Contents

Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)

History of the United States (1776–1789) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 11, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). ‹ The template below (WikiProject History) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. › History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

I notcied that there was nothing about the Treaty of Paris

I've found that the first country to recognize the United States is sometimes reported as Statia, Dubrovnik, or Morocco depending on semantics. No matter which is correct, this seems to be such a minor detail in US history that I don't think it belongs in a summary of the entire period Flying Jazz 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: "The war was not a wonderful success" -- for the U.S. ? for the British ? for both ? Kyk 11:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I saw a mention of trading with Indians, but I missed anything else; had the U.S. started the banishment operations against the Indians yet in this early time period? Kyk 11:53, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No. But the British were arming the Indians and encouraged them to kill American women and children.

Hello, I noticed this article listed under Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#History_by_time_period_(10_articles) and graded as "Start-Class". I think it can be greatly improved and expanded beyond political/military history.

I worked on the article introduction and have started on the background section. Here is the incomplete draft I am working on for the background section: User:TimothyBlue/sandbox/Revision: History of the United States (1776–1789) - Background

I'm reasonably new to this, so any kind/polite help, collaboration, suggestions or guidance on proceeding is welcome. If I make a mistake it's not intentional. I try to get the right tone into my written words so they sound polite and kind but sometimes I fail. I have a phobia about my writing sounding harsh (I'm sure others can sympathize with sending an email and having the tone misunderstood by those reading it) and I'm hoping to improve on that and my writing skills in general by working on this. Timothy (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the notion that London's highest priority was "in order to pay down some of the enormous debt that had been incurred during the war and cover the costs of maintaining an army in North America to secure' both the newly acquired and existing colonial possessions" is in my opinion not true. The issue was owning the 13 colonies for the benefit of the rulers of GB and not for the good of the Brits who lives in the 13 colonies. They went further and rejected the constitutional rights of Englishmen living in the 13. London retreated on the money issue--it wound up with a low stamp tax that did not raise revenue to pay enormous war debts--- or soldiers. London did NOT retreat on the issue of total control. secure is a key word--against whom? why did London have an army in North America--Patriots said it was to control the colonists and cited the Boston Massacre/Lexington/Bunker Hill as indicators of what London was planning. Rjensen (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the The First States to Abolish Slavery section, the phrase "to tear down one of Britain's cruelest wars against human nature" is used. This seems like overly emotive loaded language to me, and the itallics in particular seem unnecessary. Although slavery is very bad, I would say more concise, emotionless language should be used here. The section is also uncitated; if it were citated I would rephrased the sentence myself using the source. I'm not very experienced with editing wiki articles though, so perhaps someone more experienced could help here. AlisterSinclair (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First time posting in 'talk' so hoping this is the right page to do so. There appears to be a coding error in the "Bank Holiday" and Emergency Banking Act section and I'm not smart enough to fix it. The "play audio" section in the table is overlapping the text in the article itself. EthanEverhart (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence (talk · contribs) 09:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Thebiguglyalien, I'll do this. It might take anywhere from 1 to 4 weeks, with the later end of the spectrum also having the higher probability. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Harv error: link from CITEREFAlden1963 doesn't point to any citation
• Harv error: link from CITEREFNugent doesn't point to any citation.
• Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAlden1966.
• Seven instances of p/pp errors, such as "Middlekauff, p. 610–611. P/PP error? p. 610–611."
• 37 instances of "missing publisher" (many of these might be in further reading.. I'd fix 'em anyhow 'cause "consistency", but...)
• 6 instances of "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)" (If any of these are news articles, you don't need this)
• 4 instances of "Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;" § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Inconsistent referencing, e.g., "Hamowy, Ronald (2000)" has 3 cites in the Notes section, but other authors have {{sfn}} and the full reference in the References section.
• Did you double-check all the lists/timelines in 1776 in the United States through 1789 in the United States to see if there's anything salient that may have been overlooked? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Thebiguglyalien, I can write a quick Python program to check all those 1776 in the United States pages, if you wish. Can also standardize refs to {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} if you wish. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just fixed the cite errors, so those shouldn't be an issue. I'm not terribly concerned about how the references are formatted beyond the GA requirement of being verifiable (reference formatting has never been my strong suit), so format them as you like. I imagine that I at least glanced at those yearly articles while writing this one, but it would have been six months ago, so it couldn't hurt to double check them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention a promise of writing the bill of rights, but did you mention it was written? And maybe its impact?
• You have a painting by John Singleton Copley, but don't mention him, which seems jarring. EB describes him as "...generally acclaimed as the finest artist of colonial America". § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 13:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The Slavery section seems a bit thin... I seem to recall... that the import of slaves dwindled during the Revolutionary war but greatly increased immediately thereafter?.... I will look... maybe read Richard Allen (bishop); will look for more. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs)
• @Thebiguglyalien: In addition to my comments above, I was inclined to "Fail GA" because it seems to have no meaningful coverage of Native Americans or free Blacks. However, Mike Christie suggested that my inclination was not the best path forward, see brief thread. Sounds good then, I was about to make a mistake. What can we do about this? Would you rather argue that these topics do not fit within the scope of the article, or are not well-covered enough in secondary/tertiary sources to write much meaningful text, or would you think that adding more is the way to go? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 03:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see this article as being about the national entity of the United States, including a broad summary of the major happenings between the given years. So I'll ask the opposite question: since you bring up these specific aspects, is there anything in particular about them that stands out as an omission? The article is only 31kb of prose, and I'd gladly add anything that gives a more holistic view of the article's subject. My first thought would be a paragraph about Black art and culture under the "culture and media" section, but that would depend on what the sourcing looks like for that. Native Americans are a little more complicated, because then you've got the difficult question of whether indigenous nations within the states were independent or part of the United States. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your reply! I think free Blacks must be given space. I wouldn't limit it to arts & culture. Maybe something about population, population movements (if any), and economic condition/prosperity. And just anything else you might happen to find that looks salient, but those are the things that I can think of offhand. Native Americans: I actually don't know. It just seems to be a meaningful omission... Just spend 2 or 3 days doing due diligence and looking for stuff in high-quality sources. Below is a list pulled from those Wikipedia "Lists of events" I mentioned earlier. I am not advocating for any item in the list. I'm just saving you a little time looking:

  September 1 – Invasion of Cherokee Nation by 6,000 patriot troops from Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina begins. The troops destroy thirty-six Cherokee towns.<ref>Saunt, Claudio (2014). ''Revolution: An Uncommon History of 1776'', p. 27. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. {{ISBN|9780393240207}}.</ref>

  January 3 – The Treaty of Hopewell is signed between the United States of America and the Choctaw Nation.

  January 10 – The Treaty of Hopewell is signed between the United States of America and the Chickasaw Nation.

  January 31 – The Treaty of Fort Finney, is signed on January 31, 1786, between the United States and certain leaders of the Shawnee.

  August 6 – American Revolutionary War: Battle of Oriskany – Loyalists gain a tactical victory over Patriots; Iroquois fight on both sides.

  March 8 – American Revolutionary War: In Ohio, the Gnadenhutten massacreofNative Americans takes place in which 29 men, 27 women and 34 children are killed by white militiamen in retaliation for raids carried out by another Native American group.

  September 17 – The Treaty of Fort Pitt is signed, the first formal treaty between the United States and a Native American tribe (the Lenape or Delaware).

  October 22 – Treaty of Fort Stanwix is signed between the United States and Native Americans of the Iroquois League.

  January 21 – The Treaty of Fort McIntosh is signed between the U.S. government and representatives of the Wyandotte, Delaware, Chippewa and Ottawa nations of Native Americans.

  Thanks! § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 06:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I tracked down one of the books that was listed in further reading, and it ended up being really helpful. It had respective chapters on both Native Americans and African Americans in this time period. I skimmed all of the chapters that were relevant to this article and added the main points. I'll note that there was already a sizeable paragraph about interactions between the US and Native Americans, but now there are two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources spot check

• I'm not saying that everything above is OK (tho I have no reason to believe that it is not); I'm starting this section as a prod for me to get moving on this aspect. I may revisit earlier sections at a later date...
  • Cogliano, Francis D. (2009):
    • Current note 11, Cogliano 2009, p. 99: "The Boston campaign continued with the Continental Army besieging British-occupied Boston until the British retreated to Halifax, Nova Scotia in March 1776" Yes(-ish), but. First, the page is 100, not 99. Second, this is the first mention of the Boston Campaign in the article. It relies on a DYK-style wikilink to explain what the Boston Campaign actually was, which is a distracting tactic. Moreover, the consequences of that campaign (which are spelled out clearly in the "Legacy" section of Boston campaign, e.g., everything after the words "While the British continued...") are not mentioned.
    • Current note 118, Cogliano 2009, p. 116: "Many slaves also pledged support to the Patriot cause, particularly in the north, further inclining these states to end slavery." FOUND, although I might suggest specifying that the "pledged support" that is mentioned was in fact active and valuable military service.
    • Current note 117, Cogliano 2009, p. 118: "The American Revolution made the issue of slavery more prominent, as some writers began to criticize what they saw as hypocrisy in supporting liberty while owning slaves, causing the institution to lose popularity in the Northern United States." FOUND
    • Current note 22, Cogliano 2009, pp. 102–103: " The campaign shifted to Washington's favor after he led a crossing of the Delaware River that led to a victory in the Battle of Trenton, followed by another victory in the Battle of Princeton, boosting American morale." Half-found the bit about morale, yes. The bit about this being a shift in Washington's favor, no.
    • Current note 29, Cogliano 2009, pp. 22–23: "Throughout the Revolutionary War, smaller battles and ambushes were fought west of the Appalachian Mountains along the southwestern area of Canada and in American territories. Fearing the expansion of the United States and encouraged by the British, several Native American tribes launched attacks against Americans. Battles and massacres took place between the Continental Army and Native American fighters as well as against non-combatants and farms" FOUND, but "smaller" is misleading. Yes, they were smaller, but still devastating. See page 23, 10 lines up from bottom, last word of line, "In Kentucky..."
    • And while I'm at it, this is a good place to look for Native American info. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 17:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. Abot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• History of the United States (1776–1789) → History of the United States from 1776 to 1789
• History of the United States (1789–1815) → History of the United States from 1789 to 1815
• History of the United States (1815–1849) → History of the United States from 1815 to 1849
• History of the United States (1849–1865) → History of the United States from 1849 to 1865
• History of the United States (1865–1917) → History of the United States from 1865 to 1917
• History of the United States (1917–1945) → History of the United States from 1917 to 1945
• History of the United States (1945–1964) → History of the United States from 1945 to 1964
• History of the United States (1964–1980) → History of the United States from 1964 to 1980
• History of the United States (1980–1991) → History of the United States from 1980 to 1991
• History of the United States (1991–2008) → History of the United States from 1991 to 2008
• History of the United States (2008–present) → History of the United States from 2008 to present

– These date ranges are an integral part of the identification of the subject matter. They look like disambiguation terms, but that's not what they are. No one would refer to any of these subjects as the "History of the United States". Each of these articles covers only a small part of the history of the United States. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now per MOS:STYLEVAR and the like guidelines. Unless there is an actual naming guideline that prohibits this History of X (DATE1–DATE2) format for history articles/lists that are split by date ranges, I see this as an acceptable convention. WP:FA alone currently lists several of them, including History of the British penny (1714–1901), History of Lithuania (1219–1295), Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), and History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966), to name a few. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now per Zzyzx11, these articles are a small set of a much broader convention where years are used absent a better identifier, should be subject to a wider discussion. CMD (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No idea what problem will be solved with a change to more difficult titles. The Banner talk 12:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest alternative movetoHistory of the United States, 1776–1789 etc. I agree with BarrelProof that these year ranges are not really disambiguation and should just be part of the title. That said, writing it out is way too clunky and the existing setup is better. Re Zzyzx11, to be clear, a comma disambiguation style also shows up in FA, e.g. Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347, so I'd propose my suggestion is also consistent with Wikipedia practice. (I agree with you that the parenthetical style isn't forbidden, though, just think in this case switching to commas is clearly simpler and more clear.) SnowFire (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Omitting the parentheses without adding a comma also seems possible: History of the United States 1776–1789. My point is that the current use of parentheses doesn't seem to make sense. The date ranges are not some sort of side remark or clarifier; they are a fundamental part of the identification of the topic that is discussed in the article. I chose the United States deliberately as the place to open a discussion of this format, as these are visible titles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally still prefer including the comma, but I suppose we'll see what people say. (It's maybe more obvious why if you think about it with textual subtitles rather than year ranges: Something like "History of XYZ in the Edwardian era" reads okay, "History of XYZ, Edwardian era" is okay as an abbreviated form, "History of XYZ Edwardian era" reads like a run-on.) SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I get it. These are not a set of different subjects coincidentally called "History of the United States". BD2412 T 03:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relist, to allow additional discussion both of this proposal and SnowFire's alterntive. It would help the closer if editors who support one clarify if they only support that one or if they support both. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Wikiprojects CMD (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Zzyzx11 above. 01:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per brevity. The present titles are clear and understandable, they present their topics succinctly and I doubt if many, if any, are confused by them. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. the current system is highly stable, and is a result of community edits over a longer period of time, and seems much easier and more useful. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]