known to anyone who has studied close reading, which is ruthlessly drilled in American schools.) For example, they liked to refer to legislative acts in the lower case, such as this reference from 1852 to "the process act of 1789." But now we refer to the Process Act of 1789. This article should reflect contemporary consensus usage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The titles of books usually use capital letters for all words (except words like 'the'). However the author in the main text may be using the lower case version. for example this happens in Anders Stephanson, Manifest Destiny (Hill and Wang 1996). Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The capitalization is used overwhelmingly in sources. Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Except it isn't; usage is very mixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The capitalized version does appear to be used more in reliable sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The word is terminology not a proper noun hence it does not need full capitalization. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I agree. I think the title needs to be changed. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – OP is wrong about it being overwhelmingly capped in sources; it's very mixed, so per MOS:CAPS we default to lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Netoholic. The ngram clearly shows a preference for capitalization that has existed for decades now. Calidum 16:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Calidum, if you actually look at Netoholic's so-called ngram evidence, as I did in my response to him above, you can see that he's very much mistaken. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose; per Primergrey. WP defaults to lowercase when usage in sources is mixed. If the term (not a proper name) were easily confused with other meanings, well maybe there might be an argument for capping. But it's not. Tony (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose from the n-ram evidence and other evidence, it is not "consistently" capitalised and does not meet the criteria per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:CAPS (especially MOS:DOCTCAPS and MOS:SIGCAPS) and per WP:NCCAPS, and to be WP:CONSISTENT with our treatment of other terms for socio-political policies and doctrines. If sources do not capitalize something with overwhelming consistency, then WP doesn't either. Just because it's bound up in a bunch of American patriotism and nationalistic notions doesn't make it a magical exception. Support also per MOS:TITLES: any form of incipit (a pseudo-title for something, which is simply derived from quoting words from it, as in this case: "... the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent ...") is not capitalized as if it's a formal title. If lower-case "manifest destiny" is good enough for The New York Times [9], The Atlantic [10], BCC News [11], Dictionary.com [12][13], Washington Post [14], Oxford University Press [15], and Harper's [16] (via Merriam-Webster), then it's good enough for Wikipedia. Major dictionaries are sharply divided on the question (though not across nationalistic lines, for once): Oxford in Dictionary of Phrase and Fable [17] and in Lexico.com [18] (their free version of the OED database, without the etymological notes; formerly OxfordDictionaries.com) uses lower-ca; Merriam-Webster.com uses lower case (while also quoting one upper-case example) [19]; Collins English Dictionary (via Dictionary.com [20] and Farlex [21]) uses upper case; Houghton-Mifflin in New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (via Dictionary.com [22]) uses lower case; Random House Unabridged Dictionary (via Dictionary.com [23]) uses upper case; Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus (via Thesaurus.com [24]) uses lower case; American Heritage Dictionary (the most conservative American dictionary in publication) uses lower case while also recognizing upper-case usage, both at its own site [25] and via YourDictionary.com [26] and Farlex [27]; Webster's New World College Dictionary (Houghton-Mifflin, via YourDictionary.com [28]) uses upper case; WordNet (Princeton University, via Defnitions.net [29] and Farlex [30]) uses lower case; Webster's College Dictionary (Random House Kernerman, via Farlex [31]), uses upper case; and Cambridge Dictionary has no entry for the phrase [32]. On the WP:UGC side, both our own Wikitionary along with Good Word Guide and FreeBase use lower case, while YourDictionary's own definition is upper-case. Of the 18 dictionaries aggregated by OneLook, only 7 capitalize this term [33]. Any time there is this much uncertainty, this much lack of consistent capitalization, WP uses lower case; saying so is the main reason MOS:CAPS and WP:NCAPS exist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The American People

In the lead section's bullets there is a wiki link to American People. That's a much more encompassing article, and many of them are categorically not those with 'manifest destiny'. I think this link through as it stands is inappropriate.94.204.247.58 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove or cite "widely held" in first sentence

It is uncited and contradicts the rest of the section, which is cited and gives historian opinion that it was contentious and "slight in support". If we keep the assertion that it was "widely held", imo we should at least cite it, and preferably note the contentiousness of the statement in the first sentence as well. Hushpiper (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added supporting cites. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

On second look, I note that there were differing viewpoints between various sources mentioned and cited in the article. Rather than having WP offer contradicting views in different parts of the article (including in an image caption), the article ought to note that views differ and present those views IAW WP:DUE. Regular editors of this article can do that better than I could. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noahnjg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AddisonBerg1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CoolerBrian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Irredentism

Given that this article is in the category of irredentism in the United States and acknowledged as a species of irredentism in places where it is linked, it is surprising that nowhere in the body of the article is it so acknowledged. I think the word irredentism needs to go in its opening paragraph. Briefly, irredentism is the perspective that there are other lands and peoples beyond the nation's current borders who need to be redeemed for the nation (irredentism refers to those yet to be redeemed, the unredeemed). Specifically, it's the perspective that one's neighbours (Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Greenland) need to be liberated from their oppressive governments and allowed to fulfil their destiny to become Americans, like everybody else. Ukraine is currently the target of Russian irredentism.... 70.51.88.190 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've seen the term in WP articles without thinking about it. Looking at Irredentist in etymonline ([34]) leaves me wondering. Webster isn't much help either ([35], [36]) The Irredentism article is a little more help, as is List of irredentist claims or disputes § North America, I guess, but the U.S. isn't mentioned there. I'm still not clear on precisely why the term or the categorization is here. I see that @Geysirhead: added {{Irredentism}} without comment here, but I'm not clear why. Overall, it seems to me that more clarification is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: Manifest destiny and irredentism appeared to me as equivalent concepts. From [37]: "In the 1890s Italy's European irredentism gave way to imperialist and missionary slogans in the style of Manifest Destiny" --Geysirhead (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm writing off the cuff here about something I know little about. However, Irredentism § Etymology says:

Italy from the phrase Italia irredenta ("unredeemed Italy"). This originally referred to rule by Austria-Hungary over territories mostly or partly inhabited by ethnic Italians, such as Trentino, Trieste, Gorizia, Istria, Fiume and Dalmatia during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

I take it from that that the term refers to the view of the put-upon people (Italian there) who want what they see as their own territory back. The usage recently removed here, though, seems to be from the viewpoint of the taker of the territory. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Irredentism and manifest destiny appear to be cultural beliefs with the same goal, but slightly different justfications - it's past and present for irredentism and future for manifest destiny. Geysirhead (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

References