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

Older discussions

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.

Requested move 2 September 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Moved L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:DATERANGE, the FULL four-digit years should be written out in any given date range on Wikipedia (with the exception of one-year periods which can be written either way: 1923–1924 or 1923–24). The above moves should be made to fit within Wikipedia's guidelines, and also for consistency with the four-year formatting of the other "History of the United States" pages and categories (1789–1849; 1865–1918; 1991–2008). Even "History of the United States (1918–1945)" is held at the four-year version, and that period's entirely within one century of "19XX". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:DATERANGE (that list will never be easy to read, always looks like a wall-of-text). --Gonnym (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom — bieχχ (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice find. Could have been uncontroversial moves, per Wikipedia style. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per style guidelines; I do expect somebody to object/complain though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per others citing WP:DATERANGE. Drdpw (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment - Shoot, what about these "Timeline of United States history" pages with a similar awkward naming format? Should these be moved too, for consistency with Timeline of United States history (1790–1819)? (Sorry I forgot to include them in the original Requested move.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they should also be moved for the same reason. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Clean up / Rewrite

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]

Is this loaded language?

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]

Coding error in #"Bank_holiday"_and_Emergency_Banking_Act section

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]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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 massacre of Native 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_United_States_(1776–1789)&oldid=1219861016"