Talk:American frontier/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject Wild West

A WikiProject has been proposed on List of proposed projects to both expand and improve coverage of articles relating to the "Wild West" period. MadMax 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The new link is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#American Old West. Chris 04:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of sources?

At present 83% of quotes come from three authors. More authors, more breadth.Lightpath (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lightpath... the vast majority of the footnotes point back to the DK Story of the West. Certainly there have been other ideas from landmark books about this topic from the 20th century that could and should be included to broaden the scope of this (understandably) far-reaching article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.19.143.2 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

yes and the Utley and Josephy sources are also old, thin and popular (without footnotes). I'm trying to solve this with fresh RS. Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Old talk

I am not happy with this language, "...before the coming of the railroads. After the railroads, emigration to the West became much easier; but before the railroads, rule by the gun was the norm,..." Most areas of the West were relatively peaceful with established authority before the coming of the railroad, not "rule of the gun". Conversely certain areas, for example, Arizona and Wyoming were relatively lawless after the coming of the railroad, see Johnson County War. Fred Bauder 12:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm inclined to agree, the language is a bit over-wrought and of dubious accuracy. Much of the "Old West" was really rather dull.

dino 17:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Considerable poetic license has been taken with a number of the actual events and characters such as Wyatt Earp and Billy the Kid as they have been protrayed in ways which reflect contemporary concerns more than the historical record."

Contemporary concern? Isn't it rather derived from the romanticism of that era?

---

"Nevertheless, the untamable mystique of the Wild West lives on... A fascination with a simpler world of salt of the Earth values, where men were men and women were damsels, fuels interest in Nashville and the Country Music scene, the rodeo circuits and the Western fashions of the 21st Century. Is it any surprise that Cowboy Action Shooting is one of the fastest growing sports today, combining marksmanship with the theatricality of an historical reenacting of the gunslinging Wild West days? The interest in the West seems eternal: maybe it is just because "a man's got to do what a man's got to do.""

This paragraph seems more like its been written for a magazine than for an enclylopedia.

---

I don't know who wrote it, but it does sound like a bad in-flight magazine. I edited it, and hopefully it is better.

dino 04:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm curious should the time range of the west be more around 1849 following the California Gold Rush ? With much of the west coast settled by 1860 it could even be argued following the period after the Lewis and Clark Expedition leading to the colonization of Oregon and California. I would suggest a timeline more along the lines of around 1850 to 1890. Maybe a rewording "from 1850 to its official close in 1890 (however the settling of the west continued into the early 1900s)." ? 205.188.116.132 19:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The concept of the frontier and of the old west are easily confabulated. I would date the old west from the Texas Revolution in 1836 and subsequent settlement of Texas. I think the days of the Mountain Men and of Bent's Fort and the Santa Fe Trail, which also predates 1849, fit easily into the period. Fred Bauder July 8, 2005 12:56 (UTC)

I agree. I think the Santa Fe Trail and the Battle of the Battle of the Alamo would fit most people's idea of the Old West and the timeline given should include those events. Johntex 23:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I was curious what time period was quoted elsewhere, so I looked at Western (genre), which says: "Westerns, by definition, are set in the American west, almost always in the 19th century, from the antebellum period to the turn of the century..."Johntex 23:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my late responce. As you can see I left the previous message quite awhile ago. Certainly the "Old West" could be traced back to the Louisianna Purchase. It seems the general timeline might be divided into diffrent "eras" in the phases of western settlement. 64.12.116.71 09:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

ex.

• Exploration (from the Louis and Clark Expedition and subsequent explorations)
• Early Immigration (the initial colonization of Oregon, California, Texas, etc.)
• Pre-Civil War (from the California Gold Rush to the end of the Civil War)
• Post-Civil War (the end of the civil war through reconstruction and covering much of the romantizized "Old West")
• Final Years (the frontiers decline and eventual closing in 1890)
• Present Day (covering years following the "official" closing of the frontier to the present day)

Railroads

The info on the railraods @ the close of the west is lacking. I'll try to put it in some times if someone doesn't beat me to it. JDR 20:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Article historical reference

The article was mostly compose of other wikipedia articles. Is there a problem with that? .... go look @ the wlnk article here @ wikipedia. JDR 22:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe there is such a thing as the "Frontier Strip" but the Old West definitely also included the states west of the states so identified. Is it okay to go ahead and try to fix things like that or does a collaboration need some kind of vote. Also, IMHO, this article should be mainly historical with most of the fiction referred to Western fiction. HombreX 07:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Early explorers and trappers: Section Notes

The "Early explorers and trappers" section needs to be expanded to include mentions of the expeditions of General William Henry Ashley and his partner, Major Andrew Henry. They were also involved in the fur trade/fur business. One of the men already mentioned in that section, Mike Fink (also a fur trapper), supposedly attended one or more of Ashley's expeditions and died on one of them. That would be a good way to tie them together.

One good reference I have found so far is [1]

--Naha|^(talk) 19:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Kurosawa

"It is a common misconception that Akira Kurosawa's film Yojimbo was influenced by certain spaghetti westerns, though quite the reverse is true."

He may not have been influenced by spaghetti westerns, but he definitely was influenced by westerns: he cites John Ford as his primary inspiration. 71.232.96.127 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

Was there a French Old West or something? None of the interlanguage links even use "American" in the title of their articles, and that usage certainly isn't popular. Is the term needed? Zeality 04:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Old West redirects to American Old West, I don't think the "American" needs to be in there. 138.69.160.1 14:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sentence in intro

Though the Old West is often seen as being unusually violent, some argue that the Old West was "a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today."

Any objections to removing this sentence? While that statement is sourced, I do not see any of its ideas built upon in the body of the article. Either the concept needs to be developed in the article in a non-trivial way, or the sentence should be removed. --Bletch 11:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this sentence. --Bletch 13:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Old West

Even though most Americans may associate the term "Old West" with the post-civil war period, I suggest that a more coherent historical tale could be told by beginning it with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 or earlier, and it probably should be earlier. There was really ONE frontier movement with different phases over more than a century, after all. I got to this article through other articles using the term "Old West" to refer to the earlier trans-Allegheny migrations and was disappointed to find that it begins with "cowboys and Indians." Much of the info presented here could be better told in an article titled "Wild West" or something similar. As it is, this article is not consistent with usage of the term "Old West" in historical literature, or in other Wikipedia articles. Amity150 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then make a 'disambig' page on the Old West page. J. D. Redding 12:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Most often the term refers to the late 19th century, between the American Civil War and the 1890 closing of the frontier.

I've been racking my brains, but I can't figure out what "closing of the frontier" might mean. For the benefit of people like me, could anyone explain? (In the article, I mean, not here!) Matt 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

Proposal to improve article

If no one objects, I am going to make a major revision of this article. I will concentrate on just history 1800-1900, with reliable citations, and remove cultural influences which better belong in article Western (genre), which also needs work but has a good start and good links to detailed articles. Scotwriter 00:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add some headings to better organize your data. You did a great job of inclusing major events! Bhentze (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured?

This article has a very, very large number of references, appears well written, and has several pictures. Why is it sitting with a B-class rating? Colonel Marksman (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

History vs Fiction

The title of the article is American Old West and the first sentence of the article says "The Western United States has played a significant role in history and fiction." However, the article as it stands is mostly about history. Even the 'actual events and characters' section mentions "history and folklore". Should we:

(a) Strive for more like a 50/50 balance

(b) Take out the mention of history and focus on mythology, symbolism, and folklore

(c) Continue on with no major change in the slant of the article?

I would be in favor of (a) with the provision I think the article will eventually get too big and require some sort of splitting. If we go with (b), we might consider renaming the article. Johntex 23:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I want to say we should do A. But in my mind, we should have a mention of how the present idea of the west was formed because of movies and media sources like Buffalo Bill's Wild West show. I have to find some old papers and sources, but one popular myth that came out of that show was that the myth that all indians wore feathers. In realality, a small group of indians, which happened to be working for Buffalo Bill wore them. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the fiction .... but it is now 75% fiction - 25% non-fiction. A time line and other historical facts should be put in to boost parity. Sincerely, JDR

I guess I struggle with the fiction element. The Old West aricle seems more of a product of Buffalo Bill and his show, and publicity stunts like the poney express (which was all about promoting the telegraph programme). Why not have one article about the romantic fictional West that was created and commodified by the likes of Buffalo Bill and John Ford, and a genuine article attempting to explain what it was really like. Cowboys were seen as idiots and criminals, not romantic rangers of the frontier, by all reliable accounts of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.195.247 (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Native American Chiefs 1865 photo

I don't know if it matters for the sake of the article, but I'm a historian who has researched and written my share about Ponca Indians, and I can guarantee that this photo in the article is a photo of Ponca Indian leaders. The gentleman sitting in the middle was the the paramount chief of that time, White Eagle. The gentleman sitting at the far left is the famous Ponca Standing Bear. Others in the photo are also easily identifiable; I'd be glad to do so. Or if people feel best to just leave it labeled "Native American Chiefs," I suppose that's ok, too, but specificity is never a bad thing. Also, I'm not absolutely certain just by looking at it, but unless someone has a way to verify the date, I would also question the 1865 date of the photo and for various reasons would probably place it roughly ten years later, for what it's worth. Harry Yelreh (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Map

It would be useful to add a map showing the historic area that was considered 'The West', prior and during the period of settlement. The map at Western United States shows the current West, but a similar one showing the 'Old West' would be of interest to non-American readers. --MichaelMaggs 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That map is a joke. Is it actually insinuating that West Texas (or Texas period) is somehow "less" of the Old West somehow?! Also, these territories shown on the map did not even exist during the time period we now call the Old West. It's articles like this one that have earned Wikipedia a (growing) reputation as an unreliable (even laughable) source of information. --Nikoz78 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Real cowboys only shed one tear?

From the top photo caption on the page: "It is a well known fact that real cowboys will only shed one tear at any given time, giving them the perception of being 'real' men." Is that supposed to be a joke? I'm removing it. RS (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC) RS

Everyday life on the frontier

I came to this article looking for some information about everyday life on the frontier for an "average" frontier family, if such a thing can be imagined... the Life on the Frontier section seems to be missing this information. Is there another article I could check, and maybe add some information from? Or does someone with access to sources add some information? Emika22 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic at all

As an example:

"While James did harass railroad and corporate executives who unjustly seized private land or squashed small business for the railways and big business, modern biographers tend to stress that he did so for personal gain; forgetting that he and individuals like him were made outlaws by acts of Congress, Reconstruction, and powerful business interests."

Sorry, this last clause is just over the top with non-NPOV. The entire article looks like it was written by somebody trying desperately to inexplicably restore the romanticized version of Western American history. This really needs to be completely re-written by somebody without an agenda.

I agree, this entire article is rife with comments that seem to be trying to make the article relatable to a twelve year-old. The line "When outlaw gangs were near, towns would raise a posse (like in the movies)..." is a good example. "Like in the movies" provides no relevent information (people rode horses in the movies too, are we going to add that into every article mentioning equestrians?), and is representative of the unencyclopedic tone that strives to use the name "Wyatt Earp" in place of "lawman" every chance it gets. Unless someone has a valid reason to preserve this tone (liking cowboy movies is not a valid reason, this is about the Old West, not the Western film genre) I'm going to revise it a bit. The Cap'n (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Article far too long

This article is over 100kb. Per WP:Size the article should be cut substantially. I would suggest that multiple splits should be carried out and the text in various sections reduced to briefer summaries with pointers to the main articles in question. It may be painful, particularly for enthusiast of the period, but currently this is more like a short book than an encyclopedia article. Revcasy (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think its too long. I would object to splitting up because its easer for the reader/researcher to have all the info on one page than having to find it spread out over several different ones.--24.251.238.149 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Name

I know this was brought up before but that was in 2007. I have read alot about the Old West and only on wiki have I ever heard of it being referred to as the "American Old West." Every other history I have read about the Old West does not include the word "American" in it. This article should be renamed simply "Old West" as that is far more common than any other phrase used to describe the period.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The myth of the Wild West

Why is it nowhere made clear that the modern image of the Wild West (concerning crime and gunfights) is all a big myth created by Hollywood? Hakkinen (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a myth made by Hollywood.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me be more clear. There were plenty of gunfights and gunfighters in the Old West, its just there werent as many like you see in Hollywood movies and the shootous or battles with Indians were, in general, not as bloody as Holloywood depicts. Basically, Hollywood over exaggerates or sacrifices truth for entertainment purposes. I'm sure you already know this but Hollywood does that to a lot of movies, not just ones about the Old West.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jedediah Strong Smith

Where is Jedediah Strong Smith the trail blazer who through private capital traveled during the 1820's throughout the West: Utah, California, and the Oregon Country? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Smith deserves his own section or more then just one sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Louis and Clark expedition

I believe the Louis and Clark Expedition deserves a seperate segment. They really started Westward American exploration and trailblazing. More could be said on the Native American tribes that were living in the area during their explorations of the Old West. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Native Americans

Mentioning the Native American tribes in my opinion would balance the article. There seems to be an Anglo centric point of view in the article. The article apparently views Native Americans as non existant or insignifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There are two sections regarding Indians, although both are rather strange, one is centered around big battles, the other about location of casualties. How do you want the article to treat American Indians? User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose mainly that they were there would be best. Native Americans, those not hostile, offered trade, food, water, directions, and shelter to early American explorers such on the Louis and Clark Expedition and Jedediah Smith. Possibly a map that showed where the American Indian tribes were located during the 19th Century would be good. During the last half of the 19th Century the tribes were located in the Indian territories. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say, "most Indians did not scalp any white travelers." ?? Indians are covered in a majority of the article's sections. The Indians are actually located in most western states even today. (Here in Billings Montana we have two large reservations within 50 miles). Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The article does cover Indians, however, I was referring to a map of the Indian nations or territories Early Indian Tribes, Culture Areas, and Linguistic Stocks: William C. Sturtevant, Smithsonian Institution, 1967. The map would help. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

a map of battles or reservations would be useful. It should be relevant to the 19th century not pre 1500 Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Map added to article.  Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant's peace policy

I believe President Ulysses S. Grant's peace policy deserves recognition. He reduced the amount of Indian Wars up until 1875 until gold was discovered in the Black Hills. He also hired a full Indian to run the Department of Indian Affairs. Also Grant's peace policy started Native Americans on their way to U.S. citizenship, having disbanded the treaty system. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

well this article is not about Washington and its doings. Other articles cover that. Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Washington policy affect the American Frontier? For example, the Oregon Territory was jointly run by the British and America. Jedediah Strong Smith wrote to the Secretary of War that he believed the British were instigating the Indians against his American party. President Grant's peace policy set in motion the taming of the West, having desired the Indians to be incorporated into American society rather then be exterminated. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

yes Washington is important. But that is covered in the presidential articles. Take Indians: every president had an Indian policy. Pouring all that detail in would drown the article. There was never an extermination policy re Indians. The question after 1800 was separation on reservations vs integration into the larger society--a problem still not resolved. Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose Grant set Indian Policy on a different course with the goal of Indian assimilation into American society. During and after Grant the Indian Wars began a gradual overall decline. Yes, Native Americans are still not integrated into our society. I rarely see any Native Americans outside an Indian Casino. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Peace Policy had more to do with who was in control of Indian affairs than anything else. Some of the civilization aspects came from Grant's idea that charitable or religious organizations were better-suited to manage Indian affairs. It also didn't "disband the treaty system." Considering that Crook made his name campaigning in Arizona during this period, and that the largest Indian war prior to the Great Sioux War (the Red River War) took place during this time, along with the Modoc War (which saw the only Regular Army general killed during the Indian Wars) I don't think the Peace Policy reduced conflict. You'd need some serious RS to back up that statement. Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The intro is not written in an encyclopedic style

The intro is not written in an encyclopedic style. It sounds too romanticized, and doesn't do a good job summarizing the article.--Futuretrillionaire 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire (talk • contribs)

Correct or delete unreliable maps.

A.

I am no American or American historian but from my quick look at least the top three/four maps lack logical progression as far as titles go. Someone with more knowledge than this Aussie hopefully will either correct or delete.

Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

the maps are accurate & are in chronological order to emphasize long-term changes in the frontier region. Rjensen (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, thanks. I have re-read the titles and seems to be a little dyslexia on my part. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

B.

Map one indicates "Colony of Louisiana (spain)".

Louisiana purchase article indicates that "The Louisiana Purchase (French: Vente de la Louisiane "Sale of Louisiana") was the acquisition by the United States of America in 1803 of 828,000 square miles (2,140,000 km2) of France's claim to the territory of Louisiana."

So, if I do understand well, a colony from New Spain, wearing a French King's traditional name (Louis...iana), had been acquired of France's claim blablabla blablabla ? In my sens, it takes a bit more of explanation or simply correct that map !

It's a complicated story. France founded, settled and named Louisiana. In 1762 France turned it over to Spain. Spain sent government officials but not settlers. Back in Europe in 1800 Napoleon forced Spain to secretly give ownership back to France. France sold it to the US in Nov 1803. The US paid $$$ to France and Spain got zero. Spanish officials were in charge until 3 weeks before the sale to the US. US officials took control in March 1804. Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

1700-1910

I will be reverting the edit to the date (year) concerning the beginning of the Old West period. The Old West refers to the history of the Western United States (West of the Mississippi River) from about 1820 or 1830 to about 1910 or 1920. (Many western towns were founded after 1900, mainly due to gold and land rushes, but they were abandoned after a relatively short time.) Frontier history of the Eastern United States (including the Old Northwest) has always been considered seperate (or, at least, distict from the Old West). American frontier history of the East begins about 1600, with the founding of the eastern colonies, such as Jamestown Colony in Virginia and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It ended just after the War of 1812, when the last major Indian tribes in the Old Northwest were defeated, and when the Southern Eastern Indians were removed west of the Mississippi. American migration west of the Mississippi then began to really pick up (before it was mainly mountain men and or fur trappers). First Americans went to Texas, then to Oregon, then to California and then to Alaska (settling the in between places along the way). Moreover, the Old West is known as the era of American cowboys and cattle drives (which didn't exist before the 1820s, and originate in Texas), gunfighters, outlaws and the final half of the American Indian Wars (anyone who reads this, should see the Indian wars article). The Old West was basically the last half of American frontier history. There are other reasons as well that I can think of, mainly technological advances and culture, but I hope you (whoever reads this) get my point. I will also use this time to suggest, again, that we need a new article called "American frontier" that focuses on all American frontier history as a whole (circa 1600 to circa 1920), rather than trying to pass off Old Eastern frontier history as that of the West. Obviously, this article would be the main article for information regarding Western frontier history and the new article that I propose can focus on frontier history of the East, with a limited amount of info about the West. I'd create the article myself but I'm already working on countless other projects and appreciate how much of an undertaking it would be to create an article like I have suggested.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to be more clear, I have read alot about frontier history, and have always been particularly interested in the differences between frontier life in the East, as opposed to the way it was later on, in the West. For one, the Eastern Indians were not "Horse Indians," meaning they didnt use horses like the tribes west of the Mississippi (The Plains Indians and the Far Western tribes). Also, the personification of the Old West is a cowboy, or gunfighter, while the mountain men, or fur trappers (like Davy Crocket and Daniel Boone), is that of the East.

The three major things that mark the beginning of the Old West are as follows: 1) Texas: The initial settling of Texas by Americans and the subsequent Texas Revolution (1835) and the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), which brought Texas and a vast amount of other new territory under American control.), 2) The final destruction of the Eastern Indians (the Southern tribes) and their removal west of the Mississippi beginning in 1830 (At that time, the Mississippi River was pretty much the divider between the Western wilderness and the settled East, which is why the Indians were moved west of the river. The wars against the Southern Indians weren't part of the Old West but their removal west was.), 3) The Oregon Trail, which didn't become a major route until the 1830s.

The Louisiana Purchase was obviously huge but the settlement of such vast new territories didn't even begin until after the War of 1812. (The city of New Orleans existed but that was about it.) I saw recently that somebody had edited the box by changing the starting date of the Old West to 1804, probably because of the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition. But, like I wrote above, the actual settlement didnt begin until well after the War of 1812 (1812-1815). I was going to say something then but I did not. However, when I looked at this article today, I saw that someone had changed the date all the way down to the year 1700. So that is why I am doing this now.

There are also several technological advancements that are important in defining the Old West. The Old West is often called the "Age of the Cowboy" or the "Age of the Gunman" (Or similar things) Cowboys and gunfighters really only came about after the invention of percussion cap revolvers (and other modern weapons) in the 1830s. Also, cowboys themselves originate in Texas, where American settlers began working with Spanish/Mexican cattle (and, as stated above, the American settlement of Texas didnt begin until the 1820s and 1830s). Trains are also an important part of the Old West and railroading in the United States began back East, in the 1820s, but gradually spread west along with the immigrants.

Anyone who knows anything about historical periods knows that they often slightly overlap one another. For example, the general conception is that the Old West centers around the last half of the 19th century (after the American Civil War [1861-65] and before 1900) but anybody who is really familiar with the subject knows that the events that made the Old West famous began occurring before the generally accepted beginning date (1865) and continued into the first two decades of the 1900s. Also, nowhere in any history book does it say that fighting on the western frontier during the War of 1812 was part of the Wild West. Nowhere in any history book does it say that fighting on the western frontier during the American Revolution was part of the Old West. This is because it wasn't, not by any means. Sure there were similarities between the "Old East" (as I like to call it) and the Old West, but they were still very different from one another.

Generally, when I think of the Old West, I'm thinking of Western United States history no sooner than 1820 and no later than 1920. However, c. 1830 to 1910 is probably more correct.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

New idea

Instead of proposing the creation of a new article for American frontier history as a whole, I think now that it wouldn't be a bad idea to simply make this article the new "American frontier" article (by renaming it). That way we can just have all the frontier history in one article, and make it clear at the top that the Old West generally refers to frontier history in the Western United States in a certain period of time (the last period). I really think that is the best idea, considering there is already a bunch of info here about frontier history east of the Mississippi. Also, if this is done, the starting and end dates should be "c. 1600 - 1900." I have no problem starting the process now but I will wait a couple days to see if anybody reads and responds to this.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I think renaming this article is the best solution. Historians usually use "old west" narrowly for the 1790s period. 1600 is ok for starting year but 1910 works a little better as an end point. Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Davy Crocket and Mexico

I wanted to say a little bit more about Davy Crocket, and Spanish colonial/Mexican influence in the Western US. Crocket was your typical "Eastern" frontiersman, as I like to think of it, which just means that he was a frontiersman that was famous or active more so in the East than he was in the West. However, Crocket lived just at the time when Texas became the new frontier. So he went West and eventually died in the Alamo. Daniel Boone was an all "Eastern" frontiersman, who, if I remeber correctly, never went west of the Mississippi (if he did it wasn't very far).

California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas all share a very distinct culture and history from that of the other American states because they were all origionally part of the Spanish frontier/empire and the Spanish are the ones who first established European settlements in what we now call the border states. There is also significant Spanish influence in Florida and other parts of the Southern United States, however, Spanish influence in that area was never like that in the West, mostly because CA, AZ, NM and TX all became part of Mexico in 1821, when the Spanish colonists achieved independence from Spain. Its not just history though either. Because Texas shares a border with Mexico, like the other three border states, that makes it more of a Western state than a southern one like Florida. For one, the Mexican vaquero traditions, which the American cowboy derives from, didn't exist east of the Mississippi. The cowboy has always been purely Western (West of the Mississippi). Id also like to say that although the Old West begins in about 1830, the Old West periods of, for example, New Mexico or California didn't begin until during and after the process that brough them into the United States (the Mexican War 1846-48). They were still frontier territories (I dont mean US territories) beforehand but it wasn't the "Old West" or the "Wild West," which is solely an American idea of history. However, Mexico and even Canada do play important roles in Old West history. Another good example would be Alaska, which didnt become part of the US until 1867 (and even then it wasn't until the 1890s-1910s that American settlement began).

Got to go now, I may write some more later.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the American frontier officially closed in 1912, when Arizona and New Mexico were admitted as states. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bias on Oklahoma land

The statement In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison authorized the opening of 2,000,000 acres (8,100 km2) of unoccupied lands in the Oklahoma territory acquired from the native tribes. is not NPOV in that it neglects the viewpoint of the tribes who occupied the land and for the most part consider that the land was stolen by force rather than the neutral term acquired. Xj (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Xj, though the current version seems succinct enough that I'd like to float alternatives on Talk first. I'm looking for them now, but does anyone have sources on how those lands we "acquired" by the US in the first place? The Cap'n (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Range Wars is Vague, Confusing and Needs Work

I'm doing my best to fix up the grammar, clarity and historical relevancy of the Range War[[2]] section, but it'd be helpful if the folks who contributed a lot of this material in the first place chimed in. For example, I'm not really sure what the last sentence is trying to say, even after removing the double negatives and awkward syntax. I don't want to guess, so I'd appreciate a little help. Thanks! The Cap'n (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Popular Culture/Folklore/Films

@Rjensen, I understand that lawlessness and banditry were major influences on films, folklore and toys, but that's why there's a Popular Culture section that's much larger than most articles'. I think these sources can be better served there, rather than in a section that is dedicated to an historical analysis of the era. In general contemporary trivia should not be included piecemeal in sections about historical periods. Can we come to a consensus to move the film references to 10.1 and the toy reference to 10.2? The Cap'n (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to have both. The "history" of Tombstone, for example, and the cattle towns and related violent episodes, is generally handled as a matter of perception and memory as constructed in the 20th century. So the specific memory of each episode belongs in the main section. The Popular Culture section is the History of how popular culture developed and changed in its portrayals through multiple art forms (painting, dime novels, Hollywood etc) to present with very general does not deal with specific topics like Tombstone or toy guns. Tombstone is a good example--there is not really much history there only the constructed memory (constructed mostly in Hollywood) Rjensen (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in most regards, except that I don't feel the constructed memory is an appropriate historical paradigm to discuss in the historical section of a period. I would be fine with dramatically expanding Popular Culture to reference these constructs in a more detailed fashion, or even to help work with you on a new refurbished page on Western History Through Popular Culture, but the sections on history should contain mostly just history. If we don't have much material on Tombstone that isn't authenticated through academic historical sources, then we should reflect that and express what scholarly evidence we do have. We can include aspects from a diverse historiography, but we should restrict the discussion in the historical sections to historical topics. The Cap'n (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Old West vs American Frontier

It seems that on wiki many have confused the Old West as being another name for the American Frontier. The Old West was only a part of the frontier period and continued after the frontier "closed". Basically the American Frontier referred to the unsettled areas west of the British colonies on the East Coast] to the present day border with California. (California was not considered part of the frontier). There should be an article about the American frontier which can be used for the entire history of the frontier (1600s to circa 1890) while this artcle can remain as it is, an article about a specific period in the American frontier history (circa 1830 to circa 1920).--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are both Old West & Wild West redirected to an article named American Frontier? This completely flys in the face of a base WP principle: WP:COMMONNAME. NOBODY calls a John Wayne movie a "Frontier" movie. They are called "Westerns" as in the "Old West" or the "Wild West." You can blame Buffalo Bill for this. The WikiProject responsible for this article is called Wikipedia:WikiProject American Old West. Why is that? Because that's what the period is commonly referred to as! I have to agree with the poster above. A frontier existed for America, I imagine, since Columbus' arrival but ended with the settling of the Pacific North West while the "Wild West" existed over a different timeframe: Louisianna Purchase to WWI. These are related but separate. This error needs to be corrected by having these articles split. --Hutcher (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

see this earlier comment: Even though most Americans may associate the term "Old West" with the post-civil war period, I suggest that a more coherent historical tale could be told by beginning it with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 or earlier, and it probably should be earlier. There was really ONE frontier movement with different phases over more than a century, after all. I got to this article through other articles using the term "Old West" to refer to the earlier trans-Allegheny migrations and was disappointed to find that it begins with "cowboys and Indians." Much of the info presented here could be better told in an article titled "Wild West" or something similar. As it is, this article is not consistent with usage of the term "Old West" in historical literature, or in other Wikipedia articles. Amity150 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hutcher believes that "NOBODY calls a John Wayne movie a "Frontier" movie." That's false--his biographers call it that. To quote a recent biography of him, "John Wayne personified for millions the nation's frontier heritage." from Duke: The Life and Image of John Wayne by RL Davis - 2001 - Rjensen (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Numbers of Plain Indians killed by disease

I'm planning to add a sentence or two about the depopulation of Indians during the Westward Expansion (1800-1900), but I'm conflicting about a good section to put it. Godzilladude123 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the smallpox/ measles etc epidemics hit long before the frontier arrived in 6the vicinity. try it out here. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but can you specify to what section of the article I can add it. Godzilladude123 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If it happened before the frontier arrived in a locality, then it doesn't fit. Wikipedia has numerous articles dealing with the history of all the major tribes, and that is the best place to include it. Rjensen (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Indians West of the Mississippi

Hey guys. I'm planning to nominate the article for GA is the times comes when it's good enough. But there are some problems need fixing. One of it is the section of "Indians West of the Mississippi", which is too descriptive, excessive and probably needs to be trimmed and generalized. Godzilladude123 (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Genocide of indigenous people

I added a small item to the intro (see history) that is described and sourced extensively not only in this article but in the article I linked to as well as the various articles linked to them. I had no strong position but was simply expanding the intro to include what seemed to me to be obvious information missing that, again, is described and sourced on Wikipedia: that is that the native population was decimated, and native cultures destroyed, by the arrival and expansion of peoples from the eastern hemisphere including by direct written policy of the United States government (that last point I didn't know before researching this today). That that obviously fits the plain meaning of "genocide" seems clear to me. I couldn't understand the controversy at all and certainly within the context of "assuming good faith".

I found it odd that rjensen insisted that something so incidental would need an additional citation but after the last revert I began to collect citations to add to my change. This was easy enough because there is no shortage of citations within the article as well as linked articles. This is where I learned who "Ward Churchill" is (whom rjensen referenced in arguing that my simple change advocated a non neutral pov - ironically, however, the fact that rjensen invoked such a polarizing figure seems to demonstrate that he is editing the article with a non-neutral POV in mind).

That there are articles in existence that deny this genocide brings up a question as to what constitutes a "reliable source". Are racist sources acceptable? Does Wikipedia entertain anti-semetic holocaust deniers in world war 2 articles? An article countering that the plain meaning of genocide describes what happened to the native Americans and that the historicity of this is no less solidly supported than the nazi holocaust is racist, per se, and morally repugnant.

I'm new to Wikipedia but I do understand it's open and uncensored way. However if this policy allows for the site to be a platform for racist propaganda then perhaps I won't fit in here?- Geeks On Hugs (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American frontier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.sfhistoryencyclopedia.com/articles/f/fallonMalachi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108082126/http://wyomingtalesandtrails.com/johnson.html to http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/johnson.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202142001/https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/47065/ttu_hfwc01_000001.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y to https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/47065/ttu_hfwc01_000001.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511113744/http://www.skyways.org/orgs/fordco/ftdodge.html to http://www.skyways.org/orgs/fordco/ftdodge.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Exceptional

"America is exceptional in choosing its iconic self-image." That sounds exceptionally biased, it's not referenced, and it's not backed up by the quote that immediately follows it. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence. DrkBlueXG (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Too long

The article is overwhelming due to its length ((19,305 words) "readable prose size"). Based on Wikipedia standards, a complex, technical article like this one ought to be split. I suggest pre- and post Civil War might make a clean division. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Article split

The article is currently about 122kb, or of the size that standards state "Almost certainly should be divided." If the article is split at the inception of the America Civil War, finding a suitable name that includes the Civil War period is a bit challenging. South Caroline voted to secede on December 20, 1860; Abraham Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861; Fort Sumter was fired upon and seized on April 12–13, 1861. There is a natural division at the section The Civil War in the West.

Alternative names for the split articles include:

American frontier before the Civil War and American frontier since the Civil War

American frontier before 1861 and American frontier since 1861

American frontier before March, 1861 and American frontier since March, 1861

I prefer the first. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No--this adds complexity and confusion and helps neither readers nor editors. This is a compound article--really a guide to about 60 inter-related topics over 200+ years with leads to many longer specialized articles in Wikipedia. Cutting at 1861 is an entirely artificial division with no support in the reliable sources. Confusion comes because it will split most themes (we will have to tell the reader--to continue go to article on Part 2. It will split each theme disproportionately (Most of the 60+ topics do NOT divide at the Civil War the way national politics does or the South does). Readers interested in several topics (Indians, say, or families, or popular culture or race or bandits or ethnics or the Army or land ownership etc etc) will lose half the picture they are looking for--and have no gains. If they are interested in all 60+ topics of the ENTIRE frontier experience, then they will have to read two articles and gain zero time. If they are interested in say 4 topics, then they will have to go to the corresponding sections of two articles and save zero time. If they click on a link they may have more trouble getting back. Editors adding new material will have to add it to both new articles splitting it at the artificial 1861 date. I suggest this its the time to follow the Guideline advice that it is designed to fit most of the 5 million Wikipedia articles but not all of them. ["It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply....There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion."] A split increases complexity & reduces readability by forcing this switching back and forth. Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Rjensen, the split would be completely artificial -- we shouldn't split articles in half just because they're too long, there are other solutions to this problem. The first, albeit more challenging option, is to actually streamline the article and cut it down to size, making it effectively readable. Alternatively, a MUCH more logical way to divide the article would be to remove some of the longer sections (eg Social history or Indian Wars) and make them into their own articles, and replace them with short summaries and links within this article. This deals with the issue of lengthiness, without encountering the problem that Rjensen brought up of breaking up themes that don't have a breakage at 1861. -- 198.103.104.11 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Romanticising history of violence

We should not forget that this article also describes an act of genocide. The introduction sounds a little too romanticising for that. I had a look with Google Translate at the versions of this article in some other languages, which do not fail to give due regard to the massacres and other forms of violence. Here are some links: German, French, Russian. The fact that these articles tell such a vastly different story shows that there is significant bias to be removed from the English version. 黄雨伞 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Posey War?? Not really part of the American frontier, according to reliable sources

The consensus of reliable sources state that the end of the frontier Indian wars was 1890 They Do not include the later very small operations that did not affect the development of the frontier. According to theUtah Encyclopedia, "for the Indians it was not a war and never was intended to be such...a few shots fired as a delaying action, and a very rapid surrender do not justify elevating an exodus to a war." See Robert S. McPherson, "Posey War," Utah Encyclopedia (1994) So I deleted mention of the Posey war is not significant to the history of the frontier. Rjensen (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The federal government and western expansion

Westward Expansion is a historical fact in America, and students need to be able to find the place on Wikipedia that discusses it. I am working on a page for an artist who was born in Indian Territory/Oklahoma to mixed race parents who were impacted by westward expansion. his page does not get into these details, but I'd like to be able to create a click through so readers interested in this context can find out more about it. Thank you, Sicklemoon (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What's the exact date the American frontier (or Wild West) ended?

I don't know how to answer this question. There are two answers: 1912 and 1959. If you have an answer 1 out of 2, let me know. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's usually either 1890 (Turner) or 1912, which is often cited as a more accurate landmark because that's when the last federal territories in the lower 48 became states. But some people would say as late as the late 1920s because it took that long for law and order to come to most of the Western states. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there's no definitive answer to that question. Emotioness Expression (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Really odd insertion by User:Wikiuser100 on 27 February 2015

I just noticed how bizarre this sentence sounds: "Soon, the ethos and storyline of the 'American frontier' had passed." It originates from this edit by User:Wikiuser100 on 27 February 2015.

Passed into what? That's a sentence fragment and not a complete sentence. "Pass" as a verb in the past tense is usually a transitive verb that takes an object in English. For example, English speakers normally say sentences like, "I passed him on the highway" or "The American frontier has passed into memory." There are only a few contexts where one can informally say "passed" in English without an object, but even then, the object is clearly implicit or pragmatically inferable from context. For example, one can say "the bill passed," but that is shorthand for "passed into law," or, "I passed," which usually means "I passed on my turn."

Any ideas on how to fix this mess so it makes sense? If this wasn't bad enough, the sentence doesn't seem to be directly supported by the cited source (which is linked to a page in Google Books). --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And here is the uncivil response I just received on my talk page:

"I don't know what your gig is, but here is a Wikipedia civility warning: WP:CIVIL. Brush up on it. There is absolutely no call for you to be trolling around Talk page edits from 5-1/2 years ago somewhere and leave a gratuitous, unprovoked insult like this on my Talk page:

It looks like you don't understand transitive verbs. Please explain. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not constructive, it's not adult, and it is profoundly uncivil as expressed.

You think you've found a grammar problem, fix it. You think you can help another user understand intransitive verbs, then by all means do so, educationally, in a civil manner. A lesson which, after your opening broadside, I am, unfortunately, not open to receiving from you at this point. But consider the advice before you preemptively insult someone else and arrogantly deface their talk page with an unprovoked derogation. The "please explain" is far too late. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)"

The grossly uncivil statements and blatantly incorrect statements in User:Wikiuser100's response (for example, we're talking about a talk page issue raised four months ago, not five yeras ago) is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL, and supports a reasonable inference the challenged statement above was almost certainly deliberate vandalism of the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It is thoroughly preposterous that you have pasted that entire post at your talk page here. You know how to link to it - you did it on my Talk page. You're just grandstanding.

I stand by every word I wrote. Your conduct there was uncivil, it is here at this page (peremptorily referring to another editor's work as a "mess", and entitling your original comments here with the aspersion "really odd"), and your Talk page is peppered with others castigating you for your lack of civility towards them.

You can lawyer all you want - on your own time, in your career, but can it here.

As for my edit, which indeed dates to February of 2015, it is in fact correct and complete as written. You asperse it as inadequate because it is not a complete sentence. Indeed it is not: it is the 2nd and final clause of a complete sentence, sufficient to itself as composed.

And sound grammar. Consider:

Whatever became of the quill pen? It disappeared with parchment and the inkwell. Its time had passed.

This is all I have to say on any of these matters. Please practice civility, here and everywhere else, and try approaching a new user with tact and respect. You won't end up with a WP:CIVILITY on your Talk page. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Low-quality mass edits that introduce errors to the article

I just reverted several edits by Emotioness Expression because they introduced—rather than solved—problems. In at least two cases, he (I'm assuming "he") changed quotes from cited sources (e.g. Slatta and J.Q. Adams) so they no longer match the text in the source. In two other cases, he changed the title of the cited publication to something it isn't (i.e. "Pathmarker" to "Path marker", and Thomas Clark's book).

Many other changes of dubious value were made, (e.g. changing "farmland" to "farm land"), changing "empresario" to "impresario" (which is blatantly incorrect where it was used), changed "chaparreras" (the likely Spanish origin of the word "chaps") to "chaparral" (a bush), screwing up the whole sentence.

I do not know what automated grammar checking tool he's using, but it's pretty clear that he either doesn't know how to use it, or is so unfamiliar with English that he can't tell the difference between a good and bad suggestion. Regardless, he needs to come here and discuss what he's doing before he causes more damage. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

And it looks like someone else has been involved, too. Back in late August, Coolcaesar reverted a set of changes by "Zackomode"—many of which are terrible, and are the exact same ones I reverted today. Guess who showed up and reverted the revert? This automated vandalism stuff needs to stop. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Dubious value" is too generous for the examples you give there; they are just flat wrong. Dubious value is changing "myth of the Old West" (in an infobox context) to "the myth of the Old West", "in Gold Rush days" to "in the Gold Rush days", and "U.S. born" to "born American". But those are relatively few in number; most of it is just flat wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll just call it what it is: vandalism. And it needs to stop. I could recognize nearly all of those edits as clearly incorrect English by the time I was eight years old. All of those accounts need to be scanned with CheckUser and permanently blocked. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Incompetence is not vandalism. The sole purpose of vandalism is to damage the encyclopedia; the definition requires malicious intent. In contrast, this user seeks to improve the encyclopedia but is terrible at doing so for the types of edits they insist on attempting. The distinction is important because we are allowed to respond more harshly to vandalism than to incompetence, often reverting without explanation.

But it definitely does need to stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Alaska and Hawaii

Historians of the frontier generally do NOT include Hawaii and Alaska. They were acquired by treaty not by American settlement. According to Alaska historian John Whitehead, "Western historians, with rare exceptions, resist including the nation's two westernmost states, Alaska and Hawai'i, in their region. One exception was Arrell Gibson. John Whitehead, "Hawaii: The First and Last Far West?" The Western Historical Quarterly (1992): 153-177 online. Rjensen (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Better photograph

Wouldn't the original version of Grabill's photograph of the cowboy from the Library of Congress be preferable to the one in the article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cowboy.jpg#/media/File:Grabill_-_The_Cow_Boy.jpg

Anne N. Cephaly (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The native American situation in the Northwest territory 1812

I think this is one of the key phrases: "The "French and Indian Wars" were imperial wars between Britain and France, with the French making up for their small colonial population base by enlisting Indian war parties as allies."

Not only the fact that there was a conflict of interest over land resources, but also that the Indians ended up on the losing side in war after war. First the French and then the British used them as allies and basically just ran away from them.

Yes, the Indians were hardly difficult to persuade and very receptive to a false message from the French and British. But hardly entirely in a blame yourself situation? But de facto ended up deep in just a blame yourself situation.

Unlike in Latin America where it was only the Spaniards and Indians where the Indians were occupied forever, but after all them all were accepted (as surviving half slaves) by the Spaniards, the situation in the Northwest Territories of the United States was completely different.

• There is such a radical difference between the United States and Latin America
• Someone needs to explain
• And I do not think ethnic cleansing was the theme, but the eternal losers, the eternal wars, with which it was impossible to find a common long-term stable future, depending on the 100 years before.

In the United States, the Indians ended up in a worse situation than the Nazis in 1945, most Germans most likely wanted to be occupied by the USA because everything else was so fucked up, no problem agreeing, no conflict of interest. In Germany 1945 there were people saying them to blame, we like to co-operate but that was not the situation in the North West US? If there were after the French, then came the British wiping any such attempts away. However in the US Northwest territory the eternal wars portrayed the Indians as the only way to get peace was to get rid of them. There is a basic rule when starting a war is the necessity to have an idea how to end it whatever it turns out. Else wars tend to be eternal or you risk being extinct. The Indians certainly did not do Sandhurst?

On top of all that, the United States also gained the right to the Northwest Territories in the peace after the wars with the British and the British eventually quitted to Canada.

• But there in the Northwest territories the Indians sat as super losers and had absolutely no peace with the United States.
• The United States, which perhaps wanted to see them go up in a blue smoke and disappear as a problem considered, were not keen either.

I think one should emphasize the situation a little more for both sides' perspective on the situation in 1812 and perhaps ask oneself how much one can use others and just stick, as first the French and then the British did?

I think someone should write a little more about it, the USA must be full of students in the subject?

--Zzalpha (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Origin of Wild West

The term is not explained. It would be useful to know when it was first coined, and whether it described territory that was to be civilized or the nature of that civilizing process. Shtove (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Distinction needed that excludes the Old West

The American Frontier and the Old West are not the same areas. They are different periodic regions. The American Frontier is historically seen as between Appalachia and east of the Mississippi River, whereas the Old West is all territory west of the Mississippi River.

The Old West should be given a separste Wikipedia article. Warlightyahoo (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

While I agree, the oh so wise editors of WP made a decision some time ago to combine the two subjects. This article was originally titled "Wild West" or "Old West". You'd have to look deep in the edit history to find this. You can also look in the talk history archives to find repeated discussions of the same subject. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Expanding Past Historical Timeline

Half of this article is the history put into a timeline fashion. What about the people, the culture, the economy? I feel like the article should be expanded more when it comes to other things. Roastedbeanz1 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits by User:Roastedbeanz1 on 11 and 12 February 2022

I am challenging those edits (which added the "People Of The American Frontier" section) as a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a textbook.

The amateurish writing is grossly inappropriate for an English Wikipedia article. The section appears to be cited to a series of old Time-Life books. I haven't read that particular series. But from what I remember of reading such books at the public library as a child, they may minimally pass Wikipedia:Verifiability but not Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I agree that there should be some treatment in this article of the various peoples of the West. But not this. Under WP policies, the burden is always on the editor adding new content to an article to write in appropriate Wikipedia style and with citations to reliable sources. User:Roastedbeanz1 has done neither. Any objections before I remove that section? --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I have read the series, and while the quality varies I'd say they're reliable sources as far as they go. Certainly more reliable than, say, obituaries and other things. The summaries do fall quite short when it comes to actually addressing the content of the books, though (or even accurately summarizing the content). If they're removed I'd base it on that, and not on the books themselves. Intothatdarkness 14:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Army on the frontier*

I made an edit saying I made a link to Army of the frontier, but what I meant was Army on the frontier, these pages really need to change names because they’re so similar that I’ve had to go through so much of a fuss to get this right. Mugtheboss (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually think the Army on the Frontier page should change titles to something used by the actual scholarship about this period. Frontier Army is a term used by Robert Utley and others, although Old Army is also used to refer to the Army prior to the Spanish-American War. Intothatdarkness 17:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The closing of the American Frontier in 1890

Why do people keep trying to revise history?

The census bureau officially declared the frontier closed in 1890, and the vast majority of historians agree that the archetypal old west frontier period can be defined between 1865 (the start of the civil war) until 1890 (the closing of the frontier by the census bureau). Past 1890 the historical period is historians refer to is the Gay Nineties

The archetypical Old West period is generally accepted by historians to have occurred between the end of the American Civil War in 1865 until the closing of the Frontier by the Census Bureau in 1890.

By 1890, settlement in the American West had reached sufficient population density that the frontier line had disappeared; in 1890 the Census Bureau released a bulletin declaring the closing of the frontier, stating: "Up to and including 1880 the country had a frontier of settlement, but at present the unsettled area has been so broken into by isolated bodies of settlement that there can hardly be said to be a frontier line. In the discussion of its extent, its westward movement, etc., it can not, therefore, any longer have a place in the census reports."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishfriend327 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)