Talk:History of the United States/Archive 2

1991 or 2000?

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

---

I believe that the end of the Cold War (1991) as the best place for the split between the last two sections. There are several reasons for this.

1. 1991 split leads to some balance between the sections; a 2000 split leads to a really long next-to-last section and a really short last section
2. The 2000 split seems to give too much import to the War on Terror and far too little to the Cold War
3. The 2000 split seems to give undue importance to the Bush Adminstration, almost to the point of NPOV

On the other hand, Gotanda sees it as 2000, due to the turn of the 21st Century and the War on Terror. It was 1991 up until earlier today, now it's 2000? Can I get some other editor's thoughts on this? Gotanda's argument for 2000 is posted below. Purplebackpack89 04:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope a few people will look at the way I tried to reorganize this last part. I've changed the headings for a few reasons. The slash in "Postwar/Cold War Era, 1945-1991" seems against Manual of Style. Also, the entry for Cold War puts the end at 1989. Post-Cold War sub-section then fits neatly in a general Postwar 1945-2000. 2001 marks a significant return to war for the US (not that the US wasn't fighting at other times). 2001 also marks the terror attacks, new presidential administration (see my correction on when Bush was elected rather than became president), and a new century. Labeling the new section with a neutral and factual "in the 21st century" allows an organizational break. You had this planned in the original outline as "Current Issues in America". That would be fine too, but "issues" may be somewhat limiting (i.e., Are events issues?) This also gets around the problem of leaving the US in a perpetual Post Cold-War state as had been written. There are several sentences that can still be simplified and then a better intro to the last section is still much needed. I'll see what I can do on those. Thanks, Ted (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ted, there were a few problems with your edit. For starters, you split Bush's "election" from his administration. Also, "invading" isn't simple; so it had to go back to "went". I still believe that the way you have sectioned it give way too much emphasis (bordering on NPOV too much emphasis) to the War on Terror, while a continued de-emphasis on a Cold War that had much greater ramifications. Oh, and in regard to "Current Issues in America", that was not supposed to be about the Bush administration of several years ago, but rather issues like climate change, the economy and gay marriage that Americans are facing right this minute Purplebackpack89 04:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for shifting the image. I totally missed that. As I explained, I think some kind of substantial division is required. Why 1991? The Cold War article says 1989 and needs changing also. Maybe one of those dates that still needs perspective in order to reach a consensus. Other articles on EnWP shift back and forth. 2001 at least has the advantage of being relatively neutral--it is a fact that the new century started then.

I replied on my Talk page that as far the one-sentence paragraph goes, the easy thing to do is expand it, but I thought I'd let the current changes get a few comments from people first before putting more into it. The way Americans did not question the Court decision and accepted the process is remarkable. Could be referenced by Stephen Breyer's recent work and interviews. In any event, Bush did not become president in 2000, so parts of that change need to remain.

I am unclear on how creating a section heading like that is NPOV. Global War on Terror is specifically not mentioned, but a war in Afganistan that is now longer than the Vietnam War is hardly unimportant. The US has entered a renewed period of more aggressive military engagement and a shift in focus on security to South Asia. Regarding "Current Issues", I don't know how I could have know your intentions. That could still work.

Re simplicity, if "invade" is not simple enough, then there are many other words that need to be changed as well. It is relatively more common than some other vocabulary in this article. Simplifying it to "went" is a significant change in the meaning and could be misleading. I'll be offline for the rest of the day (GMT +9), but look forward to seeing what anyone else thinks. Thanks, Ted (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put back invade for Iraq, but note that most of the words that are more complex than invade are a) linked or defined; and b) less charged (invade carries a very strong connotation). And I have to say no to your "Afghanistan is longer than Vietnam" statement--the U.S. was involved in Vietnam for 16 years, 1959-75. And that's not taking into account the much larger scale Vietnam was fought on--there were almost as many casualties from the Vietnam War as there were total troops in Afghanistan Purplebackpack89 08:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Cold War was one of the most significant periods in the 20th century, and its sudden and unexpected ending brought about huge consequences. This is most obvious in Europe, where for the first time in ~50 years half of Europe became more or less free from foreign domination. 1991 was the end of a sequence of events which stretch back at least to 1914. I don't mean to downplay Islamic terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, but the Cold War will be in the history books for centuries. Anyway, my vote goes for the 1991/End of the Soviet Union/Collapse of Berlin Wall/Freedom for East Europe/End of Cold War as the end of an era. I would give this more space and detail, even. And 1991 is correct, not 1989, because the end of the Soviet Union was the official and permanent change. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support 1991 too as the ending of the Cold War and a major change in world politics. I didn't see anything major change in 2000. You could also make it less specific, like "the 1990's", instead of trying to debate over a particular year. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that I know enough about the subject to make a judgement- however, I do think that given the size of the previous sections and the amount that happens in the 20th century, perhaps 2000 isn't ideal. That said, nonspecificity like Chemicalinterest is suggesting is probably not a good solution. sonia♫ 11:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like things are coming together, but just one thing. PBP copied only only one part of the discussion from the section on the Cold War. The complete discussion is above. I had put it there as it seemed to pick up from our earlier discussion, but he wanted a new section. Either way is fine with me. Rather than copying the whole thing yet again, a simple link to the whole thread is here. I don't think splitting from 2001 puts undue emphasis on the Bush Administration as PBP seems to think. The Bush Administration doesn't "get" more attention, the events of the times do. If 1991 is to be the split for the final section, then what should the heading be? Somehow simply leaving it as "Post Cold War" seems lacking. It defines the new period simply by what it is not. Also, if 1991 is the consensus on end of the Cold War (EnWP articles are all over the map as far as that is concerned: 1989 Iron Curtain Containment; 1991 Cold War), then that implies changes elsewhere so that articles don't contradict each other--for example, the SEWP article Cold War since that is linked from the article. Thanks, Ted (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Cold War contradictions was an easy fix, which I performed Purplebackpack89 04:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Still needs careful checking section by section for small points and complexity

I don't mean to distract from the other issues I raised above, but I have noticed the need for additional careful checking for minor errors and options for simplification. Here are my two most recent changes.

For example:

Was: "The U.S. made the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan."

Why use the roundabout "made the decision" when one word will do? Keeping subjects and verbs close together and avoiding phrasal verbs helps readability and keeps it simple.

Changed to: "The U. S. decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan."

Was: "The droppings of the atomic bombs ended the war, but it also led to the death of a quarter million Japanese civilians in four days."

Droppings has another meaning and doesn't need to be plural anyway. Civilians is linked, but I think can be rephrased. The resulting passage is longer, but the sentences are shorter. The subject of each sentence is clear. The meaning is very clear with simpler vocabulary. Changed to: "These bombs were so terrible that Japan gave up, and the war ended. However, the atomic bombings killed many ordinary people in the cities, not only soldiers. At least 250,000 Japanese people died in four days."

Below are some other examples that I think need simplification too but didn't get to yet. Embedding the relative clauses separates the subject very far from the verb. There are other sentences with a similar structure throughout. "Hoover, who was President at the time, tried to do something about the Depression, but it did not work." "Calhoun, who was from the South, wrote that the South should stop the tariff and perhaps secede (leave the Union), words that would be used again during the Civil War."

Finally, if anyone has time, please look at the second sentence here. This is very long and complex. A check for other long sentences seems worthwhile.

"The United States did not want to enter World War I. It eventually entered the war in 1917 after a ship carrying Americans was blown up by a German torpedo, and after Germany sent Mexico a message called the Zimmermann Telegram, asking to work together to invade the U.S."

That's all I have time for now. A close reading and check will take a bit longer. Thanks, Ted (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotanda...the word "terrible" has to go...it's too POVy. I've made minor simplification tweaks to the Japanese thing. A split infinitive is perfectly acceptable language, though I did chop off the "words again...Civil War" stuff from the Calhoun sentence. Also, the World War I "sentence" you cite is actually two sentences. In my opinion, the article is simple enough already. We're simple Wikipedia, not dumb Wikipedia. Purplebackpack89 18:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If terrible is NPOV, OK. Regarding WWI, I did write "second sentence". I knew there were two sentences there. The first is there for context. The second sentence is just long and complex. There is nothing "dumb" about writing direct, declarative sentences with clear subjects. Using phrases and clauses that make sentences longer is not necessarily "smarter". The guidelines suggest avoiding too many clauses--and embedded clauses in particular. (See this example: "Bad: John Smith, who was very tired, walked his dog to the supermarket because he was hungry but he returned to his home still hungry and even more tired because the market was closed.")

The Online utility for checking Basic English text at the bottom of the How to page is another useful tool for identifying complex sentences. It is not absolute, but it is helpful. Thanks, Ted (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, meant this link for sentence checking: Tests Document Readability. But, the vocab one above is good too.Thanks, Ted (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: terrible and reverting the entire edit

Hi, PBP. Looking into it a bit more, I'm am not convinced that "terrible" is NPOV. It is a description of the bombs and the damage, not an opinion or judgment as in "a terrible review". That description is factual and supported by the following death toll. I didn't find as many examples on SEWP, but there are many on EnWP, especially in military contexts. I turned up examples of exactly this kind of usage from GAs there: [1], [2], and [3]. Even if terrible is "NPOV", the rest of the edit simplified the sentence and clarified the meaning. It also made clear who the actors were. Structures like "led to the death of a quarter million Japanese" are much less direct and clear than the simple and powerful statement that "At least 250,000 Japanese people died". The war ended when the Japanese surrendered. I'd like to put my edit back, but anyone else care to compare the two versions in full? More eyes on a text can help improve it. Thanks, Ted (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's still POV, Gotanda. Having it done wrong someplace else doesn't make it right here. We shouldn't tell people "something was terrible", we just say that the bombs led to a quarter-million Japanese dying and have them draw their own conclusions. Again, we seem to be at an impasse. Purplebackpack89 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the usage of the word that Gotanda intended was meant to be a major NPOV violation, but we could still find a better way to word it to avoid that appearance. Maybe "the bombs destroyed so much that..."? Kansan (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with the way I had it/the way it is now? Purplebackpack89 17:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably okay, but I'm a little concerned with reverting the entire edit because you had a problem with one part of it. The rest of it should have been discussed. Kansan (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was undone, not reverted Purplebackpack89 18:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse here, I'll explain why I made those edits. For anyone who is still looking at this, I've assembled the three versions for comparison. Waste of time warning: this is very long.

PBP Nov 1. "The U.S. made the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. The droppings of the atomic bombs ended the war, but it also led to the death of a quarter million Japanese civilians in four days."

Gotanda Nov 2. "The U.S. decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. These bombs were so terrible that Japan gave up, and the war ended. However, the atomic bombings killed many ordinary people in the cities, not only soldiers. At least 250,000 Japanese people died in four days."

PBP and Eptalon Nov 4. "The U.S. decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. This action led to the death of a quarter million Japanese civilians in four days.[111] Japan capitulated afterwards."

The November 2 version is simple language and easier to read. It describes the events clearly.

1. Terrible is not NPOV. I cited the other examples as good examples. Definitons: M-W "1. a : exciting extreme alarm or intense fear" Dictionary.com "1. distressing; severe: a terrible winter." TheFreeDictionary.com "1. Causing great fear or alarm". Wiktionary perhaps has it most clearly. In any event, something like Kansan suggested may be better so I've taken on that suggestion.

2. "Droppings (sic) --dropping--this action" are all roundabout ways of distancing the actor from the action and result. The US decided, and the bombs destroyed. Simple, clear, readable, and accurate.

3. Strictly speaking, dropping the bombs did not end the war. The war ended when the Japanese surrendered. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a part in that decision, but so did the USSR entering the war against Japan. There is active historical debate on this. Simply stating that dropping bombs ended the war is a historical oversimplification that actually adds language complexity. And, it is an oversimplification that essentially takes one side in a moral argument.

4. "Led to" is also a way of softening statements. There are good old fashioned words such as "caused", "killed", or "died" that accurately describe the the chain of events. "led to the death of" is more linguistically complex, but also serves to distance the actual agent (the US) and replaces bombs or bombings with an empty subject "this action". (Just as an aside, "led to" occurs very frequently in this article. There is a literal meaning for "led to", but here it is being used idiomatically. I thought the guidelines for Simple were to avoid idiomatic usage when possible.)

5. "(A) quarter million" is more complex to read than 250,000. Any reader can understand the numbers, but writing it out in words means the reader must process more. They must understand the words '"quarter" and "million" (not all languages work in exactly the same way on the million, billion organization. Many Japanese readers--who might be reading this part in particular--have trouble with this because the systems differ.) Then they must do the math. Not simple.

6. Civilians is more complex than "ordinary people" and "not soldiers". As I rewrote it, it is longer. That is to be expected and explained in the Simple Help. Yes, civilian was linked, but clicking through adds to the task of reading.

7. Capitulate is not a common or simple word in English. Gave up is much simpler, but if some editors consider it too simple, surrender is a simple and accurate word.

I've taken the time to explain all of this to: one, demonstrate that my edits were not arbitrary, but well-considered; two, point out that in history articles such as this one the writing needs to be especially careful because of the ongoing historical and moral arguments. Summarizing a chain of events from August 1945 in two or three sentences opens up plenty of possibility for overly broad statements or implications. I certainly hope the time I've put into the article shows that I am interested in creating the best article possible. I didn't make changes or suggestions on a whim.

I've taken on Kansan's suggestion and part of Eptalon's as well for this version and entered it based on the discussion on the talk page. "The U.S. decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. The bombs destroyed so much. Japan gave up soon afterwards, and the war ended. However, the atomic bombs killed many ordinary people in the cities, not only soldiers. At least 250,000 Japanese people died in four days.[111]"

Phew! Deceased equine completely obliterated? I'd rather get back to something more productive, like writing. Ted (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"The bombs destroyed so much" is a) overkill with the death stats and the actual article, and b) a little POVy. So I've removed that sentence Purplebackpack89 02:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a few problems:

• "These bombs destroyed so much" is a null sentence. Theere is no additional info in that sentence, so leave it out.
• "However, the atomic boms killed...": There is no opposition to the previous sentence, leave out the "However".
• The 250k / 4 days is problematic, as those are probably the people who died of direct exposure / radiation sickness; What about the people who died 20 years later, eg. from cancer? - And where is the 4 days from? - We need to be more precise here --Eptalon (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the bomb-related diseases/deaths see this, this , this and this. All documernts are pdfs, and random picks. --Eptalon (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotanda submitted the number of ppl killed. It had at one point read "instantly". The four days are August 6 and 9, and the two days in between (edit mine); because large numbers of people were killed in two instants/instances three days apart Purplebackpack89 17:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

GOP Victories in 2010?

Another editor thinks there needs to be something on the 2010 elections. I think it's a little too soon, as the legacy of these elections hasn't been decided yet (heck, some of the races haven't been decided yet), and not to mention that there are only a few legislative victories mentioned before 1994; but I still propose adding the following sentence:

"Due to the recession, the Tea Party and a dislike of what Obama did, Republicans won a large number of House and Senate seats in the 2010 election"

Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 21:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine if you can cite "a dislike of what Obama did". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

One image a section?

I’ve been told that one image per subsection (lv. 3 heading) is the way to go. So here are the images I propose keeping.

• Lead: 1777 Flag
• Pre-Columbian: Buffalo
• Colonial: 13 Colonies map
• American Revolution: Dec of Independence
• Federal: Constitution
• 1815-1861: Erie Canal
• Civil War: Antietam
• Recon/Gilded Age: Tenement
• Prog/Imp: Manila Bay
• WWI: Americans in WWI
  • 1920s: Cal
  • 1930s: FDR
• WWII: I’d go for Omaha Beach, personally
  • Cold War: The Moon
  • Domestic/social issues: March on Washington
  • Post-Cold War: Clinton
  • 21st century: 9/11
• Related pages: Rushmore

Additional images may possibly be relegated to a gallery. I also propose a uniform size of 200px and placing all images on the right. Also, should 1815-1861 and Recon/Gilded Age be split into subsections? Purplebackpack89 21:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a smaller image setting, using just "thumb" or "upright" to be consistent. No need to place all images on the right, but avoid squashing text (and remember people have different horizontal resolutions on their screens). Avoid a gallery if possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I resized all pictures until they are only two sizes. If images go on the left, it messes up the text and makes it look amateur. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I also deleted several images in a bold way. I may or may not give a reason for their deletion. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did the same thing; also, I am going to restore several of the "See also" links, as there are now not enough to justify having the section at all Purplebackpack89 02:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hello there, I cannot comment on the text (to judge whether ur is correct or complete), nut I'll drop a work on the images. The situation with the images is now much improved (we went from a "picture book with a little text" to "a lot of text with a few images"). Images should illustrate the text, not be the main drive behind it. Anyway: here are a few points:

• The United States constitution (5th image): is the a better image? - It looks like a mostly brown area, with some writing in the top left corner.
• As to image placement: alternate a bit, some of the images on the left would also be fine; see World History for an example.

Just suggestions (as I say, I am mostly uninvolved here) --Eptalon (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current layout is far, far more professional than it was. Regarding Eptalon's second point, alternating image placement is just fine, as long as text is not squashed between images. Just keep that in mind if images are moved from right to left. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary that is not simple

I ran the complete text through a vocabulary profiler at Lexical Tutor. There are several there, but I used the BNC-20 [4] for greater detail. This analyzes text by looking at the frequency of words in the British National Corpus and breaks them down into frequency groups of 1,000. BNC-1000 is the 1,000 most frequently used words, BNC-2,000 is the second most frequently used thousand words, etc. up to BNC-20,000 which are very infrequently used words. It isn't foolproof and still requires some judgment but it is a very good indicator of what words a reader might reasonably know. I took the results and looked through the article to see which of the words were not linked, explained, or really needed. Where to draw the line for infrequent (and therefore not likely to be understood) words is subjective. Here are the ones from the 7,000 list and above. A vocabulary size of 6,000 words is quite good for many non-native readers.

• BNC 7K

cult-Simplified "there was something called the “cult of domesticity” for many American women." to "there were strong beliefs about the roles of women"

Undid: Term is in quotes, is clearly defined in the next sentence, and changing it would lose too much of the meaning. "Cult of domesticity" is a very commonly used term in history discourse, so it'd be much better to define it then to simplify itPurplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it from the point of view of simplicity of language, it is not at all simple. If it is that important a part of the discourse, shouldn't it be linked? There is a brief article on EnWP. Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need to be linked if it's defined here? You generally don't need both a definition and a link Purplebackpack89 02:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In most cases: Remove definition, link and explain in the linked article. If that term is common in history didscourse, we should use it (linked, and explained). SEWP is also about being concise. --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Now linked Purplebackpack89 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• BNC 9K

uprisings--Needs attention

I just can't think of a simpler word for it. Maybe you can Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

riots? Less accurate, though. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely something different: In my understanding, "uprising" has a purpose, "riot" doesn't. --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikt linked Purplebackpack89 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• BNC 10K

battlefield-Simplified "on the battlefield" to "in battles"

superpower-added SEWP link

• BNC 12K

breakup-Simplified "the breakup of the Soviet Union" to " and the Soviet Union breaking into different countries."

indentured--Needs attention Doesn't this concept need a link? I know it is explained parenthetically, but it is also an important concept.

IMO, the parenthetic is enough. We've created enough marginal articles for this GA, I really don't think we need to create even more. Also, keep in mind that indentured servitude died out about 300 years ago Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Died out 300 years ago could apply to many aspects of most of the history articles here, right? Worth creating since several other articles contain the concept too. Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

...in the western World; some of this may still be current in parts of Africa. Anyway, if you explain better do so in a footnote? --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Linked Purplebackpack89 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

skyscrapers--Needs attention. Is linked to WTC, not to Skyscraper. How to link to both? Or, rewrite to include WTC in the text directly with its own link and skyscraper with its own link?

What's wrong with the way it is? Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the way it is is that skyscraper is not a simple word. It may be easy for school children to understand, but not for some second language learners. Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we link Skyscraper to Skyscraper? --Eptalon (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• BNC 14K

secede-Needs attention

It's defined in the paragraph beginning... "In 1828, Andrew Jackson was elected President... ", which is its first instance of it Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If in doubt, link to witionary; note that it should not be replaced with a compound verb ("phrasal verb") as those are harder to understand. --Eptalon (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's still linked Purplebackpack89 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• BNC 15K

grange-Added link to Grange, but now is a red link (Sorry!)

Grange shouldn't have come up in your test, as it's a proper noun. RM link Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it is a proper noun. All the more reason it needs to be linked, right? Again, EnWP has an article on this and it is significant. [5]Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now linked Purplebackpack89 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• BNC 19K

blacklists-Needs attention

It's defined in the very next clause Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why not just use the simple explanation? Frequent unknown vocabulary, even with parenthetical explanations or definitions in following clause, makes text harder to read.Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't Purplebackpack89 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

sharecroppers-Added link to Sharecropping because this is an important concept that is not explained. Now a red link (Sorry again!)

Guess I'll have to create this article. This is like the 50th article I've had to create for this GA Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Offlist (very infrequent)

freeborn-Needs attention

No: For starters, it's a composite of "free" and "born", which are both fairly common words. Second, it's part of a direct quote about "rights as freeborn Englishmen". Third, it's defined in the very next sentence Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it is in a quote, but the following explanation is of the colonists attitudes, not of "freeborn". Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would a "reasonably intelligent" reader be able to get the sense of this unknown words from the constituent parts? - Since it is in a quote, the best we can do is link; a two line "annex article" does probably not make sense for this(think about how much encyclopedic content you can get, beyond the dicdef) --Eptalon (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikt link Purplebackpack89 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

impressment-Removed and just left the explanation.

Undid: As with "cult", it's a historical term that is defined. Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Many historical terms are not simple English and the actual problem or event can be explained in simple English. It may be important to use specific terms common in historical discourse or study, but each time there is an increase in complexity for readers. What is lost by simplifying the English? Or, if it is that important a concept, then it should be linked, right?Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy it would probably be better to leave the original (well defined) term, and add the explanation (in a footnote, or in parentheses). --Eptalon (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

progressivism-Linked to Progressivism

googie-Needs attention. What is Googie Art and is it really important to this article? Just delete this?

As with Grange, this is a proper noun and shouldn't have come up in your word engine. It's also in quotes. Googie and Space Art are just so iconic, and say so much about the future-thinking people of the 1950s, which is why they're there. I'll create an article on it Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link and creating the article. That helps.Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

segeregation-Needs attention. Something weird here. Shows segeregation on the page, but not in the edit window. Weird. (Update, Nevermind. This was fixed while I was writing. Still weird though...Ted (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

If there's a high volume of traffic, it may take a few minutes for a new edit to show up (this happens a lot on EN, but not not so much here). Anyway, that's linked in the WWII section Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what was going on there. Much appreciated. Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ted (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Running it through a word engine may not have been the best of ideas. For some reason, some proper nouns showed up; that shouldn't have happened. Half the terms you've cited are historical terms that need to be defined rather than changed to something that's simpler but loses too much of the meaning. Also, in several of those cases, the term is defined in the next sentence, so it's fine to leave it in (cult, impressment, and freeborn). Also, not sure why we used a British list for an article that's written in American English. I've made some revisions to what you did Purplebackpack89 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Lextutor is widely used by linguists and educators, so I do think it was worthwhile. Yes, the BNC profiler did pick up a few proper nouns in error. It's a newer, but more sophisticated tool and still has a few kinks. That's why editorial judgement comes in. I've addressed a few points above, but my main intention was to simplify the English in the article. There is still some significant complexity, I think. Thanks, Ted (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My response to the general malaise about simple but defined words is that simplifying just loses something, especially in historical terms. If you define, the people reading it not only will have learned some American History, but also a few new words Purplebackpack89 02:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't have very simple language on a VGA; it will require too much explanation and long terms. You do have to write things simpler, though, which you have done a good job of doing. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that in the interest of being concise, some wordings should not be touched, as they have a well-defined meaning. They can be explained, though. Note also, that using a "frequency analysis" of the "most frequent" words is simply bean-counting, and may not be what we need here. Words are used in a context; I may well be aware/know the 15.000 most common words in English, but perhaps I have never been in the situation that I needed to use words/meanings from a given context. I am not a firefighter. I may therefore not be able to understand some of their vocabulary, even if they use otherwise common words. --Eptalon (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Commas between two verbs or verb phrases

I've noticed one pattern throughout the article. There is often an extra comma before the second verb in a compound predicate.

Here is a simple example from OWL at Purdue.

Example of an extra comma: We laid out our music and snacks, and began to study.

Example of an extra comma: I turned the corner, and ran smack into a patrol car.

These commas are where a reader might pause if reading aloud, but they are not needed. I've listed the sentences I've found so far. It would be easy to just remove the commas, but is that the best fix? Does this actually indicate that the sentences themselves are not simplified and need further refactoring?

The difference is subtle, but it is there. I think everyone wants the language to be correct.

Most of the Presidents were chosen by political machines, and were corrupt.

Most of the Presidents were chosen by political machines and were corrupt.

These are similar.

The United States won, and gained Puerto Rico, Guam, Guantanamo and the Philippines.

The Ku Klux Klan was powerful once again, and attacked blacks, Catholics, Jews and immigrants.

Many people also thought that the United States had lost touch with religion, and dealt with that by changing religion, but also attacking science.

It passed laws and treaties that supposedly would end war forever, and refused to sell weapons to its former allies.

The New Deal is often called the period that "saved capitalism", and stopped America from becoming a Communist or Fascist state.

The Vietnam War lasted much longer, and started with a few American troops in Vietnam, but by the 1960s thousands of Americans were being sent to Vietnam.

That means it did not make as many things as it used to, and had many people working in service jobs.

The United States also agreed to a trade bill called the North American Free Trade Agreement, and dropped some of its rules on banking.

This pattern is one of the reasons I commented during the PVGA that the article needed a very careful copyedit. It just takes a while to gather and check everything. Personally, I think this indicates that a thorough check and some revision is in order. Just snipping the commas leaves some complex sentences. Thanks, Ted (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For starters, with "but", you almost always use a comma. It's perfectly acceptable English with "and" either way, in fact the comma may be more correct Purplebackpack89 07:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker, so I am perhaps the wrong person to comment: I think in most cases, the version with the comma is more readable; "Many people also thought..."-> ", but also by attacking...", "The Vietnam War lasted.." -> "..of Americans were being sent there". --Eptalon (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Eptalon, you are absolutely right about the ", but" in something like ", but by the 1960s thousands of Americans were being sent to Vietnam." Yes, use a comma when joining two clauses with a conjunction. PBP, the issue is the comma before the "and + second verb". "But" has nothing to do with it. For example: in "The United States won, and gained Puerto Rico..." "The United States" is the subject of the verb "won"--correct. It is also the subject of the verb "gained", but the comma has separated the subject and verb, leaving behind a fragmentary clause "gained Puerto Rico" that has no subject. Basically, don't separate the subject from the verb with a comma. The page at OWL that I linked above sets it out pretty clearly. All of the sentences above have the same ", and +2nd verb" error. It is a pretty common error seen in a lot of writing. Like any other writer, I make errors when I write. When I do, I need someone to point them out to me. I thought that was part of the review process. Thanks, Ted (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ted, that's not a fragmentary clause, because "and" is not a subordinating conjunction, it is a cordinating conjunction. "gained Puerto Rico" is not a fragmentary clause. Coordinating conjunctions are more often than not offset by commas. Also, #7 at Owl clearly gives examples of where this is proper, such as when there is a shift in tone or a pause in the sentence, all of which are true for those sentences. And again, you're seeing complexity where there isn't any Purplebackpack89 01:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Headings: Consistency and Manual of Style

There are two issues to correct in the headings: capitalization and punctuation before dates.

According to the MOS: In a heading, capitalize only the first letter of the first word and the first letter of any proper nouns, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Example: "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

• Boom and Bust
• Postwar Era
• Post-Cold War and Beyond, 1991-Present

Should these be "bust, era, beyond, and present"?

Punctuation between heading text and dates varies between colon and comma. I think it should be colon throughout to avoid a comma after a list as in "Expansion, industrialization and slavery, 1815–1861"

Thanks, Ted (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a comma man, so I'm going to go with commas. Colons don't do it for me Purplebackpack89 01:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Realized there was a third option–parentheses. They are used on EnWP and on other articles on SEWP. They make the organization clear when there are already commas in series of items in the heading. Ted (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs simplification: clause occurring in the middle of a sentence

This is straight out of Wikipedia:HOW:

6. When you see a dependent clause occurring in the middle of a sentence (normally separated by commas or parentheses), you can usually detach it and make it a separate sentence, again with the appropriate pronoun. Example: John Smith, who was very tired, walked his dog... becomes John Smith was very tired. He walked his dog....

Here are some embedded relative clauses with "who" or "where":

Roger Williams, who left Massachusetts after disagreeing with the Puritans, started the colony of Rhode Island in 1636. style="background:#FFC7C7;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-no"|No

Jackson’s Vice-President, John C. Calhoun, who was from the South, wrote that the South should stop the tariff and perhaps leave the Union (secession).

In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt, who was a soldier in the Spanish-American War, became President. style="background:#FFC7C7;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-no"|No

Hoover, who was President at the time, tried to do something about the Depression, but it did not work. style="background:#FFC7C7;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-no"|No

Under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who were both Presidents during the 1980s, the Cold War came to the end as Communist governments in the Soviet Union and other countries fell apart.

Chicago, where most of the rail lines met, became the center of trade between West and East.

Those all need refactoring and simplification, but there may be more. Separating the subject and the verb always increases reading difficulty. They could be refactored as indicated on the Help page, but maybe there may be better ways of revising too. Thanks, Ted (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

They all look fine to me. Simple English doesn't mean every sentence has to have 4 words and one clause, I see nothing to indicate that you can't have simple sentences with two clauses. It's bad English to split one idea into two sentences, you should confine it to one sentence, perhaps in two clauses seperated by an "and". In some of them, I have refactored as such. The ones that would split the idea have been marked with a "no". As I've said repeatedly, this article is already simple enough Purplebackpack89 01:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of your opinion that the article is simple enough. I did not say that all sentences must be a single clause. I pointed out that the language in the article differs from the guidelines. That would seem to be part of the review process for a proposed GA or VGA. After all, what is the point of a Simple Wikipedia if the language isn't simple? Ted (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think most of these could be changed and I'm working on it now. Kansan (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Fixed Kansan (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixes to WWI: Content, language, and still needs attention

I just want to explain my edits to WWI before they get changed. I will try to get to some other sections as time allows. As The Rambling Man said on the VGA proposal, "I could go through it with a fine-toothed comb but right now it needs a serious copyedit."

Before: "After the war, Wilson tried to start something called the League of Nations, but the United States did not join it because isolationists in the United States rejected the peace treaty."

1. Time sequence: Wilson and others started work on the LoN while the war was still on, not after.

2. He didn't just try. The League was established.

3. Refactored

4. Cut repeated "United States"

After: "Wilson worked to create an international organization called the League of Nations. The main goal of the League was preventing war. However, the United States did not join because isolationists rejected the peace treaty."

Before: "At the end of World War I, there was a flu pandemic that killed many people in the U.S. and Europe."

1. No need for the wordy "there was a". Actually, this structure is pretty common throughout the article.

2. Make the subject more prominent.

After: "At the end of World War I, a flu pandemic killed many people in the U.S. and Europe."

I removed one repetition of "World War I". I think readers would know which war it was at that point.

This passage is very complex and still needs attention: "It eventually entered the war in 1917 after a ship carrying Americans was blown up by a German torpedo, and after Germany sent Mexico a message called the Zimmermann Telegram, asking to work together to invade the U.S."

That has been split into three sentences Y Purplebackpack89 00:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ted (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My review

Perhaps someone could ensure that all of the points in my comprehensive review have been dealt with? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would see what I can do to help if it wasn't buried in this virtual graveyard of comments. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's simple. Resolve everything that hasn't been resolved yet. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I delete every point that has a  Done tag on it? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't do that. Just address every point that hasn't got a tick next to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure all of those need to be addressed for GA quality...for example, TRM requests ISBN numbers for books too old to have them; and page numbers for books that are entirely the subject of the sentence (for example, when I cite "Indians died of smallpox", I use Guns, Germs and Steel, which is all about how the Indians were defeated because of smallpox and weaponry). If a whole section has been dealt with, you could archive it...turn it blue like one of the sections above using archive top and bottom templates. Purplebackpack89 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sure, books that don't need isbn's because they're too old ignore them. If publication dates for each of these books is also provided, that would suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more issues

This still needs a careful line-by-line copyedit and proofreading. Here is all I've got time for so for right now, but indicates the level of checking that is needed. It takes more than one or two or even three sets of eyes to catch stuff.

Language

• "The growth of the English colonies was not good for the Native Americans, because many of them died of disease and lost their lands."--Structure. How can people die and lose their lands? You can't lose anything if you are dead. Individuals died. Groups lost land.

 Fixed and-->or (individuals can lose land too, just living ones)

• "The Great Depression was ended with World War II."--Awkward passive 'was ended with'. Rewrite directly.

 Fixed rm was

• "Late in the 1800s, many people came to the United States from Europe and worked in large factories. This was called the Gilded Age."--Logical disconnect. The name Gilded Age had little to do with (mainly poor) immigrants working in factories and everything to do with the new rich.

Added an introductory clause about rich businessmen...feel free to toy with it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "The Cold War ended in 1991 when the Soviet Union fell apart. The United States started to make less things in factories than they used to."--Time order problem. US industrial production started to decline well before the end of the Soviet Union, didn't it?

--Also less/fewer error. Mass vs countable. Less stuff; fewer things.

 Fixed switched sentences, add introductory clause

• "By 1860, thousands of miles of railroads and telegraph lines had been built in the United States, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest."--Link initial occurrence of Midwest. Basic knowledge for people educated in the US, but may be unclear to others. Y

• "The South had better generals than the North, but it had fewer railroads and almost no weapons factories.[61] This made it hard to give Southern soldiers guns."--Poorly organized, unclear causal relation. The first sentence contrasts very different things, then the second refers to it. Also, indirect "made hard".

Clarified the antecedent Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Read this directly and literally as a learner might: "At the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was shot and killed while watching a play."--Time relationship not that precise. Soon after the end?

 Fixed changed to April, 1865. FYI, it was six days after Appomattox, and before Johnston and Smith had surrendered Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Though the Populist Party died out after 1896, many of the things the Populists wanted, such as an income tax and direct election of senators, would happen during the Progressive Era."--Simplify per MoS.

Split into three sentences Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Many people also thought that the United States had lost touch with religion, and dealt with that by changing religion, but also attacking science."--Needs a 'by' in the last phrase. Y

• "because some countries in the Middle East was not giving the U.S. as much oil as it wanted (this was called an "oil embargo")"--Subject-verb agreement. Y

• "Women did not like that they often held jobs that paid less than men or that less opportunities were open to them." Less/fewer error. Paid less is OK (money), but fewer opportunities. Y

• "Around this time, Congress called for something called the "American System", which meant spending money on banking, transportation and communication so that bigger cities and more factories would be built."--MoS. Definitely not simple with a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 16.2!

 Fixed split into three sentences

• "The other was abolition, which wanted to end slavery."--Abolition is an activity. It does not "want" anything. Abolitionism? Will need a link.

 Fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Boom and bust (1919–1939)" and in the following paragraph. The two words "boom" and "bust" are not Simple by the combined word list or other measures. Also, the way they are used here are not their primary meanings. These need to be linked, but really the description should be just written in simple English. Combining two non-simple words that are not proper nouns in a heading makes this hard to read. Suggested "The economy grows and fails (1919-1939)", or something simpler than it is now. Yes, "Boom and bust" is a useful phrase in history, but it is not helpful for a learner looking for organizing headlines.

Their usage is defined in the lead Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "People like Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem founded groups such as the National Organization for Women to point out these problems."--Point out is not adequate. These groups did more than simply describe their surroundings.

Fixed as part of rewrite of paragraph below Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "The United States also agreed to a trade bill called the North American Free Trade Agreement, and dropped some of its rules on banking."--The word 'bill' needs to be specified--not simple in that usage. Ideally, this should done earlier in the article. Yes, Bill of Rights is linked, but not the actual concept of a bill.

The actual concept of a bill isn't brought up before, except for the Bill of Rights, and that isn't that type of bill. And looking at it, NAFTA isn't exactly a bill; it's more a pact; so I changed it to pact and wikted it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Part of these service jobs were in computers and the Internet, which came into wide use in the 1990s. The United States started to have a trade deficit, meaning it received more goods from other countries, such as China, than it sent to other countries."--Sequence problem. The US trade deficit start in the 60s, not after widespread computers and Internet.

Rephrase; rm "started" and emphasized size of deficit. FYI, the trade decifit started in the 70s, and didn't get really big until the 1980s or 90s. A strict chronological flow isn't entirely necessary Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Content

• Domestic and social issues

• "King got help from Presidents John F. Kennedy, who was shot, and Lyndon B. Johnson."--Is the Kennedy assassination really just an aside in the life of MLK and the Civil Rights movement? I think it was a bit more significant than that.

Why? Can you explain how it was significant? Kennedy and Johnson did not differ significantly on policy; Johnson carried out most of the programs that had originally been proposed by Kennedy

• Civil rights for Black Americans covered. Other groups added in the last go around. Feminism still relatively minor coverage. Still missing: LGBT. Add at least a brief mention of Stonewall, gay rights, etc. in this section. Weak representation of women and gay/lesbian people has been a steady and valid criticism of Wikipedia in general. Let's get this part right on Simple and show EN how it is done.

• Adding those two in, may mean a reorganizing of that paragraph.

I've figured out how to keep the general outline of the paragraph while still adding a sentence on LGBT and two more sentences on women. I would not call the coverage devoted to feminism "minor", as it takes up most of a paragraph. I did add a sentence that clearly spells out that NOW favored the ERA, and another that affirms the situation of women prior to the Second Wave of Feminism. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Expansion, industrialization and slavery (1815–1861)

This section header is no longer descriptive of the content: religion, temperance, "cult of domesticity", etc.

Most of the things you mention were results of the three things in the title. The problem with that section title is you kinda either have to just say "1815-1861", or something really long Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources and citations

• "Many people from around the world did not like the War in Iraq."--"Many" is vague. Reference.

Referenced, and changed to "Millions of people"

• "A movement called the "Tea Party" started during Obama's presidency. This group opposes Obama's health care plan and other policies they see as "big government.""--Both statement need a source. Reference on the following sentence does not include Tea party anywhere. Y

I may not have time to get to the rest of it, but I hope this helps. Many of the wiktionary links need work. I had a list going, but seem to have lost it. Will look. Gotanda (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Are any of them dead? 'Cuz I think all the wiktionary links work Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

One quick concern: Red Scare part

I'm sorry to post this in its own section and not as part of a comprehensive review, but I wanted to write it down before I forget: In the sentence "The Red Scare led to people losing their jobs, going to jail, and even being executed.", the provided source is an account of the Rosenbergs' execution, but doesn't directly tie it to the Red Scare. While it is true the public's fear from the Red Scare is probably a big reason they were executed, it would still need a cited source (and I honestly think the wording is a little misleading because it suggests there were more widespread executions). I recommend removing the reference to executions, and we could possibly find a source for the rest of the sentence. (I could help find one.) Kansan (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Three things this article shouldn't do

As a trained historian and a traditionalist, there are three things that other editors have proposed that I think would make this article worse history:

• Revisionism towards what the U.S. has done wrong: This article does not need to ennumerate every single time the U.S. messed up or sent troops into a country or failed to live up. if it is to truly be neutral, it should never pass judgement of right or wrong on events. That's for the reader to decide. The most atrocious or important of the U.S.' wrongdoings are already in there
• Focusing too much on small groups: The article does not need to be balkanized, nor crowd out the important achievements of majority Americans with achievements mentioned just because they are minority. Doing so will destroy the long view of history. Between a quarter and a third of the article is about blacks, Native Americans or other groups, which seems about right for me
• Focus too much on other countries: This is not a history of England. This is not a history of China and Japan. This is a history of the United States. And for the majority of its history, foreign relations are somewhat irrevelant

That's my piece. I'm not seeing you can't add anything more about minorities, foreign relations, or failures (and, remember, taken together, these three things comprise 40-50% of the article, more in some sections), just be warned that attempts to add those things will meet with strict scrutiny from me to make sure this article stays neutral Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And you should remember that everything you just said is decidedly un-neutral and smacks of ownership issues. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Explain how it's non-neutral to prevent this article from becoming a disorganized, biased, load of hooey. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not seeing you can't add anything more" and "just be warned" sounds like ownership to me. It's been a little while and college break is here again, so I expect we'll see another proposal for GA or VGA coming soon. But there are some additional problems. "As a trained historian" also asserts some greater claim to authority "and a traditionalist" looks like POV to me. Gotanda (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The first quote is a double negative and therefore not construing ownership. Also, I'm not sure you understand what a traditionalist means Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Stand by the original comment. I see what you did there with the double negative. The statement that "I'm not seeing (sic) -saying- you can't" is a sly statement of ownership. Of course you can't tell people what to add or not add because the article doesn't belong to you. "Just be warned" is certainly not the way to build a community. And, I stand by the POV. Your lack of understanding is not my responsibility. Here we go again. Gotanda (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again...The first statement is definitely not a statement of ownership because of the double negative. Have I made myself clear? Good. Oh, and by the way, adding a lot of redlinks to articles is frowned upon in most societies. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying something many times doesn't necessarily make it true. Address the "Just be warned", please. As far as "adding a lot of redlinks to articles is frowned upon in most societies" goes, the only society that has any meaning in is Wikipedia. I take a red link to mean "here is an important item that needs an article, feel free to make it if you have the time and interest." I did the same when Jean_Balukas was nommed for demotion. As I was trying to save the article, one of the first thing I did was identify items that needed linking. I wound up creating a bunch of red links and slowly worked through many of them as time allowed. The article and Wikipedia are both stronger for it. Gotanda (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere around I point out that it's not really an ownership issue unless I'm actively removing content. I have every right, as does anybody, to look at content closely to make sure it's accurate and doesn't tip the boat too much. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ownership issues are any activity which scare away editors from a particular article which is what a statement like this does. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Let my clarify my position on the second point. It is fine to acknowledge the many important contributions and experiences, provided that majority Americans contributions are also acknowledged. Also, let me re-affirm that the person who said I am being non-neutral is wrong; he has misinterpreted the meaning of NPOV. The person who is non-neutral is the person who adds too much of any of the three things to this article. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No that is how articles grow, what you stated is counter to how wikis work. We add information too them until they get too big and then we separate that section off into its own article. It's called summary style. Its the most key element of wikis. As for not being neutral, telling people what they can and can't add and how much should be in there as a "warning" sort of gives away that its your point of view that no more of that stuff should be in the article. I am not even slightly misinterpreting NPOV. Trying to scare editors away from doing something that might very well be valid is pretty much the prime example of point of view behavior. A text book case really. Between this and your many battles trying to get this article promoted, it looks very much like it might be time for you to just step away from the article. -DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You've completely misinterpreted what I said. There are many other reasons to delete content other than it being too big....several editors have added information that is inaccurate, violates point of view or overemphazies trivial aspects. The POV I am taking avoids that. I didn't say I would delete anything, just look at it very closely. And I will never' step away from this article, not if people make ill-construed edits to it that have to be fixed, as they continue to do time and again Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Social issues in the most recent section

The post cold war and beyond section seems a little heavy on politics/great man. Should we add a paragraph about social developments; i.e. immigration, abortion issues, gay rights, green revolution, browning and graying of America, urban decay, etc? Also, when there's a deby ceiling deal, should it be added (it's important, but not historic; its legacy will not be decided for years Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)