Talk:History of the United States (1789–1815)

	United States portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance).

Military history: Historiography / North America / United States / Early Modern / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

History Low‑importance

	History portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 16 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to History of the United States from 1789 to 1815. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Merge proposal

I suggest the merging of The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars into this article. The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars describes the same period and the same events. Poorly written. The Banner talk 20:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major part of US forgin policy. It combines all parts of the War of 1812, XYZ affair, Quasi-War and a lot more. In addition Ireland in the Coalition Wars is very simmer to the article. Also there was a discussion on WikiProject Military history in witch it was agreed this would be an important article. Overall it would be best to have a specific article to include how the United States was directly involved in the war. To say they “describes the same period and the same events” would be the same as saying we should merge Timeline of United States history (1930–1949) and Military history of the United States during World War II.I would also like to ask you why you have opened a talk page for merging on over half of the pages I have written, and have commented on completely unrelated talk pages I have been in. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you can find that all in History of the United States (1789–1849). And to answer your last question: due to the low quality of your work. The Banner talk 21:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it has been one week. I think we should go to an administrator as per policy. I also think we should get an administrator for the Luxembourg Rebellions. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you do not like it but both articles cover the same events and period. No need to split it off. The Banner talk 09:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should uses Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests and get a third opion. Out of the three discussions you have on me this one needs the third opion. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is not necessary YET. But more people participating in this discussion is a good idea. The Banner talk 01:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As more or less requested by you, I have now requested more input on three related WikiProjects. The Banner talk 10:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand the scope of The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. I can imagine from the topic title what I might expect to see in such an article, but the History section does not mention the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars at all. CMD (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge proposal and CMD's comment. This article does not expand the information in the History article. It doesn't really cover it at all. It only deals with contemporaneous foreign policy events or policies. No need for a separate article without more specific information on the topic. One or two redirects might be appropriate in case anyone is looking for this particular topic. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Support- The article is short enough that it can be merged into the proposed article without expanding the article too much, i feel if we decide to not merge we might as well end up splitting the current article(which there is no need to split). 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, the merge can be done? The Banner talk 22:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be two items of information on this page that are not on the more general page, the specific reference to a "Proclamation of Neutrality" as opposed to a more general mention of a "policy of neutrality", and details about the Quasi-War. On the first, I'm not sure the specific reference is currently due per sources, the first source mentions is in lowercase and thus as a descriptive term, the second uses "Neutrality Proclamation" which is a specific term but shows there isn't a standard formulation. On the Quasi-War, that seems at face value to feel important, but it could use stronger sourcing to show this. CMD (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" Oppose this should be a broad general article and it links to many specialized articles, such as USA and the French wars. Merger would give undue emphasis. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two facts here that differentiate the text, how would that unduly shift emphasis? CMD (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The info about the Quasi War is by and large taken or at least very similar to Quasi-War but with a new source. But with all due respect, concerning the Quasi-War it is largely a passing mention.

Regarding the Proclamation of Neutrality, this adds nothing what is not in Proclamation of Neutrality. It had two sources, but none of them even uses the word "proclamation" and are therefore useless. The Banner talk 20:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, LuxembourgLover, Chipmunkdavis, what's the status of this proposal? I'd like to pursue reorganization of this article and its series, but I've been waiting for this to be resolved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no expansion or clarification of The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars since this discussion started so my view remains the same, however by the same reasoning of it being a mostly redundant stub I don't think it will affect your reorganization. CMD (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still new, I am hoping people can add to it. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, we should proceed with the merge of The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars into this article. When possible, you can try to merge and reorganize the article in the same process. The Banner talk 11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, the two part that were worth extra attention add nothing to the respective articles about the Proclamation of Neutrality and Quasi-War with the sources given effectively - at least in my opinion - useless. Leaving nothing to merge. The Banner talk 20:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split (1789–1815) and (1815–1849)

I propose that this article be split to History of the United States (1789–1815) and History of the United States (1815–1849). This article covers a significantly longer time period than most articles in this series, and its unwieldy length reflects that. The dividing point would be the end of the War of 1812. A split along 1815 seems to coincide with the sources, marking the start or end dates of three books that I intended to use while doing research for this article: Revolutionary America 1763–1815; Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815; and What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aside from the sourcing, it also seems to align more or less with the end of the Jeffersonian era and the beginning of the end of the First Party System. This split makes sense. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good proposal and solid rationale. Aza24 (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I believe we should split the article. I've written an article on US involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. Despite my protests, it got merged into this article. Consequently, I think creating a separate page for the "History of the United States (1789–1815)" is a good idea. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was nothing to merge as the info was already covered in other more specialized articles. The Banner talk 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article definitely is unwieldy at its current length. Having two articles would be better for readers and for editors (it would be much easier to edit). Historyday01 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per proposal QuincyMorgan (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection It is indeed on the long side but not extreme. The Banner talk 11:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael7604 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]