Talk:United States

Muslim terroism

Any objections to adding a section on Muslim terrorism in the United States? Here is source: Islamic Terror Attacks on American Soil Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable source. TFD (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That, and there's no reason to dedicate any real estate in this article to the matter. Also, I can see one blatant factual error in the article that undermines premise, as I can list at least one other person killed by an American in direct "retaliation" (due to a mistaken belief that he was a Muslim) for 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no reason when infact America is continually being attacked by Muslim terrorists? The largest terrorist attack to take place in the United States was caused by Muslim terrorists. I believe this issue deserves a separate section. Wikipedia needs to keep in step with the times, especially in light of the two Muslim terrorists (one suspect) attacking at the Boston Marathon. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source: The New York Post Facing terror facts Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Homeland Security is now mentioned under the 'Military' section. Should the Military section be renamed "National Security" with an additional paragraph on terrorist threats, foreign and domestic? I'm not sure I can agree to any such thing as "Muslim terrorism". Muslim neighbors have lost family members to terrorists, the second generation now join the armed services. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Virginia Historian. I think Homeland security is best. I believe that the attacks by Muslim terrorists needs to be mentioned in the article in terms of an overall strategy to defeat the United States. This is an ongoing issue. The Muslim terrorists have not gone away. Yes. Wasn't a Muslim in the armed forces when he killed people at a Texas miltary base? We have to stop being politically correct, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your second source isn't about Muslim terrorism. It's about Jihadist terrorism. Also, citation needed on an "overall strategy". Really, Americans are a far larger threat against Muslims than Muslims are a threat against Americans. --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jihad is defined as the religious duty of Muslims. Please do not go beyond the scope of this discussion. I am not denying that the United States attacked Iraq and waged a "shock and awe" undeclared war for eight years from 2003 to 2011, if that is what you are refering too. I am refering to Muslim terrorist attacks within the United States. As far as I know there have been no Iraqi Suni Muslim terrorist attacks within the United States. Muslim terrorist attacks started in the 1970's and have been continuing today. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet your second source explicitly says that the vast majority of Muslims have and want nothing to do with this. So it is not a valid source to claim "Muslim terrorism." If you would like to specify radical elements, that's fine, but you've kind of gone out of your way to avoid narrowing your very broad statement of "Muslim terrorism," as if all 1.5 billion Muslims were out to get us. (and, actually, I was primarily referring to the terror hundreds of Pakistanis experience daily when they hear the signature buzz of an American drone fly over their towns.) --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The terrorist attacks by extremist muslim jihadists is already mentioned in the history section of this article. There is a place on Wikipedia for content about Islamists and/or jihandists but this article IMHO is not the place. Not everything that intersects the United States needs a section on this article. We have wikilinks for a reason.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

On balance, agreed with Golbez and RCLC, a link will suffice; would like topic change from "Military' to "National security", though. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post article stated the United States currently is a target by the Jihad Muslims. The Boston bombings is a demonstration of this Jihad Muslim attack. Stating Muslim terrorism is not stating that all Muslims commit or sponsor terrorism. The United States has been attacked by Muslim Jihadist since the 1970's and has not stopped since there remain Muslim Jihadist out their to attack us. As for Pakistan, their government and people harbor muslim terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden. The Pakistan Muslims are not innocent in terms of sponsoring terrorism against U.S. troops. I believe the New York Article and any reliable source that states when Muslim terrorism began and that United States and Europe is on the target list for militant muslim Jihadists. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Post story is an opinion piece, hence not rs for facts. TFD (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Boston bombings are not an opinion piece, but a very real Muslim terrorism, with body parts being exploded, over 200 injuries, and 4 deaths. Wikipedia should not be apologetic for Muslim terrorism. That is POV. The Post article states that the US and Europe are being targeted by Muslim terrorists. TFD you have a double standard. You state the US is a federal republic on concensus of opinion, then you state that the New York Post article is opinion and can't be used in the article. Can you explain this contradiction? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." "Facing terror facts" is an opinion piece by a columnist, Benny Avni,[1] Neutral point of view however allows us to report consensus opinions in articles. If you disagree with these policies, then you should argue about them on the policy pages, rather than here. TFD (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post's article is supported by the Congressional Record in 2006. The Congressional investigation stated that Europe and the United States were targets by self radicalized Jihadists. Please refer to this source: Congressional Record Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to fact check sources. Instead we use sources that are already fact-checked, hence the policy of using reliable sources. If you disagree with that then discuss it on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The situation may be relevant enough to merit a set of nationally funded, real-time observation cameras to be temporarily put in place at each olympics-sanctioned marathon (all NYC bridges are already covered).--- According to the NYC chief of police on the upcoming New York City marathon as aired on Charlie Rose. But it does not seem to me that the subject should be treated in the 'sports' subsection of 'culture'. Rather as Golbez and RightCowLeftCoast say, it merits a link in Military/national security to a more expansive article on terrorism, foreign and domestic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would word a link without affording it undue importance. And TVH, I'm not accusing you of anything here, but I checked my edits above and I don't see myself endorsing a link of any type. Where did I do that? I could be missing it and I don't remember every edit I make but I'm not seeing it. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] (a) One editor said domestic terrorism did not merit a separate section in the US country article, to that I agree. (b) Another said a possible way of accommodating CmGuy777s interest in US domestic terrorism for this article might be referenced in a link, to that I agree. Or (c) alternatively 'See also" - ? - It seems to me significant and meaningful, but it does NOT rise to the wp:significance level as a part of the US cultural and political landscape as terrorism in Northern Ireland during the "troubled times". You seem to be in a 'take no prisoners' mode, I've seen better from you. You can figure out how to edit collegially. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, not sure how that's a response to my request for you to justify me saying that I said it merited a link, but, okay? Welcome back, I guess? As for collegial, you can learn to provide a source of me saying something when I don't recall doing it (and, I point out, going out of my way to indicate I could be wrong and giving you the chance to back it up), because when I ask for it and you avoid providing it and insult me at the same time, it comes across as you avoiding being caught in a lie, and that is very uncollegial. --Golbez (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] begin Dft.2. (a) One editor Golbez said domestic terrorism did not merit a separate section in the US country article, to that I agree. (b) Another Rightcowleftcoast said a possible way of accommodating CmGuy777s interest in US domestic terrorism for this article might be referenced in a link, to that I agree. Or (c) alternatively 'See also" - ? end.Drft.2 --- I gotta work on writing to my audience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Golbez. There was a recent Frontline television article on Global Terrorism and how the United States set up secret sites around the country to monitor terrorist activity. There is controversy on how effective these anti terrorist networks are since obviously this did not stop the Boston Bombings. However, the CIA and FBI and the Department of Defense are actively keeping track of terrorist activities within the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's nice. What does that have to do with this discussion? --Golbez (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The sights were set up by the Department of Defense 911 to counteract Muslim terrism. That means the U.S. is keeping track of Muslim terrorist cells. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

See, you didn't specify "Muslim" in your previous paragraph, so it seemed to have no bearing on this discussion. And of course they're keeping track of terrorist cells, Muslim or otherwise. There's no point being made here. --Golbez (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia users. I have a question. Is this discussion about the number of people dying? Because if it is, we should spend zero time talking about Muslims and more time talking about Gun violence in the United States. Heck, don't even mention 9/11 if it is just about the number of people who are dying (you need to mention it because of its cultural and political effects though). To sum it up, if you want to provide a factual article about the United States of America, don't write about Islamic Extremism. If you want to cite, biased, right-wing propaganda text files on Wikipedia, edit this entry: fallacy. Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason you linked every other word? --Golbez (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Golbez I made it to get your attention, not to distract you from the discussion! What do you think of my comment though? If I knew so many people would be reading it (I should have) I would have made my suggestion a bit more academic. Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I like it. I had about a .5% chance of searching for those terms, but now I might be click-tempted into learning something I never would have known I didn't know. Those "unknown unknowns", in (former?) national security lingo. Want to know what anniversaries we have today? Click my timestamp! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

You just torpedoed your own point by conceding "cultural and political effects". I haven't commented on this topic yet and I'm not advocating a change now, but, since you bring it up, the mortality rate approach to try and diminish the effects of terrorism is a vapid fallacy. It's not just about those actually killed so far. Terrorism threatens national infrastructure in a way that car wrecks or heart disease (both far better examples than "gun violence", which is already covered by the article anyway, though the fact that the US also sees many more crimes thwarted by privately owned guns isn't) don't, especially with modern technology that empowers the destructive potential of individuals and the ease of global transportation. Terrorism can also pose an existential threat to society when the eventual likelihood of NBC weapon use is considered. Plus, most deaths are due to natural causes or tragic accidents in circumstances that don't come as a complete shock. By contrast, even low lethality terrorism can dramatically impact a society with a scope and unpredictability that transcends routine crimes. People know they might be mugged when walking through a certain neighborhood or witness a robbery when at the bank, but they don't expect the crowd to be blown up when watching the Boston Marathon. So yes, terrorism is a very big deal, and the fact that there's a broad, international effort by Islamic jihadists to wage war against and destroy or convert the US (and other nations) is also a big deal, and would be even if polling didn't show that hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world are sympathetic to the goals and tactics of outfits like Al Qaeda to varying degrees (which it does). VictorD7 (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The general idea for the United States as a society in experiment is individual liberty in self-governing communities from as small as can be to a continental union. So in the same cul-de-sac, neighbors borrow one another's lawn mower, or share dessert from a holiday meal with another family (ah! the Greek Orthodox Christmas Jan 7 baklava!). And on Sundays one family turns left to a Protestant church, another right to Catholic, another only gets up to watch football. On Friday a family goes to synagogue, one to a Sunni mosque, another to Shi'a services --- and the punch line is, the girls and boys all survive the trip home from family worship to stand at the bus stop together for school on Monday morning sharing umbrellas when it rains. To paraphrase Jefferson, God is so Great, the blasphemy is for any mortal agency to presume to interfere between a man and his faith or his disbelief.

Of course all humanity has the same flaws, but our bombing of children at worship was Birmingham Sunday in 1963. While it may be true that in some places, repeat shopllfters walk around with one hand, colonial America branded a 'T' for 'thief' on the forehead so a shopkeeper could see him coming, and that brings order in a fashion, Would that the last Muslim community bombing of Muslim children going to worship were in 1963. Children returning home from worship alive is real law and order, not to be taken for granted in the world's perspective. Oh yes, and the US should work on its violent crimes, but first things first, let each child everywhere in the world go to family worship in multiple, diverse places, and return home alive. In that crime statistic, the US has the lowest rate of many. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian population decline

Does anyone know to what extent interracial marriages, or partnerships, between settlers and Indians occurred? It seems that because various sources have chosen not to include these people in population estimates we are writing off many thousands of, or perhaps one, two or more million people. When the US census counts the number of African Americans in the USA, do they exclude anyone who is mulatto? Do they use a different standard to count Indians? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Why not mention that although Indian population declined, Indian population today has increased to the original pre Columbian estimates. The outlook on Native Americans is not always bleak. We must not deny that there were wars, that were in my opinion, bound to occur because the cultures and religion were very different. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My intention was and is not to deny Indian populations declined, but only to bring attention to those individual writers who look for ways to either exaggerate or underestimate numbers for reasons that by now should be obvious. Propaganda is one of the oldest forms of war. Btw, you avoided the question. I believe it's a fair one. If they can discount the numbers of Indians on the basis of 'intermarriage' it would seem this approach to ethnic population estimates would result in a drastic decline in the negro population in the U.S. -- but you know they don't do that for African Americans. Apparently they're doing it with Indians. i.e. We could reduce the African American population by more than half just by changing the standard by which we count them. Goodness. We could create a "holocaust". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. We have to go by what the sources state on Wikipedia. All Indian depopulation is speculative. I am for a simple sentence that states Indian population declined. If historians count Anglo-Indian mescegenation as a way for depopulation, that is the historians responsibility. Disease seemed to be the primary factor for Indian depopulation. They did not have the immunity to combat such a harmful disease as small pox. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Cm', don't be a rulz and regs bot. We must use RS's, yes -- this doesn't mean we regard a couple as gospel and ignore the rest. When there are many RS's, like with Jefferson and Washington, we should consider and scrutinize as many as possible and arrive at an average picture, asking questions when extraordinary claims are made. In the process the Finkleman's and the Russell's, along with their hyper-speak, will reveal themselves for what they are. i.e.Activist writers with a social and/or political agenda who look for ways to manipulate the picture. And you still haven't acknowledged the question. What standard is used to count ethnic peoples and does intermarriage exclude anyone from a group as seems to be the case for Indians? Apparently someone invented a way to 'erase' an entire segment of the Indian population. As for small pox, I have always known that diseases like this have taken their toll. However I'm still wondering how they tallied up the numbers to something that is comparable to the bubonic plague. Was there UN observers spread out across the continent back then?-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For myself, I believe the best policy is to be impartial concerning sources. I agree there is speculation on Indian decline in population. For now, stating depopulation is best, in terms of Amerindians. We must not underestimate the intelligence of the reader. This is a general article on the United States. Every historian or source is bound to have some bias. What matters is whether the historcal source is accurate. Authors maybe activists, but that does not mean what is written is untrue or false. Wikipedia editors can find other sources to balance out POV from the article. Every author I have read has some sort of bias in their works. That does not mean on a whole that these "activist" authors are making false claims. Personally, I think we are spending too much effort on deciding the "correct" method for determining Indian depopulation. Has there been concensus to remove the word "genocide" from the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Be impartial with sources? Actually we should use sources that are impartial and not sling words like "holocaust" and "genocide" around, esp when they are unqualified and used out of context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] @CMGuy, thanks for bringing the discussion back to “genocide” delete issue. At -- Use of ‘genocide’ -- above section, 5 against, 1 not opposed. The count as of May 26 is Opposed: Hotstop, TVH, GWillhickers, VictorD7, Collect. Not opposed CMguy777, who has here shown himself to be collaborative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Gwillhickers. This is a discussion page and editors need to be able to freely submit their views as long as the views are constructive to the article. WHO IS TO JUDGE WHAT SOURCES ARE IMPARTIAL? The only way to be impartial is to admit bias. Everyone has a bias, wikipedia editors and authors. If one editor judges the impartiality of an author, then that would be ownership of the article. I have bias from growing up in a public school. I was never taught the founding fathers owned slaves. I was taught George Washington never told a lie and the only "bad" thing he did was chop down a cherry tree. Washington actually did effectively use deception during the Revolutionary War. Again, I am not sure why their is so much concern on miscegenation for the United States article in terms of determining Indian depopulation. TVH has given us a tally on removing the word "Genocide". Thanks TVH. I have been outvoted. Let's remove the word from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillickers, we do not consider and scrutinize as many sources as possible and arrive at an average picture, we pick a secondary source that has already done this and report what it says. TFD (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not me. I don't throw a dart at a list of books and use it as a reference. I scrutinize the work, and with good reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

@Gwillickers, you have touched on a knotty problem in American sociology/politics. The term "assimilation" as "genocide" is nonsense, certainly and should not be used to describe population decline as it describes population increase by any objective measure. And the one-drop rule of the racists in the "eugenics" movement at the turn of the last century is also silly to adopt as linguistic convention calling persons "black" who are not. But I'm not sure how any WP editor belling the cat, discussing the merits on racial matters with the politically correct, gains anything. I would rather see the controversial, the problematic and the merely provocative all dropped as violating economic encyclopedic style: drop 'genocide' and 'assimilation' as population reduction.

In Virginia, home of the Loving v. Virginia case concerning interracial marriage, (yes, now we can), we have two interesting wrinkles on the topic. In the east, lots of the FFVs (first, finest? families of Virginia) who may be fairly characterized as ancestor worshippers, like to retell the story that they are direct descendants of Indian royalty -- Pocahontas. And, as her son was related to English royalty -- confusing the Rolfe in the novel Ivanhoe, so famous in the antebellum South -- they get a two-fer, counting royal blood from both maternal (Native American) and paternal (English) traditions. yuk.

In the west of Virginia's mountains live some tri-racialite communities from the 1600s. There are elementary schools feeding children into valley high schools with jet black straight hair, coal black eyes and copper skin, but no one claims any Native-American heritage there, they are all "pure white" on all sides forever, and some belong to organizations to certify to it; and you best not suggest anything other, need your tire changed? My favorite solution is the Puerto Rican: all are 'hispanic', and don't bother about what percentages of white black and red there may be -- is it the Brazilians with nine racial/ethnic/color categories? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwhillickers, one does not "throw a dart at a list of books." One seeks out the best type of source, e.g., an advanced level university textbook and find a section that says something like, "The estimates for the number of aboriginal non-combatant Europeans ranges from a to b, with x to z being the most widely accepted." That is better than throwing darts at even dozens of the possible thousands of sources and then concluding, "The estimates for the number of aboriginal non-combatant Europeans ranges from a to b, with x to z being the most widely accepted." Why? Because people who study these things and publish articles that are reviewed by peers are more likely to come up with a better description. What if they are wrong? Then find a source that makes a different claim and find a subsequent source that says something like, "Most scholars accept the second writing on the range of estimates, and complain that the first estimate ignored x, y and z." TFD (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with scrutinizing a work for accuracy or facts. There is no way to properly judge the bias or motivations of individual authors. That is not the job of Wikipedia editors. For example Finkleman. Yes, at times he is tough on Thomas Jefferson, however, that should not eliminate him as a source. I believe authors can be both over and under critical in their historical assessements of people. Again, why is miscegenation so important for the article interms of Indian depopulation? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with CMguy here, it seems to me to be straining into areas that are indeterminate now, but that will be interesting once the genetic mapping of contemporary populations and burial places along migration routes is complete. But that is probably a little far off in the literature, leaving us to rely on speculation. Sources I have read across the spectrum are careful to note they are extrapolating or making an educated guess whenever they venture into this area, so anything brought forward would have to be read into -- as Gwhillickers noted we must do for due diligence before posting a snippet out of context into the article narrative. And self-qualified speculation by a scholar cannot be read as the "predominant" view in the academic field, or even something for editors to "balance" with alternative self-qualified speculation. --- Unless the title of the article is speculation on genetic distribution of assimilated populations among US citizens living on their native-born American soil, as the US census puts it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I agree, "...one does not "throw a dart at a list of books". One seeks out the best type of source", and the only way to determine "the best type of source" is to scrutinize that source. If it contains factual errors, fringe theory, gross exaggerations and employs out of context and unqualified hyper-speak in every other sentence, then we need to look to more objective sources. The only way to do determine if a source is reliable is through scrutiny and discussion. Btw, books that win (highly visible and peer-pressured) awards are not automatically reliable. Like any other, they are not above scrutiny. Who decides what source is reliable? Editors decide. Who else? The 'God of reliable sources'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

TVH, regarding your comment: "The term "assimilation" as "genocide" is nonsense, certainly and should not be used to describe population decline as it describes population increase by any objective measure" Once again, thanks for your comment and the in depth analysis that followed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Cm' I agree and disagree with your comments. "I don't have any issues with scrutinizing a work for accuracy or facts." (agree) "There is no way to properly judge the bias or motivations of individual authors." (disagree) There are several ways to determine these things, in a word, scrutiny. You've done it, I've done it, and any active writer of history here at WP has done it. Or is there someone here who is using a reference with no idea about its reliability? Regarding POV. Any statement has POV, the issue however is whether the POV is factual and objective. How do we determine this? Scrutiny and discussion. We are not copy-reword-paste bots. We are editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillickers, "Who decides which sources are reliable?" Policy that provides criteria for selecting reliable sources, and our role is to choose the best sources based on that policy, not to conduct our own investigations of the voting record of each author. Again you continue to confuse facts and opinions. We should not choose sources because they reflect our pre-conceived ideas. Also, when someone presents a source that meets reliability, it avoids argument if you present a high quality source that contradicts it, rather than using 1950s style ad hominem attacks against the writer. Otherwise one could argue that since Einstein was left-wing, relativity is false, which is the position taken by Conservapedia. TFD (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Indian population decline(2)

You have a way of agreeing with me while trying to disagree. You say "...our role is to choose the best". How does one chose "the best" without scrutiny and discussion? The rest of your comments were in fact ad-hom'. i.e.I advanced no "pre-conceived" ideas and any preferences for phrases used and sources chosen are and will be based on fair questions and discussion, and we have had much of it here regarding what "genocide" is and how population levels were arrived at by various individual writers. Again, there is no list of Reliable Sources from the 'RS god' or other such authority. We must use scrutiny to determine which sources are indeed "the best", an idea you stopped short of explaining, apparently because you didn't want to agree with me about scrutiny, in spite of your own advice. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Gwillhickers, as TP section starter do you want to go ahead and delete "genocide" or do you want someone else to? VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : We need to select a RS to cite the passage as it reads without the word "genocide". If we simply remove that word using the same source we could be accused of misrepresenting what the source has said, and rightly so. I am in the process of selecting such a source. Any help you or anyone else can offer would be appreciated. -- Russell, 1985, is definitely out. He uses the word "genocide" at least seven times in the course of two paragraphs, (p.49) never qualifying the claim. Not once. He uses the word on a per item basis, never an explanation, yet this source/page is used as a cite for Indian-settler history overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No we don't, in part for reasons you cite. While I support finding a better source, the text currently reads "including" various factors, so it's not like it has to be a comprehensive list, inappropriate POV terms included, from whatever source is used. I believe the text previously just mentioned disease. We aren't required to use any source, though it's good practice if a claim can expect challenge. There's a consensus for removing "genocide". That said, if you want to wait then I'll wait for a while. VictorD7 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a definite consensus and you also make a good point. I would prefer to wait a day or so and get a different source first, but if you want to omit the pov word you have my support. -- Also, we need to give the readers the whole picture, that there's much more history involved with the meeting of the two civilizations. We need to search existing sources and account for what is being left out, and while we're at it search alternative sources as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field." If we follow your approach, you would reject everyone who was critical of U.S. foreign policy, another editor would reject scholars who supported it, no one would agree on sources and we would wind up having long discussions. In this case you have not even supplied an alternative source, and just made ad hominum arguments against their authors, or even authors that they quoted. TFD (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] TFD, this is the pot calling the kettle black. At least this passage tells me you know what you are doing (I was worried about you for a while) when you assert Puerto Rico is excluded from the US by a seated territory Member of Congress, and you imply the Puerto Rican constitution expels it from the US when it makes themselves "US citizens" who are "loyal to the federal constitution". This last TFD posting is a keeper for future reference. you have not even supplied an alternative source, and just made ad hominum arguments against their authors, or even authors that they quoted. We need to figure out a way to get sourced contributions into the article, to expanding knowledge available in modern reliable sources from primary, secondary government and scholarly sources, when they all say the same thing.

All modern sources over the last twenty years do not say USG adopted a policy of genocide. At best, scholars decry local, state and national actions which cost thousands of lives unnecessarily. That some fringe sources equate marrying into another ethnic group as self-genocide by having children is their dramatic statement for buzz in the faculty lounge, it is not USG intentional policy of an crime against humanity, it is too overwrought for encyclopedic style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you mention ad-hom' and in the same breath you embark on same: "If we follow your approach, you would reject everyone who was critical of U.S. foreign policy," My approach is simply to use objective sources that don't assert unqualified out of context blanket terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" to make general statements about 100's of years of history, per settlers and Indians. I am confident we can cite the existing statement, without the word "genocide", with objective reliable sources. Also, the entire Native American and European settlement section, which takes up about an entire page, speaks of settlement, disease and war overall. Not a peep about trade and the cultural exchange between the many settlers and Indians that got along. There is much history to tell there, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), so it would seem we need to give topics like these as much weight as the other topics, keeping all topics brief. IMO the entire section needs to be rewritten and due weight distributed equally. The section looks like it was written in the 1980s and 90s. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Overall for our purposes, Thornton gives us 5+ million Native Americans in coterminous US about 1500, and under Spanish, French and British policy, population reduced 80-90%, five millions to under a million by 1800, then after the establishment of the US, Indian population was reduced another 60% from about 600,000 to 250,000 by 1900, the nadir (Thornton 1987, p.43). Since population increase began, the 2010 Census reports “2.9 million people identified as American Indian and Alaska Native alone”, a total of 5.2 million “either alone or in combination with one or more other races.”

Reading into the reference RightCowLeftCoast gave us, Russell Thornton ‘s 1987 thirty-year-old American Indian holocaust and survival: a population history:since 1492. Thornton quotes the chief causes of decrease in order of importance according to James Mooney (1900): 1) small pox and other epidemics, 2) tuberculosis, 3) sexual diseases, 4) alcoholism, 5) removals and starvation, 6) mental depression, 7) wars. Thornton would add genocide somewhere below alcoholism [p.44]. “While warfare and genocide were not very significant overall in the American Indian population decline, they were important causes of decline for particular tribes.” [p.47] Even after the establishment of the United States, “During the 19th century the total North American Indian population was not reduced nearly as much from warfare and genocide as from disease and other causes, though individual tribes in some regions were reduced virtually to extinction by them.” [p.104].

Thornton confounds western hemisphere and north American data and vignettes, woodlands, plains and Spanish mission history in poor methodology which irks Gwhillicers. “Perhaps the best-known genocide of North American Indians occurred on December 29, 1890, at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota.” [accounting for Indian population decline of six-one hundredths of a percent (00.06%) after establishment of US constitution] – where the massacring commander was relieved for disobeying orders, and unauthorized gold miner immigrants are also said to perpetrate the governmental crime against humanity (?) --– which is clearly overwrought verbiage unsupported by Thornton’s own scholarship. But we can take the scholarship that is there without the political correctness and inept methodology, can’t we? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And the Wounded Knee "genocide" was a tragic battle involving firing in both directions that may have started by accident (it's unclear who fired first) and saw scores of Sioux survive, with the wounded being treated. In both scale and quality it's closer to the 1993 Waco catastrophe than the Nazi holocaust. VictorD7 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a trial baloon to replace existing text using Thornton:

At European trade and settlement, socio-cultural anthropologist Russell Thornton showed a 80-90% Amerindian population decline from over five million to under one million under Spanish, French and British policies, and under the United States, another 60% decline 1800-1900 from 600,000 to 250,000. Principle causes for the decline were from largest to smallest: smallpox and other epidemics, tuberculosis and sexual diseases, alcoholism and depression. Removals, starvation and warfare were not significant overall in Amerindian population decline, “though individual tribes in some regions were reduced virtually to extinction by them."

[note] Thornton, Russell. (1987). American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492. Volume 186 of Civilization of the American Indian Series. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 43-44, 104. ISBN 9780806122205. Thurston would add to Mooney’s list of population decline, “genocide” meaning virtual extinction, “or brought to the brink of oblivion” by whatever cause -- relocation or starvation, war or atrocities, but it would rank below alcoholism as a depopulator. [p.49]. Viewed May 30, 2013.

Since Amerindian population increases began in 1900, the 2010 Census reports “2.9 million people identified as American Indian and Alaska Native alone”, a total of 5.2 million “either alone or in combination with one or more other races.”

Thornton's categories of depopulators overlap in a way that a cliometrician or a political scientist would never allow, but the effort here is to collaboratively include a favorite socio-anthropological source in the text, using a portion of their scholarship which is mainstream for the article narrative --- while giving their slant a fair representation in the note by their publication as referenced, context supplied extending the note. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment and effort, I'm not sure we need that level of detail here. How about going back to just mentioning the big depopulation due to "diseases", along with, if people insist, something like "...,and to a lesser degree violence." ? Though, given your citation, it might be more accurate to mention that though there was violence, it wasn't a significant factor in the larger depopulation. Maybe also a clause or sentence somewhere (not necessarily that same depopulation segment) on intermarriage and/or assimilation (for example, most modern Amerindians are Christian and fluent English speakers). VictorD7 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, the clause or sentence somewhere would be text in a note. It is a convention rarely used at WP, but often in American historiography, elsewhere? The advantage of placing links in extended notes is a powerful opportunity for WP to be a research platform for further inquiry enabled by links to reliable sources. That would hold true for the general readership, even at a moment of page-view which contained vandalism or wp:npov. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I know you've taken a lot onto your plate, but I hope you don't forget to bring this issue you raised to a conclusion. As TVH points out, even the source currently used explicitly says that violence wasn't a significant cause of total Amerindian depopulation. The current text, listing various factors as equal, is still misleading. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the article

The article should say something more than 'settlers arrived -- Indian population declined' . Again, much more occurred between the two civilizations and equal weight should be given, in summary, to all pertinent aspects. We can cite Indian decline but we should also relate the cultural exchange, as this advent greatly impacted both Indian and American societies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. The Puritans were not into any culture other then to be in their view godly. They endorsed slavery and war. They were extremely intolerant group. You had to completely accept Puritanism or you would suffer the consequences. Just ask the people they burned at the Salem witch trials. They destroyed the Merry Mount colony because of a May Pole. They did not trust Indians even Indians who had converted. They were called praying Indians. Oh yeah, the Puritans chopped off the head of Charles I. These people hardcore. One only needs to look at the photo on Jonathan Winthrop to understand you did not mess around with the Puritans. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"endorsed slavery and war"? You mean like the Indians did? Given the entirely one sided account and narrow wording you offer here, typically, I'll hold out for a second opinion. In any event, the Puritans are one group at one point in history and don't represent Indian-settler relationships overall throughout 100's of years of history. Most peoples were intolerant of other peoples, esp Indians. This doesn't mean that they didn't exchange things in terms of culture. Was your account here your way of saying that no culture, trade, religious views, etc were exchanged and that the section should only give weight to small pox and "genocide"? If we're to accept that intermarriage occurred between settlers and Indians to the extent that it greatly effected the population of (pure bred) Indians, I think we can also safely assume that the cultural exchange amounted to much more than your Puritanical account will allow for here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The culture of the Purtians was to be successful. That was proof that one was save by God. The Puritans followed Calvin doctrine. Yes. The Puritan elite did want to evangilize the Indians, but that ended in failure by King Philip's War. The Purtitans believed that art work was idolitry and any secular culture was outlawed. One could not even celebrate Christmas under Puritan rule. The Puritans viewed Indians as slaves and did not trust Christianized Indians. There was an exchange of food by the Pilgrims at Thanksgiving, but the peace was not long lived. Intermarriages may have been an exchange of culture. Possibly the term "chief" was borrowed from the Indians as in "Commander in Chief". I believe there would need be examples given of cultural exchange. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Salem witch trials were in 1692-93 was a rare in the New World, many more witch trials and torture deaths in contemporary England and Europe of the 1600s-1700s. Wonder if there is a quick comparative line from a reliable source? In Virginia dunking resulted in a few horrific deaths in the Norfolk area.

Missionary work was never abandoned entirely, especially in New England, the Indian School at William and Mary was abandoned relatively early as I remember. See the work of Eleazar Wheelock and Samuel Kirkland. Good survey pairs Kirkland and Joseph Brant in Alan Taylor’s 2007 The Divided Ground: Indians, settlers and the northern borderland of the American Revolution a Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winner, -- it has been the source of much of my discussion on this topic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Cm' you're stuck on the Puritians in the apparent attempt to justify that relationships between Indians and settlers isn't worth mentioning other than to point out that war="genocide" and disease occurred. Please help us in relating the Indian-settler cultural exchange that occurred between these two civilizations over 100's of years of history. As TVH and myself have pointed out/linked, there is much history to tell there, the likes of which needs summary representation in the section. Thanks for your cooperation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. Gwillhickers, I don't understand. What specific examples are there of this culture exchange between English settlers and Indians? Intermarriages has been mentioned in the article. Beyond that I am not sure what cultural exchanges were. TVH has pointed out the Indian School at William and Mary. Was that a cultural exchange school or a school to deculture the Indians from their "paganism" forcing the Indians adopt European faith, language, and fashion. Where was the cultural exchange? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I like Amerindian adopting an economics beyond the self-reliant to more interconnected, adopting iron pots for cooking, firearms for hunting and clapboard houses for shelter. I like Euroamericans adopting more self-reliant mixed crop plantings, varied meat-centered diets and village self-government. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TVH. Has the above been documented? There is also the culture of drinking whiskey that was brought to the Indians, in addition to eating sugar that has brought on obesity issues. Indians are more self reliant today because of slot machines, black jack and Texas Hold-Em tables at their respected tribal casinos. However, Indians today may be investing their money into other non gambling industries and possibly are involved in elected politics. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the breadth of your reading: no account of Indians moving from smoking food over an open fire to cooking in pots? Or Virginians curing tobacco and hams in the Indian manner? No documentation of Indians using firearms instead of bows? Or Virginia rangers using trees for cover in ambushes? No documentation of Indian adoption of clapboard houses? At the removal of Cherokees, they were marched from their houses with or without any moveable possessions, and the white squatters simply moved into their farm houses. Non-sequitur alert: there were no slot machines in cultural exchanges of colonial america. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In order to put the above in the article there need to be documented sources or author references. What you referred to TVH is good, but there needs to be sources for these accounts. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cm' the many items TVH has outlined for you are nothing amazing and should not be difficult to include in summary form in the section. Also, there were no horses on the American continent until the Spainish introduced them. 'Whiskey' aside, most of the things "whites" introduced to the continent helped the Indian way of life. Before settlers arrived Indians were still dragging their belongings around on foot using a stick drag-sled and were using stone axes and arrows, etc. Otoh, Indians introduced the settlers (many from England with its rocky terrian, few farms) to the idea of fertilizer (using dead fish) to help crops grow, among other things. Please help us find sources. It shouldn't be difficult. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is one source on Indians teaching pilgrims to use fertilizer:

• Jason Ripper (2008} American Stories: To 1877 p. 5 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Indians taught Eurpeans how to hunt and fish:

• Colin G. Calloway (1997) New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America, p.55 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is more on Euroamericans and Amerindians sharing farm techniques:

• Jayme A Sokolow (2003) The Great Encounter: Native Peoples and European Settlers in the Americas, 1492-1800 p. 157 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

However, the Puritan goal ultimately was to push the Indians off their lands. Hunting would soon be restricted except for killing Indians and wolves. This led to the Pequot War starting in 1634. The peace with the Indians only lasted a decade. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Indians and the Puritans were trying to push each other of 'their' lands. An earthly legacy. From what I've gathered the Puritans, like most Indians, were pretty stirct all the way around, even amongst themselves. In any case we are discussing cultural exchange between Indians and settlers throughout American history, across the country, but for reasons of your own apparently, you keep coming back to and harping about the Puritans. What is your point in terms of what we're trying to accomplish here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course there was a cultural exchange, however, this had to do with the survival of the English colonists. Once learned how to survive from the Indians, the Puritans took over the land. The Pequot War started in 1634. That would mean that the Puritan peace only last for 15 years, starting in 1619. Each race had suspicions of each other. The Puritans enslaved the Indians. That, in my opinion, ended the cultural exchange era. African American slaves were also brought into New England. Maybe this is what is bugging me, Gwillhickers, the Indians help the Puritans survive and then the Puritans turn around and enslave the Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, we're discussing the cultural exchange between settlers and Indians across the continent over 100s of years. This occurred voluntarily and in the midst of war. Thanks for repeating your opinion about the Puritans for the 'tenth' time, as if their actions were all unprovoked. i.e. Indians goooood. "whites" baaaaad. Your view is very narrow imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The good is true, the bad is true. A balanced narrative shows how things work and how things fail over time. The focus of the US article is a narrative which comprehends the process and outcomes aggregating into a reasonable representation of the US as it exists today. There is no end of "the cultural exchange era", trade and exchange continued between cultures, the legacy of good Indian contributions continue to enhance US life today, and some are re-discovered, such as an emphasis on conservation, the soil was a treasure which the plantation and corporate systems extracted to exhaustion, it should be a treasure again, likewise water tables, but I digress into wp:soapbox.

Some of the areas of our interest are addressed in subsidiary articles. Euros no longer hold Indians in slavery, Indians no longer hold Indians in slavery. Euros no longer kidnap Indians for wives, Indians no longer kidnap Indians for wives. However interesting, even compelling these facts are and true, they may not be relevant to an encyclopedic style addressing the US as it exists today for the modern, international, general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian policy changed under Ulysses S. Grant's Peace Policy. Grant was the first President who thought that Indians were worth studying and set a good precedent for other Presidents. Indian wars decreased under Grant's policy from the 100's in 1869 to 15 in 1875. However, the Black Hills Gold rush increased the Wars to the 40's in 1876 having started the Great Sioux War. I understand there were cultural exchanges. That does not mean that Indians and Whites always lived in peace. TVH is correct that there was "good and bad" concerning Indian and White acculturation. The Indians kept being pushed Westward and were kept from living a hunting and gathering lifestyle. They were forced to adopt farming methods and stay on their respected reservations, yet, the Indians did manage to remain semi-autonomous. The acculturation process was very slow and frought with many acts of violence. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Back to the article (2)

Matters like this (among things you fail to mention) are already understood, and you continue to avoid the idea about including summary coverage about the cultural exchange between Indians and settlers that occurred over 100's of years of history. Overall, you have only used this talk page at every opportunity to talk about your view of 'injustices to Indians'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I cited three sources of cultural exchange that I believe can be included in the article. Was the cultural exchange sincere on the part of the Puritans or only for survival purposes? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you go to the Puritan page and discuss that. We are speaking of the general history between Indians and settlers over 100s of years of history, which you continue to avoid. You came up with a few sources, thanks, but then went right back into 'Puritan mode', as you're still doing here. Please help us in the effort of giving summary and general coverage of this general topic without dragging the discussion into a particular episode of your choosing. Otherwise we can get into other specifics, like how the Europeans were using wheels, gears, levers and pullies at a time when the Indian hadn't even developed a wagon wheel for themselves. Both civilizations had their good points, bad points and short-comings, etc, but let's keep the discussion general in terms of cultural exchange, shall we? Enough has been said about war and disease at the hand of "whites" (with only cursory mention of wide spread Indian atrocities) -- now it's time (ala the 21st century) to give the readers the entire picture. Ya' think? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I don't have any issue with mentioning culture. In terms of English settlement I would say that Puritan is a general term for people who were not Catholic. As far as I know there was no Catholic English Colony. There were Catholic French and Spanish colonies. I also say Puritan in the sense that there was a Puritan Age that was replaced by the Enlightenment. The Puritan age was part of the Counter Reformation, somewhat of a conservative movement, to stop the advancement of art and philosophy that was viewed by Puritans as being anti-godly or heritical. Giving more context on the Indian and Euroamericans aculturation would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the big three of the thirteen, Massachusetts is Puritan then Congregationalist, Pennsylvania Quaker and Anglican, Virginia Anglican and Presbyterian by 1700. Maryland is Catholic and Anglican, New Jersey Anglican and Presbyterian, South Carolina is Anglican, New York Anglican and Dutch Reform. Then by mid 1700s the First Great Awakening you add Methodists and Baptists north and south the whole extent of the Piedmont and interior. They were integrated white and black, slave and free, men and women elected to leadership, embracing the unchurched and also taking away from the established churches in every region: New England, Middle and Southern colonies.

Social historians believe that large numbers of voluntary organizations joining together without official sponsorship, making inter-colonial connections along the entire North American east coast, --- that First Great Awakening --- was a prerequisite to American Independence. People who established their own unauthorized church and elected their own independent leaders, then came to believe they could establish their own government and elect their own rulers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TVH. There was a Catholic English colony then, Maryland. All of the above with the exception of the Catholics were influenced by Calvin doctrine and had seperated from the Catholic Church. I believe for the first 100 years the Puritans dominated New England and in a sense they were the alpha religion in America for first 50 to 70 years. Their influence spread throughout America. I will correct myself. Not all Americans were strictly Purtitan in practice and there was a Catholic English colony. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't the "Great Awakening" a purification of the American churches? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't George Whitefield, an Anglican, basically a Puritan preacher who wanted to purify the American Churches? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you are right...I may have been confusing First and Second Great Awakenings, a little. First Great Awakening says it "had a major impact in reshaping the Congregational church, the Presbyterian church, the Dutch Reformed Church, and the German Reformed denomination, and strengthened the small Baptist and Methodist denominations. It had little impact on Anglicans and Quakers. Unlike the Second Great Awakening, which began about 1800 and which reached out to the unchurched, the First Great Awakening focused on people who were already church members." --- Existing church congregations divided into "New Light" congregations --- it is to those newly invented, -- "purified" as you correctly put it, -- congregations to which I was referring. - Don't let administrator Golbez see this admission on my part, it could chill the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

first paragraph

Come on, really? The first paragraph reads like an advertisement, like "we are the best and greatest.."

Especially "and is a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world, as well as a leader in scientific research and technological innovation.[26][27]". It sounds a bit like all of the other world is doing nothing, being completely dependent on the us. Not mentioning, that other countries in Asia are catching up fast in economics and production, its dependence on cheap Chinese imports and credits and I especially doubt its role as a cultural force. Who says that? Proof? Does the article mean by culture only the exported movies? It doesn't seem to me, like they are leading in music, art, religion nor anything else but movies.

The references also don't say, that the us are the best (26 and 27).

Oh, and the exact count of amendments is also irrelevant for a first paragraph IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.252.10.90 (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather than the "first paragraph", it seems you're talking about what is called the lead, or lede, here on Wikipedia. I tend to agree with you on the detail on constitutional amendments. It does seem a little too much detail for the lead. As for describing the US as "a leading economic, political, and cultural force...", it is a little problematic. The US is certainly one of the biggest forces in the world on those fronts, but "leading" includes a connotation of top quality, and many would argue about that, forever. I am reminded of a time around 17 years ago when I first created a draft website for a company I worked for. I was told to change whatever wording I had chosen to say that our company was the leading company in its field. The word was definitely intended as advertising. Something more diplomatic would certainly be desirable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the US a "prominent economic ... force"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinions, even cited, I can see as not being sufficiently noteworthy given the subject of this article to be included in the lead. Rankings, of largest GDP, having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, being (for the time being) the sole superpower, and having great cultural influence are one thing, but leading may be under WP:WTW.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, if anything the lede is too watered down in roughly outlining America's role in the world by merely calling it "a" leading force in those spheres when it's actually the leading force (including music, art, and other cultural elements). That's not POV, it's the fact based reality of the situation as measured through any number of metrics, many of which appear in the article (especially economics, military dominance, and scientific research). And no, that doesn't mean "all of the other world is doing nothing". However, it does mean that the US is prominent enough on the world stage that people all over the globe consume news coverage about it, have opinions about it, often have anti-American chips on their shoulders, and sometimes come to the United States page (the most viewed page on Wikipedia) to discuss it, in a way they don't for other countries. VictorD7 (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You have missed the point of several of the posts above. Yes, the US is powerful, with massive influence, but does that make "leading" the right adjective to use to describe it? Leading implies all positive influence. Many would obviously argue that some of the USA's influence is not good for the rest of the world. I'm sure that many Americans would take that view. I hope you can agree that that's at least partly true. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I just disagreed with you because you're wrong. "Leading" doesn't imply "all positive influence". The USSR was a leading power during much of the 20th Century. Nazi Germany was a leading power in the 1930s and early 1940s. Car wrecks are a leading cause of death among the young. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my post at 00:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC) above. We must use different versions of English. That's possible, but good manners would have meant you'd have said something like I just said, rather than "you're wrong". Arrogance built on ignorance is not a nice trait. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the post you just responded to? The one where I demonstrated that your claim was false by citing examples like "leading cause of death"? I could have added "leading problem", another commonly used phrase. If me pointing out that you're wrong seemed undiplomatic, you shouldn't have obnoxiously and erroneously stated in your previous post that I had missed the point. I clearly hadn't. The ignorance and arrogance are yours. That your company may have wanted to use "leading" to bolster its prominence is irrelevant. This article is supposed to be in American English (you're wrong about that too), not that it matters, since the word itself is neutral and used in both positive and negative contexts across English speaking countries. It means "chief" or "principle". "Leading" doesn't refer to quality, but to global dominance and impact, for good or ill, and undeniably applies. The BBC page used as a source in the text says, "Given America's leading role on the international stage, its foreign policy aims and actions are likely to remain the subject of heated debate and criticism, as well as praise." It seems like you and the IP address who started this section (but clearly doesn't speak English as a first language) are primarily upset with the reality of the situation, but Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of weakening itself by being "diplomatic" in appeasing those with chips on their shoulders who don't know what they're talking about. The goal is to accurately describe reality. VictorD7 (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You don't get it. Bad example of an American bully. (Most Americans are not. Those who are damage the image of the rest.) Even had a go at an editor because their English skills weren't "perfect". I shall cease now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. I simply offered correction. It's not an insult to point out that someone's first language doesn't appear to be English, but rather a mitigating factor. If raised in a non English speaking country it's impressive that he speaks English as well as he does, though both his and your visceral anti-Americanism is unfortunate. Regardless, the more pertinent point is that you were wrong on all counts. "Bully"? Because I demolished your rant with logic, common examples, and a BBC link? You're arguing purely from emotion, not reason. An honest, open minded person would thank me for the education. VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would state that the United States is the leading corporate nation that has established military dominance throughout the world and has a semi-autonomous financial relationship with Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed 'leader' to "prominant", the US dollar being the major currency of international exchange. Members of the Arab League call on the US to internationally "lead" the nations of the earth to save Muslim Syrians from destruction as it did Muslim Bosnians. Can the US save Muslims from Christians? yes. Can the US save Muslims from Muslims? no. that is nation building, arrogance of power, over-reaching imperialism. The US is merely prominant in Syrian and world affairs, the Russians (Muslims?) currently dominant, rebel cities sponsored by Quatar and Saudia Arabia falling to the Russian-sponsored Assad regime at the moment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of your description underscores the reality that the US has a singular prominence in world affairs, a reality not adequately captured by "a prominent" or maybe even "a leading", though the latter gets closer to the truth since "leading" indicates a more exclusive club than merely "prominent". There are many prominent nations. There's only one with the largest economy, by far the most powerful military, that founded and clearly leads NATO, that founded and hosts the UN, that can influence every part of the world if it chooses, and that is involved to varying degrees in issues around the globe. English is the world's lingua franca, not Russian or Chinese. The combined western European powers couldn't even oust Khaddafi without American help. Even in a temporary period of "leading from behind", the USA is the indispensable nation. The article currently fails to convey this basic reality. VictorD7 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is true. First of all, it has the advantage of voluntary associations across an entire continent. Openness is the American cultural hallmark seen in finance, trade, most pronouncedly in the world-wide internet and social media phenomenon -- it's not just movies. It is intellectually dishonest to dismiss America, seizing on attendant evils as being the principle effect of liberty in society. Social evils such as crime rates or promiscuity are a necessary consequence of basing society on the individual internalizing self control, not depending on the state or established religion to impose social control. Most coerced social control in the US derives from contracts upheld in a rule of law, entered into voluntarily for lawful purposes based on initiative independent of the state. The result is greater personal development, creativity, innovation adoption and prosperity unmatched elsewhere, and in that we may agree. I just tried to tone it down a bit so it did not smack of triumphalism, a curse word in American historiography. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"It is intellectually dishonest" to suggest that anyone IS dismissing America. Please maintain polite discussion and don't misrepresent others' positions. That is always provocative behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[insert] What? eh? That was not directed at you, or did I miss something. --- But did you not, dismiss the US as a world leader in anything because it might be the agent of something untoward? HiLo48 said, "Leading implies all positive influence... some of the USA's influence is not good for the rest of the world.", therefore your point was to dismiss the US as a "leader" in the narrative. Or was your point to keep the wording, the 'US is a world leader in ...' ? I regret any misunderstanding on my part, let's keep the US as "a world leader", and avoid intellectual dishonesty on anyone's part, by all means. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, though I don't think the BBC was engaging in American triumphalism. Indeed much of the "hyperpower"/"superpower" commentary like that related below comes from critics of the US (foreign and American), in some cases with barely concealed anti-American bigotry showing through. VictorD7 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What's with the bit about old world diseases killing native populations post 1500?

Why is that in the introduction? It's not even particularly true for northern native Americans. It occurred much later... while the US was around. I presume it is to belittle the position that the US committed genocide of many native American cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammondtr (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to recommend you read several of the sections above, such as [2] [3], and [4].Kude90 (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Key is, westward migrating colonists found abandoned clearings among 200-year old trees which had been villages nearby fish habitat and well drained land which had been farmed by the Amerindians before them. Surviving tribe members only returned to these areas for hunting, so the squatters were tolerated for 'rents' of occasional shelter in an ice storm, or stealing a beef during the occasional bad deer hunting season. -- It is the epidemics taking 20%-50+% of Native American populations which makes Daniel Boone characters possible. They do not make a place "under the dome", they find places away from the major rivers of Amerindian commerce and population centers abandoned on the fringe territory of both cultures: population receding tribes and population expanding colonists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sole superpower. - system erased my edit summary for some reason.

Here's what I said in the summary for the revert:

Text refers to the end of the Cold War, not now, though it's not clear that the situation has changed anyway. The US was widely described as the "sole superpower" after the Soviet collapse. VictorD7 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it refers to the time beginning at the end of the cold war -- up until now -- which I think is understood. Since it is a lede statement, unsourced as lede statements often go, I think we should specify 'greatest superpower'. This way we are not ignoring or coming off ignorant about countries like Britain and Russia -- and now China. I believe 'greatest superpower' not only defines the USA as such but acknowledges the existence of the other superpowers in an unspoken manner, which indeed do exist. On that note we should change it back to 'greatest'. Btw, the term 'superpower' is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Lede is supposed to reflect further content in body of text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Left" is past tense and specifically refers to the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it's not necessarily describing the time up until now. We could add a whole paragraph of post Cold War history without having to change a word in that sentence. The notion that the US was the "sole superpower" after the Soviet collapse was virtually universal. Also, my question needs to be addressed: wasn't the US already the "greatest superpower" even back when there were two? The proposed change would imply that wasn't the case until the Soviet collapse, a claim I'm not sure you intended to make.

Furthermore, the US is still the sole superpower, and usually described that way today. How is the UK a superpower? China has a large GDP (though there are questions about how accurate the statistics coming out of that nation's government are), but so does Japan, and yet Japan wasn't even typically described that way in the 1980s or early 90s. China doesn't yet have the ability to project force around the world or make itself a relevant player in any regional situation in the world if it chooses to. Neither does Russia. Russia's only claim to superpower status is having nuclear weapons, but it had far more at the end of the Cold War when it was deemed no longer a superpower. Russia is not anywhere near to recapturing the global power and influence it had during the Cold War. China may be on its way to becoming a superpower one day, but at this point the only nation with a massive global impact in politics, military power, economics, and culture is the United States. Indeed in recent years some have taken to calling America a "hyperpower".

Not every line in the lede needs to be duplicated and/or expanded on in the subsequent body, much less with the exact wording. That "superpower" is only used once underscores the lack of need for changing it to reflect a later development even if we were to agree it's occurred. Justifying such a change would require a larger expansion of the article to discuss "superpower" concepts (complete with the various views involved), and expanding the lede to cover post Cold War history. Maybe there's a place for the latter in some capacity (presumably it will happen at some point) if you don't think it should end with the Cold War, but we'd be getting into recent events where views are still in flux and descriptions can be dicey (see the latter History section Golbez has complained about). Another possibility would be to remove the term "superpower", but it would be absurd for the article not to mention the commonly word at all since the US essentially defines it. Other possibilities include linking to the "superpower" page, where various views up to and including the current situation are discussed, and/or adding a note about the various views on subsequent developments.

For the record I'll point out that the notion of a sole superpower and a multi-polar world aren't mutually exclusive. "Superpower" doesn't imply omnipotence, much less assume that a nation always chooses to exert its strength. It just means that one of those poles has a singular preeminence. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Makes no sense to call US a sole “superpower” in the 21st century. Robert D. Kaplan’s 2012 The revenge of geography uses the term “superpower” to describe nodes of expansive geographic influence in “early-twenty-first-century”. His seven regional giants with worldwide reach are and will continue to developing to be (in chapter order): 1) US-Canada-Mexico, 2) Europe, 3) Russia, 4) China, 5) India, 6) Iran and 7) former-Ottoman-empire. --- Any counter-source from a scholar looking forward into the 21st Century? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the argument is that the term "superpower" loses meaning when there is only one. The rest of the world no longer has to ally with one or another superpower. Whether or not Kaplan's predictions come true, they certainly have not yet. His school of thought has a bad record on predicting the future. TFD (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

[insert] As opposed to the Marxist school? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Victor, even though the Soviet Union is mentioned, the lede should also refer to the time occurring after that, which would include the present. Regarding the term 'superpower' (i.e.super and power) we are referring to military might. Large GNP is understood as this is required to produce nuclear weapons and the infrastructure to manage and deliver them. Since the UK, Russia and to a lesser extent China, all have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, it is no stretch of the imagination that they are superpowers in relation to the rest of the world. Again, by saying 'greatest superpower' we assert this idea while acknowledging that there are other, albeit not as great, superpowers. To say the USA is the "sole" superpower implies that countries like the UK and Russia don't possess superpower and makes the article come off as factually ignorant. Unless there is more than one RS that claims "sole superpower", qualified in no uncertain terms, we should say 'greatest superpower' As it is, there is no RS for this claim in the first place. Lede should include all time up until the present and 'greatest' refers to that time as much as 'sole'. Also, body of text needs to expand on superpower, be it the 'greatest', or the 'sole' superpower. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally agree with TVH and TFD. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

TVH - The lede's historical section doesn't cover the 21st Century. It ends with the Cold War. Got any scholars who claim the Cold War ended in the 21st Century? I don't necessarily oppose expanding the lede beyond the end of the Cold War, but that's a separate issue than revising the geopolitical impact of the USSR's collapse. Regarding the rest, while I agree that the world consists of regional power blocks (and for the record I predicted that a couple of decades ago), it doesn't make sense to pretend that the US is merely one of a group of great powers, without further qualification. Its singular dominance still puts it in another league. Regardless, separate from the "superpower" issue, categorizing them by divisions like "US-Canada-Mexico" and "former-Ottoman-empire" (Seriously? Sounds shaky.) is the whim of a particular scholar, and it can be easily argued that its power bloc emphasis is a qualitatively different topic from the question of how powerful individual nation states are. After all, even if one would prefer to knock down borders, diminish nationhood, and/or just finds it worthwhile to examine the world from a somewhat different angle, the US, Canada, Mexico, Syria, Turkey, etc. all do still exist as independent nations, each with its own foreign policy, agenda, power, scope of influence, etc., and this is still the United States page, not the North America page.

Gwillhickers - To clarify, before I invest time digging up sources to prove the obvious, are you claiming that the UK, China, and by logical extension France, Israel, etc.. have been "superpowers" for the past several decades, including during the Cold War? Because there are plenty of reliable sources referring to the US and USSR as "superpowers" over the years, and to the US as the "sole superpower" since the Cold War ended. Ignoring that dumbs the article down; making it seem factually ignorant to those who know better and misleading those who don't by presenting an unnecessarily obtuse picture. In recent years various types of dissenting views have been raised (some of them politically driven by myopic anti-Iraq War hysteria), but the most you can say is that current opinion is fractured. As the Wikipedia superpower article points out, the last and still only nation that's a consensus superpower is the United States. Updating that to include the current state of affairs, and presumably multiple opinions, will require more than changing a word or two. VictorD7 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Non-sequitur alert: TVH - The lede's historical section doesn't cover the 21st Century. It ends with the Cold War. Got any scholars who claim the Cold War ended in the 21st Century? - VictorD7 -- The history section -- but then Kaplan's observation belongs in Contemporary era? A Wikipedia country-article is bounded by the present day, --- another reason for including present day geographic boundaries of the US to include five organized territories of US citizens with Members of Congress as explicitly provided for by current law. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Your alarm was false. As I've already said, I'm not opposed to updating the lede's historical section to include assessments of the more recent past (though, since opinion is fractured, we'd probably have to include more than one view, and be wary of recentism). However, this discussion began over an attempt to revise the past tense, long established sentence relating how the end of the Cold War and the Soviet collapse "left" the United States. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where the United States being the 'sole' superpower is not anything but "obvious" and would have to ask, what makes it obvious. We don't have to differentiate between all the countries that possess nuclear weapons, all we have to do is ask -- 'what makes the USA a superpower and the UK or Russia not a superpower'? UK and Russia have all the things that make the USA a superpower. i.e. A large military, nuclear weapons and a sizeable GNP. Again, what is it that makes these countries not a superpower? By asserting that the US is the 'sole' superpower we are assuming there is this giant gap between the USA and the likes of the UK and Russia. Indeed, there is a gap, but nothing that even suggests that these countries are not superpowers in relation to the rest of the world. And after all, the term 'superpower' is an analogy or comparison of one such country to the entire world, not to just one or two other countries that also have nuclear capability and a significant GNP. We can't say the UK or Russia are not a superpowers simply because they don't have quite as many nukes or quite as large GNP as does the USA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So, again, to clarify before I start digging up sources, your contention is that countries like the UK, France, China, and maybe some others were superpowers all along, or at least once they acquired nuclear weapons? Plus my original question still hasn't been answered. Do you mean to imply that the act of Soviet collapse "left the US as the greatest superpower" because it wasn't the greatest superpower prior to that? (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

All I am saying is that countries like the UK and Russia are superpowers in comparison to the rest of the world because like the USA they possess a formidable military and nuclear arsenal. Again, simply because the USA may(?) have more nukes does not mean these countries are not superpowers. If you happen to find a source that makes this claim it would be interesting to know how they actually qualify it.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Sole superpower (2)

Is that a "yes"? Or are you challenging the term's very presence in the article? Since you made a sudden and unilateral edit, I figured you had a clear position. I multitask, don't have a ton of free time, and would prefer to clarify the lines of discussion before I invest time to dig up sources. What precisely is it that you're suggesting? That the UK, France, and other nations should be considered "superpowers" even during the Cold War? That they became superpowers at some point after the Cold War and the article should be expanded to reflect this later development? Or that the very notion of "superpowers" was bs to begin with and the term should be struck from the article? Also, do you dispute my contention that saying the Soviet collapse "left the US as the greatest superpower" implies it wasn't the greatest prior to that event? In case I'm coming off that way I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I really think we need to clarify this stuff to have a productive discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was being clear. The US is not the "sole" superpower for reasons stated. In relation to the rest of the world countries like the UK and Russia are superpowers, regardless of the state of affairs Russia was in after the cold war. The cold war did not strip Russia of their nuclear arsenal. They still had, and have, a huge military and nuclear arsenal and comparable GNP as does the UK. Again, what makes the UK and Russia not superpowers? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't been clear enough. The article doesn't say anything about who is or isn't currently a superpower. It only has a past tense reference describing the end of the Cold War. The lede doesn't update history beyond that, which is why my timeline questions and comments are relevant. Since the cart is hopelessly ahead of the horse anyway, I'll answer your question by saying that, while precise definitions sometimes vary, superpower status has always indicated a step (or more) above great power status. It's always reflected conventional military strength, particularly the ability to project decisive force around the world, as well as second strike nuclear capability during the Cold War (and presumably since), the latter ultimately characterized by massive arsenals delivered by a "triad" of platforms consisting of ICBMs, strategic bombers, and submarines. It essentially grew out of WW2 to describe the British Empire, United States, and USSR. The British Empire soon collapsed (though the US had already surged into its own league, having eclipsed the UK in naval domination and achieved a nuclear monopoly), and then a few decades later the USSR dissolved, leaving just the US. Even if one wants to argue that "superpower" should be a 20th Century term only, the current article is fine. However, the word is still commonly used to describe today, and for good reason.

As the superpower article I linked to earlier pointed out, scholars assess superpower status by measuring influence along multiple axes, notably military, economic, political, and cultural (Lyman Miller). In a 1999 Foreign Affairs piece, Samuel Huntington wrote that (some of this is quoted on Wikipedia)..."There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system would have one superpower, no significant major powers, and many minor powers....A bipolar system like the Cold War has two superpowers, and the relations between them are central to international politics. Each superpower dominates a coalition of allied states and competes with the other superpower for influence among nonaligned countries. A multipolar system has several major powers of comparable strength that cooperate and compete with each other in shifting patterns. A coalition of major states is necessary to resolve important international issues. European politics approximated this model for several centuries.

Contemporary international politics does not fit any of these three models. It is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers. The settlement of key international issues requires action by the single superpower but always with some combination of other major states; the single superpower can, however, veto action on key issues by combinations of other states. The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power -- economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."

Huntington goes on to classify Russia, China, India, the "German-French condominium", Iran, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, and "potentially Japan" as "second level...major regional powers that are preeminent in areas of the world without being able to extend their interests and capabilities as globally as the United States." To the third level he assigns "secondary regional powers whose interests often conflict with the more powerful regional states", and lists Britain, Ukraine, Japan (in relation to China), South Korea (in relation to Japan), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (in relation to Iran), and Argentina.

While Huntington did think the US would eventually decline and become just another great power (declinist predictions for the US have been a recurring phenomenon for a long time, btw, most recently in the 1970s), that same year political scientist Kim Richard Nossal disagreed, pointing out that the US had actually increased the power gap in the decade since the Cold War ended, and argued that "hyperpower" better described the reality of the situation, due to a combination of factors including defense spending reductions by most of the major powers, continued rapid US technological advancement, and much of the world becoming increasingly economically tied to and dependent on the US.

That covers the immediate post Cold War period, and it's not clear the situation has decisively changed since then. The US has had economic problems, but so has most of the rest of the world. Trendy mid 2000s talk of an emerging European superstate has vanished amid economic and political upheaval. It's not certain the EU will even exist 20 years from now. Influential Brits are expressing withdrawalist sentiment more openly than before. The European coalition needed American help to oust the pitifully weak Khadafi regime on its own doorstep. European troops fighting in Afghanistan rely on American transport and often air support just to operate. Russia has benefited from high oil prices, but it still lacks the power to project conventional military strength around the world, and has only managed significant influence in its own backyard (like Syria recently). China has the most potential to become a superpower through its sheer size, but, as political scientist June Teufel Dreyer said in 2007, “China is not a superpower now. A superpower must be able to project its power, soft and hard, globally. China currently cannot, though it is certainly a regional power. Will the PRC become a superpower? The economic gains of the past 25 years have been hugely impressive, but there are doubts about how long they can continue.” And no, neither Russia nor the UK have a "comparable GNP". Russia's nominal GDP is around $2 trillion, around eight times smaller than the USA's, and the UK's is only slightly larger than Russia's. The order flips on a PPP basis but neither is in the ballpark of the US.

Regardless of what terminology one prefers to use, essentially the USA is still in a league of its own due to the combination of its ability to project hard military power to any region of the world, its economic preeminence (and the dollar is still world's reserve currency), political influence, and cultural supremacy (music, cinema, food, language, etc.). The US is the only nation with a significant aircraft carrier fleet, and it probably has more daily global soft power influence than it did 20 years ago. The most recognizable corporate brands in the world are US icons like Coca-Cola and McDonalds, and US ventures like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter drive global internet culture. China did recently become just the third member of the exclusive spacefaring club, though no other nation or group of nations has come close to matching the technical achievements of NASA, as exemplified by the moon landings, Mars rovers, and other projects. Even now, when describing the US, if "superpower" is discarded for some reason, a new term would just have to be substituted to capture its singular full spectrum preeminence lest reality be obscured by obtuse language. VictorD7 (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This string began with a reference to the lede? Here's what I said in the summary for the revert: Text refers to the end of the Cold War, not now, though it's not clear that the situation has changed anyway. The US was widely described as the "sole superpower" after the Soviet collapse. VictorD7 6:09 pm, 1 June 2013. The characterization of the US as a "superpower" belongs in the history section concerning the Cold War, does it not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Along with the "paleo-indians", "13 colonies", and "vigorous expansion"? The lede has an historical section, one that currently concludes with the end of the Cold War. There was widespread common and scholarly agreement that the US was the sole superpower after the USSR collapsed. Of course just before that the text also mentions that the US emerged from WW2 as a "global superpower". Should that reference be removed from the lede and erased or moved to the History section too? As I've said elsewhere, I'm not opposed to expanding the lede's historical section to include more recent events, including newer assessments of current superpower status, though since opinion is fractured on the latter we'd have to include multiple views while being wary of ascribing too much weight to overly recent opinions (like books published in 2012 with a speculative opinion advertised as "startling" and "new"), hopefully all the while not losing sight of the big picture and wrecking the forest for some trees. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Cultural exchange

Using two sources that Cmguy777 provided for us above (Ripper, 2008, Calloway, 1998) I have just added a fair amount of content that covers the cultural exchange advent, hitherto missing in the article/section for too long now.

Insert:There needs to be a time frame for the initial peace between the Puritans and Indians. I would state from 1619 to 1634. That would be fifteen years. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

pardon. housekeeping note: advent means "beginning of" cultural exchange, not event "instance of" cultural exchange. Everything is not in Boston, all American colonial is not Puritan. The first Thanksgiving was in Jamestown. Although at one time Harvard had Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in history, Henry Kissinger in government, John Rawls in philosophy, David McClelland in business, Talcott Parsons in sociology. I was impressed, can you blame me? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

Btw, I created a 'Bibliography' section and added the two sources mentioned directly above. Currently the 'References' section serves to list citation and sources, all lumped together. In the interest of making this at least a GA we need to begin sorting out sources from citations and listing the former in the bibliography section. There is barely a section that doesn't have lengthy 'cite web', cite book' and 'cite journal' templates mixed in with the text. It's next to impossible to read the text in edit mode and makes editing very difficult. There is no excuse why experienced editors don't employ the use of 'ref tags' e.g. <ref>[[#Calloway1998|Calloway, 1998]], p.55</ref> that link to the 'Cite book' and other such templates in the bibliography. All that need be done to refer/link to a given 'cite book' or 'cite web' listing in the bibliography is to simply insert e.g. |ref=Calloway1998 in with the rest of the cite book items, using the appropriate page number each time the tag is used. Such tagging is much shorter and doesn't overwhelm the text. Example listing below:

*{{cite book |first=Colin G. |last=Calloway |title=New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America
|publisher=JHU Press |ref=Calloway1998 |pages=229 |isbn=9780801859595}}

Good job Gwillhickers. What about fish fertilizer? Farmers use fertilizers today. The Native Americans deserve credit for introducing Europeans to fertilizer in growing crops. Thanks for using two sources I provided. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, will get on it. Settlers did encourage farming, but Indians were still aware of fertilizing techniques even though their culture largely centered around hunting and gathering. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Body of text a mess

Just to give an idea of the relationship between the actual text and everything else in between I copied and pasted the first (and very small) paragraph from the 'Native American and European contact' section to directly below -- and bolded the actual text only. (employing 'nowiki')

People from Asia migrated to the North American continent beginning between 40,000 and 12,000 years ago.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/faq/americas.htm |archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20071128083459/http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/faq/americas.htm |archivedate=November 28, 2007|title=Peopling of Americas|publisher=Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History|month=June|year=2004|accessdate=June 19, 2007}}</ref> Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, it is estimated that their population declined due to various reasons, including diseases such as smallpox and measles,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bianchine |first1=Peter J. |last2=Russo |first2=Thomas A. |year=1992 |title=The Role of Epidemic Infectious Diseases in the Discovery of America |journal=Allergy and Asthma Proceedings |volume=13 |issue=5 |pages=225–232 |publisher=OceanSide Publications, Inc |url=http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ocean/aap/1992/00000013/00000005/art00002 |accessdate=September 9, 2012 |doi=10.2500/108854192778817040}}</ref> intermarriage,<ref>{{cite book|author=Karen Wood Weierman|title=One Nation, One Blood: Interracial Marriage In American Fiction, Scandal, And Law, 1820-1870|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=24mIQuLBuN8C&pg=PA44|year=2005|publisher=Univ of Massachusetts Press|isbn=978-1-55849-483-1|page=44}}<br/>{{cite journal |last1=Mann |first1=Kaarin |year=2007 |title=Interracial Marriage In Early America: Motivation and the Colonial Project |journal=Michigan Journal of History |issue=Fall |publisher=University of Michigan |url=http://www.umich.edu/~historyj/docs/2007-fall/Interracial_Marriage_in_Early_America_Mann.pdf |accessdate=September 8, 2012}}</ref> and violence.<ref>{{cite book |title=American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492 |series=Volume 186 of Civilization of the American Indian Series |last=Thornton |first=Russell |year=1987 |publisher=University of Oklahoma Press |isbn=9780806122205 |page=49 |accessdate=September 9, 2012 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=9iQYSQ9y60MC&lpg=PA49&dq=genocide%20warfare%20europeans%20american%20indians&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q=genocide%20warfare%20europeans%20american%20indians&f=false }}<br/>{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia Of Native American Wars And Warfare |series=Facts on File library of American History |last=Kessel |first=William B. |last2=Wooster |first2=Robert |authorlink= |year=2005 |publisher=Infobase Publishing |isbn=9780816033379 |pages=142–143 |accessdate=September 9, 2012 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=laxSyAp89G4C&pg=PA142 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mchspa.org/body.htm |title=Early History, Native Americans, and Early Settlers in Mercer County |publisher=Mercer County Historical Society |accessdate=September 9, 2012}}</ref>

Three simple sentences of text mixed in with almost a page of templates, Url's and markup. Ridiculous! This stuff belongs in a bibliography, separated from the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem this passage could easily be cited with one or two book sources. One of the cite web sources is so old (access date 2007) that the Url address redirects to a Url generated by the 'Way-back machine' where the web page linked to doesn't even hint about being from the Smithsonian. Further, the lede says 15,000 years ago, this source, such that it is, says 12,000. Seems we should put more of our energy into scrutinizing, editing, sourcing and clean up and less of it into 'talk'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Date of arrival of 1st Indians to continent

The source used says:

The timing of the first appearance of humans in the Americas is debated. For many years, experts believed that people first migrated into North America 12,000 years ago. New finds have led some researchers to push for a first appearance date of 30,000 to even 40,000 years ago. (emphasis added)

The "new finds" claim is ambiguous, esp since it refers only to "some researchers". It really doesn't make much difference to me what the number is, so long as it's generally recognized. If there is a wide body of disagreement, with a RS that nails that claim, then we can relate that idea. The statement as it was didn't do that and asserted a wide range of numbers far from settled on by the majority of experts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery beginnings

Slavery needs to be discussed in terms of when slavery began. When was slavery first officially sanctioned? What tribes practiced slavery? Did the Spanish import slaves into North America such as the Carolinas? The Purtians sanctioned slavery in the 1640s. Slavery was also practiced by the French. There is also the Sugar plantations in the West Indies triangle that the colonies supported by trade. When did slavery begin in the North American continent? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This level of detail can be found in a subsidiary article Slavery in the United States. I added

See also: Slavery in the United States

. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If Indians practiced slavery then what tribes practiced slavery prior to the European invasion? Who were the first Europeans to bring slaves into the Pre United States? Remember the United States was part of the British empire that included Canada. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Many tribes practiced a form of slavery well before Europeans, only different from hereditary slavery. Amerindians kidnapped wives and slaves. Slaves were a sociological category of 'third sex', but that could be modified by adoption, adoption subsequently qualified the individual for marriage by a woman's choice (pardon the pc expression - stay off it, you flat-earthers).
• Virginians first bought from Dutch traders, African-Americans and Africans via Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. For the first 50 years, 1620-1670 or so Christians with Portuguese names mostly from Angola, or Spanish names mostly from Cuba, were freed after 7-years indenture, just as white servants. (see Ira Berlin's Many Thousands Gone: the first two centuries of slavery in North America). Those with animist or Arabic names where held in slavery for life, as animist Africans and Muslims held Christian slaves. The freed in Virginia mostly settled on the Eastern Shore, and maintained family farms there until the 1800s.
• By 1670-1700, British colonial law had made hereditary slavery by the mother, whereas the French colonial law allowed free children from mixed unions. By 1750-1770, Amerindian tribes such as Cherokee and Creek had begun to use hereditary African-American slavery on the British model. These distinctions continue down to today. African-Americans can be full tribal citizens of Seminole tribe -- they adopted many runaways in 'maroon' communities. But African-Americans cannot be tribal citizens of Cherokees, because they adopted the British model of slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Vikings

Shouldn't the Vikings be mentioned as the first recorded Europeans meeting the Native Americans? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. We know they had seasonal fishing camps along the shore line in a couple of places for some years, and the Chinese built a lighthouse in Rhode Island. Not sure a summary encyclopedia article can support that level of detail, in that it was kept secret as were the visits from Irish monks. The article should focus on the development of the US as it came to be. The Viking fishing villages were not germane mostly because the information was not shared in the way the English joint-stock companies promoted immigration, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no Chinese lighthouse in Rhode Island and the Vikings never reached what is today the U.S. TFD (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

We are agreed no Vikings, Chinese, or Irish monks need appear in this article? Anyone with that interest could place a link to Exploration of North America, I suppose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel the need to double up on this: the Chinese built a lighthouse in Rhode Island?? So, wait, they sailed east to America, then went all the way around the southern tip and all the way back up, and then built a lighthouse? I enjoy Gavin Menzies' theories as much as the next guy, some may even have merit, but to state one of his theories as plain fact as you just did is beyond the pale. Especially when our own article on the matter states the Rhode Island theory has been debunked. (And, while the Vikings may have been the first Europeans to come to America, they didn't cause any mass migration, unlike Columbus. The Vikings discovered it, but Columbus is the reason the continent was colonized. He's vastly more important to the story of the Americas and to the United States than the Vikings. Furthermore, the Vikings never stepped foot on what is today U.S. soil.) --Golbez (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[insert] yeah, me too. Vikings are beyond the pale. you did indeed double down, clever fellow. Pale. The area enclosed by a fence or boundary. The medieval dominions of the English in Ireland. Whitish in complexion; pallid., clever but unclear. No Irish monks appeared up the Hudson River either. Chinese ships were one-way square sailed, following monsoons out, following monsoons back. We are agreed no Vikings, Chinese, or Irish monks need appear in this article -- unless it's via 'see also' link? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're remotely suggesting the Chinese be included in a 'see also', absolutely not. --Golbez (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[insert] You are again absurdist, making the page a joke. Did you ever restore your animated map taken down for Golbez proprietary reasons? That ship sailed when you published it on Wikipedia. Your response here is just as silly as your excluding US territories which are included in the geographic extent of the US by US law. Get off it. I said, The article should focus on the development of the US as it came to be. The Viking fishing villages [and Chinese fleets and sailing monks] were not germane mostly because the information was not shared in the way the English joint-stock companies promoted immigration, for instance. User:TheVirginiaHistorian. 07:58, 4 June 2013. You continue to see this page as some sort of private Canadian Flat Earth Society joke, you cannot distinguish serious contribution from fable, like the Insular Cases 100 years ago make sitting Congress incompetent to legislate on US geographic extent today. Are you putting in anything about junks, monks or vikings? I am not putting in anything about junks, monks or vikings for the reason I clearly stated, regardless of your Flat Earth facts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Essays could be written on the progression of single paragraphs written by you. Also, I would ask what the map has to do with this article (ps I responded on commons) but I don't want to encourage you. --Golbez (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[insert] You are again unhinged by unthinking unsourced bullying. I posted no map. You are loosing it, buddy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you a moron or just a bad troll? You said, literally, two paragraphs above, "Did you ever restore your animated map taken down for Golbez proprietary reasons?". I asked what the map has to do with this article. Now you say you didn't talk about a map. What the fuck is your problem? (also, "unsourced bullying"? Do you have the capacity to comprehend the bullshit that pours from your fingers?) --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As a descendent of those noble seafarers who arrived in North America a thousand years ago (and I have Vikings disease to prove it) and while it is not agreed by all that they never set foot in what is today the USA, I agree that this is not place for them. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought there was a Swedish settlement up around NJ/NY where Americans learned to get out of the English thatch huts and into log cabins -- better, more durable, less vulnerable to attack or brush fire, warmer against the more severe winters of the 1600s, distinctly unlike the 'balmy' British Isles amid the Gulf Stream with fewer survival requirements. balmy. (of the weather) Pleasantly warm. Extremely foolish; eccentric. But 'Double Dutch' is something else, I think, were we to double down here, so to speak. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"Americans?" Carptrash (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[insert] oops. EuroAmericans and farming Amerindians in permanent settlements, such as those found among Seminole, Creek, Cherokee, Algonquin and Iroquois, for instance. . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

TVH seems to be suffering from a bad case of Poe's law. At least, I hope so. --Jayron32 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The United States was part of the British Empire that included Canada. The Vikings landed I believe in New Foundland that would become part of the British Empire. That is why the Vikings need to be included. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Australia was part of the British Empire too, but we do not mention the arrival of the first people there. TFD (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jamaica was part of the British Empire, how much of their history should we include here? --Golbez (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Australia is not part of the North American Continent TDF. New Foundland is. Here is a map that showed the British Empire extended to New Foundland. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

British Colonies 1763 to 1776

I thought this was the article on the United States, not on the British Empire or North America or areas that are not part of the United States. Columbus should be mentioned because he's the reason, ultimately, that the British came. The Vikings were not consequential to the United States. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[insert] As on the Vikings question, Golbez and I are agreed here, unless he flips CFES - Canadian Flat Earth Society - on us again. I said, The article should focus on the development of the US as it came to be. [explorations of the British Empire] were not germane mostly because the information was not shared in the way the English joint-stock companies promoted immigration [to what would become the United States], for instance. User:TheVirginiaHistorian. 07:58, 4 June 2013. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Golbez, the Vikings landed in New Foundland, not Jamaica, that was originally a Spanish colony. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

British North America

Why was this removed? There is no set up for the American Revolution. America was more then the thirteen colonies. There were more provinces or colonies then the thirteen colonies. British dominion was from the Floridas to New Foundland. The reader is led to believe falsely that the only North American British colonies were the Thirteen Colonies. This is not true. What else can you call British North America when there is an article called British North America on wikipedia. The term British North America means that the Crown controlled the Provinces or colonies. Certainly this was not Spanish North America or French North America. These were colonies or provinces with laws and religious faith more then rudementary settlements. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there was no need for a tiny one-paragraph subsection. If needed, it could be included in another section. Yes, there is an article called British North America. Did you miss the part where it said the term only came into use in 1783? You know, after our little revolution? Also, what is with your insistence on Newfoundland being two words? --Golbez (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I concede that the term British North America was used after the Revolutionary War. However, the article stated that the Thirteen colonies was part of "British North America". Maybe the article was a bit confusing. However, I believe more needs to be mentioned that British control extended from the Floridas to Newfoundland. That is where the Vikings made there first European settlements in what would be part of the British empire on the North American Continent. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

BNA was not a political entity, merely a geographer's way of referring to British colonies that happened to be in North America. TFD (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. British North America versus French North America or Spanish North America. Always remembering -- that is shorthand for "British-claimed N. Am.", since the geographer tinted map areas overlapping other European claims, and all Europeans were making claims where Amerindians had never been subdued or negotiated into confederation with European crowns. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the American Revolution (1775) the British had 20 colonies in North America north of the Spanish territories. The article, in my opinion, is misleading the reader to believe that there were only 13 British colonies in North America. The article needs to state that the British Crown had claims on America from the Floridas to Newfoundland including the Thirteen colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not to mention that only 13 of the 20 colonies rebelled might warrant a discussion, though I don't see it adding more than a sentence fragment. However, whether or not there were more than 13 colonies has nothing to do with your proposal that we include viking contact because it happened on land that was later part of the British Empire but never part of the US. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Golbez. Maybe we can find agreement. I am for the mention in the article that the Thirteen Colonies was part of the British Empire's 20 colonies in North America prior to the American Revolution as either a sentence fragment or a complete sentence. The Viking colony was not part of the U.S. nor part of the later British empire. There is no direct corrolation with the Vikings and the British, I suppose, other then they had ruled Britain briefly after the Romans vacated Britain. King Knut was a Viking British King I believe. I believe the Vikings need to be mentioned because they were the first Europeans recorded to have to set up colonies in North America. The British followed in succession. The succession of colonization I believe warrants mention of the Vikings in the article. I had started a discussion in the Viking section and I believe further discussion on Viking colonization belongs in that section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It was not "part of" the "20 colonies", since no such state existed. Why include the island of Newfoundland, but not the island of Bermuda, the Bahamas and British lands in the Caribbean or elsewhere in the world for that matter? TFD (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD. The Vikings did not land in Bermuda, the Bahamas, nor the Caribbean. They landed in Newfoundland and were the first recorded Europeans to colonize America. Like it or not, the Vikings beat Columbus almost 400 years and beat the English by over 500 years. OK, how about this. The 20 British colonies in America included the Thirteen colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

CMG. or, "The 20 British colonies in America included the original thirteen colonies making up the first U.S. by the Declaration of Independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, why do you include the island of Newfoundland as one of the colonies in America but exclude other islands? What does the Viking's landing on one of these islands have to do with anything? TFD (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, the Vikings were the first Europeans to discover America. This is not mentioned in the article. However, the article mentions that Indians came from Asia to the American continent, but skips the Vikings and Lief Ericson. From reading the article there is confusion as to who discovered America or there is no mention of any Europeans discovering America. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a question whether one can say the Vikings "discovered" America, because other people had arrived before them. None of the territories they visited is part of the modern day U.S. When we write about Israel, for example, we do not talk about the settlement of Vietnam, just because they are in the same continent. TFD (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Then take out the part of the Indians settling the American Continent because not all Indians settled in current day U.S. Time is is series of progression that starts in the past, stuck in the present, and hopefully continues in the future. You can't apply U.S. borders prior to 1776. There was no U.S. from 10,000 B.C. to 1775. The current U.S. borders do not apply prior to 1776. That is the whole faulty thinking in terms of applying present borders prior to American Independence. The reader deserves some sort of discovery time frame in the article. England was ruled or controlled by Vikings or Denmark at the time of Lief Ericsons discovery. At the time of Viking American discovery Ethelred II paid tribute to the Danish King Danegeld. King Cnut was King of England from 1016 to 1035. Now if the Vinland colony existed during Cnut's reign, then Vinland was actually the first English colony in America. I am not exactly sure how long the Vinland colony existed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian immigration was relevant to the history of the United States. Some Indians settled in what is now the USA, and they're still there today. Similarly, Colombus was very important for the beginning of European exploration of the Americas, which led to the establishment of the colonies that would make up the USA. The Viking exploration and settlement had no impact on the history of the USA. It's not just about borders, it's about relevance. The Viking settlement has none. As far as I know, it's still unknown if they had much impact at all. CMD (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

... Here, let me put it in simple terms: The Vikings were inconsequential to the history of the United States. The Indians were very consequential to the history of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Columbus first attempt to get to the New World was through Iceland in 1477, possibly Greenland. Did Columbus know of Leif Ericson's discovery of Vinland and was that why he sailed to Iceland knowing of previous discovery? The Vikings left Vinland in 1013. I suppose Ericson's loyalty would have been to King Danegeld or the Denmark. More accurately, the first colony in America was Danish, rather then English. There had been records of Ericson's discovery prior to Columbus's 1492 journey. King Ethelred did pay tribute to the Viking King Danegeld. I agree Columbus "rediscovery" had more impact then Ericsons. With that stated, the Viking contribution was signifigant and I believe deserves to be noted in the article. Why does Wikipedia have to behold to the Genoese school and downgrade the importance of Lief Ericson's "rediscovery" of America. Remember, the Indians that met the Vikings fought each other. Did the Indians spread the news that there were Viking Americans? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Leif Ericson's father was Eric the Red and he was Norwegian. The Vinland colonists would have been Norvinlanderans or Noramericans. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Significant how? You've given no reasons it was significant and no sources to back up this point. That's because it wasn't significant. Wikipedia's not downgrading Lief Ericson's actions, it's noting them where they're appropriate, which is not this article. For example, History of North America mentions it. CMD (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, Cmguy777: Would you propose including Leif Ericson in Belize? This was also a British colony in North America, and based on your rules as stated above, Leif Ericson should be included. --Golbez (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are attempting to make a mockery of the Vikings and history. Leif Ericson never landed in Belize. He landed in what is now Newfoundland. I am not in the business of lying, promoting lies, nor enticing people to lie, Golbez. I don't need your permission to make any edits according to Wikipedia policy. This is suppose to be a good faith discussion on the Vikings Discovery of America. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"He never landed in Belize" He never landed in the United States, either! --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: For once we agree Golbez. The Pilgrims did not land in the United States. The Jamestown colonists did not land in the United States. The Native Americans did not migrate to the United States. The Spanish and French did not land in the United States. There was no United States to land in or migrate too. The Vikings were the first Europeans to have been recorded to land on what is now called the North American Continent. They fought the Indians and killed the Indians. That is signifigant. Columbus was second and others were trying to find the "New World" before Columbus. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

CMD, during the 1960's there was scientific archeological evidence of the Vinland colony discovered. That is evidence the Vikings reached America before Columbus. Signfigance in the fact that Indian blood was shed for the first time by Europeans when the Vikings arrived. Signifigance that others before Columbus attempted to follow Ericson's "rediscovery". Signifigance that Ericson's discovery was written down and the Columbus could have had knowledge of Ericson's discovery of what is now Newfoundland. Signifigance in terms of global warming that permitted Ericson to find North America. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This article does not even mention Columbus' voyages. The vikings landing in Newfoundland and the Arctic islands is irrelevant to this article. TFD (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Both Columbus and Lief Ericson need to be mentioned in the article even though none of them reached what would be known as the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And why shouldn't they be mentioned on Belize? CMD (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

CMD, Columbus founded La Navidad as the first Spanish colony. That is why. Lief Ericson established the Vinland colony almost 500 years later earlier. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Greenland is part of the North American continental plate. One could say the Eric the Red discovered America when he discovered Greenland. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

CMG. To repeat, if we can stay on topic without another circus, Vikings are too detailed for this summary article. Anyone with that interest could place a link to Exploration of North America. TheVirginiaHistorian 9:15 am, 4 June 2013, last Tuesday (3 days ago). That is, we can rely on the scholarship sourced for Vikings at Exploration of North America, without adding to the narrative here, as Golbez, TFD and CMD are sorta caustically trying to communicate. "It's all in there." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TVH. What foundation then is there for the European explorations. There is no beginning period. There is no mention of the beginings of the slave trade, or who and when were the first European explorers to reach the North American continent. The article is misleading to the reader in that all of a sudden Europeans showed up without any rhymne or reason and that there was no slavery instituted in 1493 by Christopher Columbus. The Vikings rediscovered the North American continent. They fought and killed Indians changing the dynamics of the Indian peoples culture. Columbus rediscovered North and South America in addition to the Carribean. In my opinion these are signifigant events in the discovery and colonization of America. The article fails to address where slavery came from. Mentioning Columbus and the Vikings, including Leaf Ericson would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your points are significant, in addition to the North American survey of exploration including Vikings, there is more specifically, Norse colonization of the Americas. There are several related venues, active articles and inactive stubs. But the focus of this article is the United States. So the narrative has to be narrowed, curbed and cribbed in a summary, encyclopedic way to restrict the narrative to an overall view of the US now and how it came to be.--- btw, I have had an interest in Scandinavia since reading Ibsen plays, "An enemy of the people" (here linked to Penn State's electronic edition), should be read by everyone who files to run for US state, territory, municipal or county legislature. I do not want you to think this thread should turn into Vikings-as-punching-bag joke.

• The interest in slavery can be accounted for by an item in an expanded see-also section, including Slavery in the United States. Somewhere I have read multi-linking of articles is actually a WP policy goal. But as to expanding coverage of slavery in this article, --- At first, mention of slavery faces a wp:significance issue. Slaves in the 1/3 region, the South, will not be half the agricultural workers there for the first one-hundred years, only after 1700. They will become important as the white indentures are phased out. Promising land to the 50% survivors at their 7th year caused Bacon's Rebellion, and the problem was never really solved, George III's Proclamation Line of 1763 was meant to halt westward settlement at the Appalachian Mountains to foster peace and Amerindian trade for crown profit. Family farms on free soil supported substantially larger populations of free families in the country, than slave plantations could support slave families -- by the numbers, slavery is less significant than the free family farm, with the sole exception of cotton 1820-1860. Again, by time constraints of slavery's greatest importance, --- 40 years out of 400 --- cannot command much ink, in the balance overall of what the US will become. It's tragic legacy continues today, which is why the contemporary and civil rights era does try to address some of that sadness.
• The article also cannot touch on my interest in workers' history, the revolutionary tradition, or vigilantes in American history per se. Golbez and Gwhillickers have each noted the need to re-consider the entire article. Let's see where they want to work. Don't go anywhere, there is lots to do here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edits

I beleive we are getting of track and I appreciate everyones comments. In the best interest of this discussion I am proposing the following two edits in summary. These edits will set a foundation for the slavery section in the United States and for further European discovery and colonization. They are straight forward and could be done with two to three sentences. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mentioning the Vikings rediscovery of North America (c. 1000) and mentioning Christopher Columbus who rediscovered North and South America and the Carribeans (c. 1492-1500). Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mentioning that European slave trade of indigenous peoples began in 1493 and that African slaves were imported in 1502. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a brief article about the U.S. with a short section on its history. It does not need information that is at best tangential. Slavery btw (I assume you mean that not the slave trade) developed independently in the English colonies, and for the most part included Africans, not aboriginal inhabitants. TFD (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Vikings strongly. There's no relevance, and as noted every argument presented would apply to every other former British colony in the Americas. Oppose the others as well, although they're more relevant. Columbus was important, but I don't see the need to specifically mention him instead of simply noting the start of European exploration (a section which could definitely use rewriting). As for slavery, it wasn't exactly unusual at the time. TVH makes interesting points about periods when it was important for the United States. The history section as a whole is extremely long already, we should be looking at making it concise rather than adding more. CMD (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Favor The edits only state when slavery in the New World began, not that Spanish and English slavery were dependent on each other. However, both the Spanish, French, English, and Americans participated in the African slave trade. The Puritans enslaved Native Americans by the thousands and sanctioned slavery during the 1640s. Whether slavery was "unusual" of not is irrelevant to the proposed edits. Remember, there was no United States prior to 1776. Neither the Vikings, Puritans, English, French, and Spanish arrived in the United States because there was no United States to arrive in from circa 1000 AD to 1775 AD. The sentences would add conciseness to the article because there would be a foundation for slavery, exploration, and discovery. There seems to be a bit of a favor from CMD on mentioning Columbus. CMD also mentioned the section needs a rewrite. I agree on the rewrite. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Slavery in the New World likely began with people arriving in the New World. It definitely existed before either of the two dates you propose. CMD (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • For that matter, from what I know, slavery existed in America before the Europeans ever got here. The Aztecs were one prominent example. Kude90 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with Kude90. Various Indian tribes were notorious for enslaving other tribes, esp the Sioux and the Navaho. Thanks to 20th century activism and the many racist hypocrites who fostered it, slavery automatically implies "whites" to many people who don't know history, except maybe for that 'one chapter'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Are there any sources on the first Amerindian tribe(s) who practiced slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • For your reading pleasure, Slavery among Native Americans in the United States and Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas. No more off topic, I swear.

We are getting off subject with Amerindian slavery. Is there any compromise to the above edits or are there any solutions? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This topic isn't the only one getting derailed. This is an article about the history of the United States, not the history of the Americas. While some pre-US history is not just wanted, but necessary to the history of the United States, we can't have every little thing like Eric discovering the US in this article. Maybe a link to his page in the "See Also" section?Kude90 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Lief Ericson's sailing to Newfoundland on a ship almost 500 years behind in technology in c. 1000AD is not a "little thing". There is apparently way to much opposition for any edits to get through this Iron Wall of resistance. Is Christopher Columbus off the table as far as being in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this has everything to do with the direction this article is taking. This is an article about the history of the United States. One viking discovering Greenland, while important, is NOT important to the making of the United States. Columbus was. He caused the colonization of the "New World." Erikson did not. Hence, he is not important to this article.Kude90 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If Columbus got word that Ericson made the trip to Newfoundland, then that may have influenced Columbus to sail across the ocean. There is a good chance he did since he attemped to reach the New World through Iceland, most likely Greenland in 1477. Columbus also got the New World slave system started in 1493, having enslaved 1500 indigenous native peoples. I am for Columbus being mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Columbus was trying to reach the far east - not the new world. And the English colonists developed slavery independently of the Spanish. TFD (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated above. 'Slavery' is already mentioned several times, in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Slavery is out. Leif Ericson is out. Does Christopher Columbus get in the article? Columbus would at least give minimal foundation why other nations, including France, Spain, and England came to the New World. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

England and Portugal came to the new world because they were trying to reach the far east. TFD (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeeeah, 'but' -- Columbus needs to be mentioned with a least a sentence, even though he did land in the Caribbean. Ya' think? Currently Columbus is only mentioned in relation to the 'District of Columbia'. Frankly, I'm surprised that Columbus is not mentioned hardly at all in the U.S. article. I have just added this to existing text in the Settlements section

Following Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 others were soon to follow. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Spain set up settlements in California, Florida, and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. (new text in bold)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. At least Columbus got in the Settlements section of the article. Columbus, if you go by the playtechtonics maps, rediscovered North America, the Caribbean, and South America. The Bahamas are on the extreme southern edge of the North American continent plate. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)