Talk:Thirteen Colonies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead

@Alanscottwalker: Please discuss the changes that you want to make to this article, rather than engaging in a revert war. It appears that you are attempting to add legitimate content, but you are not providing any sources. You claim that these additions are covered in the body of the article, but I cannot ascertain any such substantiation. If you cannot clearly offer citations for these statistical factoids, then they cannot go into the intro. Even if you can, it still remains a question whether they are pertinent to the intro in the first place.

Therefore, please refrain from reverting my reversions; discuss it here first. —Dilidor (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you are not only removing good content specifically that improves the article and compliant WP:LEADCITE policy, but abusing Twinkle in doing so, and therefore may lose Twinkle - the growth in population is covered in the body, native americans and slavery are covered in the body. It's nonsense to not mention those topics in the Lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the topics belong in the lead, and also that leads are better without citations. Perhaps if Alanscottwalker were to point out the references he is using for the challenged text, we could resolve the dispute on that basis? Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Population is sourced in the section entitled, "Population". Native Americans ("Indians") including wars with Indians are sourced in multiple places in the body (about 24 times). And the establsihment of slavery is sourced in the body about 7 times. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker's changes are not disruptive and they should stand. Carlstak (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The wording is sourced in the article and it makes sense to me. Cheers all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The insertion created by Alanscottwalker shatters an otherwise coherent progression of idea. That paragraph and the one that follows are both addressing the gradual shift in the Colonies from being governed "under a policy of mercantilism" toward increasing tensions to the culmination of the Revolution. Shoving population data into the midst of those paragraphs is a logical rupture—that is the point that I am repeatedly attempting to put forward. It is infinitely more logical and sensible and just plain better writing to put the population data sentences at the end of the intro and permit the rest of the intro to build a thought uninterrupted. That is precisely what I attempted in my latest edit, and it too was reverted. —Dilidor (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The growth in colonial population is naturally tied to the Indian population in my edits and in logic. Slavery -- the capture, buying and selling of people, in an effort to make colonies work -- is naturally and logically mentioned where economics is discussed. More generally, the lead is not the presentation of an argument that one builds too (we are not writing a persuasive essay), the lead is summary exposition of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Good writing is important in all areas of the article, and following a thread of thought is part of good writing. The growth in population has nothing whatsoever to do with the shifts in political outlook that were taking place over the course of colonial history. The growth of population and Indian population are also part of the history—but a separate element thereof. That is why we use sub-sections within the body which address different elements of the history.

Try to grasp the big picture here: I am not suggesting that we remove your sentences on population; I just want to move them into their own paragraph! This is a very minor edit which I am proposing, but you are insisting that you hold control over every little detail of this intro as though those sentences are your own private property. I am indulging your insistence in discussing this on the talk page, but your edit warring is going to lead to administrative action if you do not desist. —Dilidor (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No. You are not promoting good writing, you are promoting ideology and poor organization. Your claim is nonsense that politics in the colonies is unaffected by its population. As for your silly threats, you may soon be banned from this article for making them because consensus does not support your edits and never has. And don't make false statements, your edits have been rejected by others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dilidor, you seem quite unacquainted with the idea of consensus; though it is hardly overwhelming, at the moment, there are three people in favor of Alanscottwalker's version and only you (thus far) in favor of yours. Talk page discussions are not indulgences--they are sort of at the heart of the entire Wikipedia project. Until consensus appears to me to change, I will revert your changes up to (but not beyond) the edit war line. The general idea is to persuade, and thus far your argument "my way is better" does not appear to be winning the day. Alanscottwalker, while I don't think you've done anything untoward, I would respectfully suggest that threats and heated rhetoric don't really help the situation. Cheers all! Dumuzid (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Very well, I take back whatever threats I may have made but I viewed them rather as warnings because of the threats and false claims by Dilidor. Dilidor was most recently reverted for editing without consensus by another editor not by me, so their claims against me are plain false - at least now, they do appear to concede these things belong in the lead, which means their earlier editing was also without consensus, but they now make more accusations without basis. On the substance, its just the facts of colonial development: the colonies benefited the mother country if they were viable, and they were viable by claiming the native's land, growing their population, which developed their political governance, and in varying degrees importing slaves to work the land Britain and its colonies claimed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dilidor, your removal again against consensus has no basis whatsoever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker -- could you point us to the consensus you mean? I think that would be helpful. And Dilidor, is it the case that you don't believe a mention of slavery belongs in the lead? Or might you be okay with it given some other context? Personally, I'd like to understand the debate here. Cheers all! Dumuzid (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean this discussion. What's your question? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So I misunderstood and thought there was, perhaps, something more focused on the question of slavery that seems at issue here. The above discussion was much more broad, as I recall it! For the record, I certainly think slavery certainly belongs in the lead, though, as ever, think the present wording could perhaps be improved. I'd still like to know exactly what it is Dilidor objects to. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There were three things approved for the lead above: 1) population growth; 2) Indian removal ; 3) slavery -- all very relevant and interconnected - and at the conclusion of this discussion in April last year all were in the lead - Dilidor then in late November unaccountably removed slavery (I noticed that odd edit yesterday and restored it, per talk). I also got rid of the 'word to watch' "nevertheless", as it implies Wikipedia editors are editorializing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: My contention throughout this discussion has remained consistent: the insertions being forced by Alanscottwalker are bad writing. I am not averse to mentioning slavery or population figures or anything else in the intro; I am only asking that they be mentioned in a separate paragraph! Seriously, is that so much to require? But Alanscottwalker's answer to this is also consistent: "No". So once again I will manually make this edit, and await Alanscottwalker's reversion thereof. —Dilidor (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Improving the writing is, to my mind, always possible and always a laudable goal. I don't think the one-sentence paragraph approach was the best we could do, so I have had a go at working it in to the flow of the lead. Feel free to criticize/revert what have you! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor: It is you who are again edit warring against consensus. You have instead demonstrated poor encyclopedia writing. That you do not seem to even understand the economics of slavery is further evidence that you are a poor encyclopedia writer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I will overlook your offensive and abusive accusations above and will address only your persistent claims regarding consensus. As others have already pointed out several times, there is no consensus on this question. This needs to be resolved by majority opinion—that, after all, is what consensus means—before you force your edits. —Dilidor (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor, You have been told by others that you do not understand consensus in this very discussion. Multiple times here and below other editors have supported what I am doing, not what you are doing. You also do not seem to understand editing - if you were really concerned with writing, you would have copy-edited, instead of reverted and removed from the beginning. That you are doing poor writing (like your recent 1 sentence paragraph), because you apparently don't understand that topic is just observation, and that you even make that claim about abuse demonstrates hypocrisy on your part. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, adding this diff to remind you what another editor told you in editing this article on these topics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Your edit was an excellent improvement. I have tweaked a few of the facts and have moved the final sentence into the following paragraph. However, I think overall this was a good solution. —Dilidor (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment... I don’t think the issue is whether to mention these aspects of colonial history in the lead (everyone seems to agree that we should), but rather how to do so. The question is how best to word the information, not what information to present. Be flexible. Blueboar (talk)

If that were the case, it would have been edited in, not removed entirely. Also, Dilidor's edit summaries had and have actually suggested that these things do not belong (making the unlearned 'irrelevant' objection, among others), until, Dilidore has gotten no support for what they were doing, at least twice, now. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Desist from your offensive, rude, and insulting comments. Post in here with respect, or refrain from posting in here. This is the last time I will warn you. —Dilidor (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone to take a deep breath. I think we've at least hit on something to solve this very small, discrete issue. Let's celebrate for ten minutes or so. Happy Friday to all of us! Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor, No, I have not done what you claim. You have been wrong, and you are wrong, again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Relentless Revert Warrior

Alanscottwalker is persisting in his endless revert war, despite the many attempts by myself and other editors to compromise, work together, and find middle ground that works. But this time, he is insisting upon putting false information into the lead concerning slavery in the Colonies, simultaneously offering no supporting sources, and this has got to stop. —Dilidor (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor, You are again misrepresenting, I did not revert you last, another editor did, because you were again wrong, there is a source. And you are the one who needs to stop your misrepresentations. You are revert warring. Or do you not actually know how to tell who is reverting you and where to find sources? It's the number at the end of the sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor, if the gravamen of the dispute here is "all" as opposed to "many" (or the like), if you can show me a source that supports your view, I can definitely be swayed. I'd be interested to see such on a personal level as well. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is Oxford University Press also saying slavery legal in all Thirteen Colonies.[1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I think that's a very good (and very explicit) citation. Perhaps we drop the "before the American Revolution" modifier and replace it with "In 1775" to more closely follow that source? Dumuzid (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well the Revolutionary War began in '75, so either way on that score, as far as I'm concerned but on a tangential issue - last time we discussed (last April), cites-in-the-lead, we basically agreed no cites per leadcite, and it's a bit odd this is the only thing cited in the lead but if Dilidor is going to continue with their disruptive misrepresentations, perhaps we need cites, after all. Alanscottwalker (talk)

Two minor things: (1) I am a big believer in "no cites in the lead," and would absolutely like to see that work done in the body of the article, but where there is disagreement, I do think exceptions make sense. (2) I agree with you re: timing ("before the Revolution" vs. "in 1775"), but the 1775 language is both more precise and a direct quotation from a reliable source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Linking

@Dilidor: I see you have removed the "slavery" link in the recently updated section. While I generally think your take on overlinking is correct, I'd ask you to reconsider on this one. The wording "a system of slavery" (which I think was mine, originally!) is fairly vague, which I think works for this placement--but I think it entirely natural to have a link so that what would appear to me to be natural questions (What was the nature of that system? Was it uniform? How did it develop over time?) are quickly answered. Nothing about which I am going to overturn furniture, but as I say, maybe have a second look. If you reach the same conclusion, so be it! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I yield to your reasoning and have reinstated the link. —Dilidor (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Help request

I'm working on a page which explains the western land claims surrended by the original Thirteen Colonies in the early years of the American republic. As I've researched, it's become clear to me that there would be no better way to do this than to have a map. Is there anyone out there who knows how to do this, has software which is helpful, digs cartography or knows where I can find a public domain version of this material? I've found several examples on the web. My vomit draft of the page--did I mention it was a vomit draft?--is at User:Jengod/State_cessions. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

• State claims 1
• State claims 2
• State claims 3
• State claims 4
• State claims 5
• State claims 6

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 05:52, 30 September 2004 (UTC)

Displacing American Indians.

OK, I would like to discuss the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead (which currently reads: Between 1625 and 1775, the colonial population grew from roughly 2,000 to over 2.5 million, displacing American Indians).

Before we get into discussing language, I think it would be helpful to make sure we are on on the same page as to exactly what information we are trying to convey... Are we trying to convey the amount of displacement (the number of American Indians displaced) or the frequency of displacement (how often displacement occurred)? This was not clear from the back and forth of editing, and I think we need to settle that question before we can determine how to phrase things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think initially it was just summary lead-intro for the discussions in the article about the interactions of the indigenous and those who came (there are almost thirty mentions of Indian/native/indigenous, throughout the article), - eg, that humans lived in and around there and others came along to establish themselves there - and that's historically relevant and impacted history. In short, it was not really trying to quantify amount or frequency, rather 'this is something you will be reading about here.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesnt actually make much sense, it implies that all the Indians were displaced by 2.5 million people, I cant believe that they were no American Indians in the thirteen colonies. Also to gain balance it should really say how many were displaced. "As the colonial population rose to 2.5 million then 5,000 natives were displaced somewhere else." MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a most ridiculous reading. It implies nothing of the kind. All it says is that population grew and Indians were displaced, which is just fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker put it better than I could have. Dumuzid (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it makes perfect sense. People move in, displacing others. Nor are we here in the lead to introduce numbers (from some unknown source?) that are not in the article. Nor would anyone actually have to move out of any colony to be displaced: if one's village were in that place, or their hunting, fishing, or crop grounds were in that place, and now there is a colonial town there in that place, that's displacement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily... if a native village grows to include European settlers as inhabitants ... as well as the original inhabitants - then there is no displacement. I would agree that this intermixing of native and European populations did not happen often, but there were a few occasions where it did. We do have to be cautious about making sweeping statements, even in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, can you point me to a documented case like you describe? I would be genuinely fascinated to learn more. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Necessarily. It is still displacement, when your, place in life, your way of life, your social ties, and social organization are displaced. I could get the argument of caution, if we wrote 'genocide' in the lead, but 'displacement' is about as anodyne and generally introductory and applicable as it gets. Living here was never the same for the indigenous, they were displaced.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok... I understand what you are saying about cultural displacement. The problem is that the rest of the sentence is about population, not culture. Perhaps we are trying to make one sentence convey too many ideas, and need to break the bit about American Indian displacement off into its own sentence (or two). Blueboar (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest? It was the population that created the new reality, the new place, the heretofore unknown-in-these-parts colonial polities. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The original modifier of "sometimes" really was the best wording. Yes, it's vague; so are all the other proposed modifiers. The fact is that there are no hard numbers on who got displaced and where they went and how it occurred. The concept of "cultural displacement" is also amazingly vague. Another fact to bear in mind is that some settlements were established in areas where nobody lived at all; that was the case with New London and Providence, to name just a couple. Others were established where other colonists lived, such as in Hartford. So saying that displacement occurred sometimes is really the best solution—which is where we started. —Dilidor (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor, while what you say is undoubtedly true, that not every colonist or settlement displaced a native settlement, the effect given by "sometimes" strikes me as also misleading. This, I think, tends to give the impression that as the colonies marched westward (for lack of a better metaphor), there were broad swaths of native land that coexisted with broad swaths of colonist land, which never happened in any sort of stable way. As for all the options, I tend to think the unqualified version is best, and people can investigate more if they wish. But I am often wrong! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous were living all over Connecticut during colonial times and the colonial's knew it [2], if that was not where their current home was, it was were they hunted, walked, ran and yes lived. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem that we're having is that the word displaced is both loaded and imprecise. It is loaded in the sense that it implies some sort of hostile take-over, as though the colonists swept in and pushed out the Indians. It is imprecise in that it suggests that there was no transaction involved between the Indians and the colonists. The settlement of New England was far more amicable and cooperative than the later western expansion. New London, for example, was established in an area where the Mohegans hunted, that much is true, but it was settled after John Winthrop and others bought the land from them. Roger Williams was actually invited by the Narragansetts to establish Providence Plantation, and he did so after he paid for the land. So this entire discussion is somewhat vague and misleading. —Dilidor (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Come on now, as Pequots War article states "Beginning in the early 1630s, a series of contributing factors increased the tensions between English colonists and the tribes of Southeastern New England. Efforts to control fur trade access resulted in a series of escalating incidents and attacks that increased tensions on both sides. Political divisions widened between the Pequots and Mohegans as they aligned with different trade sources, the Mohegans with the English and the Pequots with the Dutch. (The peace did not last between the Dutch and Pequots.) The Pequots assaulted a tribe of Indians who had tried to trade in the area of Hartford. Tensions grew as the Massachusetts Bay Colony became a stronghold for wampum production, which the Narragansetts and Pequots had controlled up until the mid 1630s.[9]" One is free to look upon displacement as good or bad, voluntary or involuntary, it's still displacement. The whole way of life was displaced, viz., colonists attempted to introduce real-property concepts to the indigenous, displacing what existed heretofore.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor, you're certainly correct that you can take snapshots in time where "displacement" would be incorrect. But I'd invite you to look again at the sentence: it explicitly contextualizes this as "from 1625 to 1775." If you could, as it were, run the time lapse film of that era, I think "displacement" is a fair and precise term to use, even if it is not applicable to every atomized interaction. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid: That time period is effectively the entire colonial period, omitting only the early years of Plymouth Colony. My point still stands: many of the colonies did not displace anybody, including Plymouth itself. Yes, the colonial population grew and did expand, and that did lead to instances of conflict; but not always.

Alanscottwalker: You are describing inter-tribal conflicts which had nothing to do with the colonists. We are discussing whether or not the colonists pushed the tribes off the land in some fashion; that, after all, is what is implied by "displaced". —Dilidor (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No. It had everything to do with the colonials. The English and the Dutch contending for trade for their colonies, inter alia, displacing prior trading patterns of the indigenous. Arming indigenous and participating in war. If the colonials were not there all of indigenous life would have been different, it would not have been displaced, at least by colonials, but the colonials came and they were displaced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow... Are you at all familiar with the New England tribes? Because you seem to be overlooking the vicious strife and warfare amongst them—which predated the Mayflower. The Pequots actually did displace others by driving them out and taking over their territories. This is why other tribes got involved in the Pequot War and other Indian wars in the first place! You are grossly over-simplifying and glossing over inconvenient facts. —Dilidor (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor--well, you have certainly convinced me. All the displacement was done by the natives. Colonists never drove anyone or out or took over territory. In fact, if you look at a map, everywhere that was under native control in 1625 still is. So I'm not even sure why we're here. Q.E.D. Have a nice day, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor is again not making cogent claims. Anyone familiar with the history of the place before it was New England as well as after it was New England, would know that: no, the tribes would and could not have not gotten into European trading wars, using European weapons, and with Europeans fighting, without Europeans coming there. Anyone who knows the history would know that. And what besides racism could explain an argument, Pequots displaced but somehow Europeans did not? I've never made any claims about how anything was, good, bad or indifferent, before or after the colonization: but the history is the colonization occurred and the indigenous whole way of life was displaced (including the way of war, material culture, trade, the environment and on and on, and on . . . . and on. And, who named this land New England, hmm -- it's not a native name for the place -- even place names, displaced). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Population Narrative not supported by citations

The Narrative under the Population section is not supported by the narrative, not Edwin Perkins (citation 74) or the subsequent citations (#75) Scott and JSTOR.Oldperson (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thirteen colonies?

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.

---

There never were 13 colonies. There were 21 colonies, a battle in Mass, an army sent from Virginia to Mass, people from various colonies drafting a declaration, which was signed by 13 of the colonies, which made them states, and rejected by other colonies, which kept them as colonies. But there never were 13 colonies. Discuss. Do not revert until you discuss. MorganDWright (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but "thirteen colonies" is a recognized term both in academic history and in common parlance. It does not forestall the existence of other colonies, but refers to a known quantity--as you say, the colonies which declared independence and became the nascent United States. As a recognized term, this article and its usage strikes me as appropriate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Right, it's a term in academic history and parlance, but not in fact, exactly as I said. The article is wrong unless this is corrected. There were 21 colonies, then there were 8 colonies and 13 states. But there were never 13 colonies.MorganDWright (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would agree if the phrase in question were "thirteen exclusive colonies" or "the unique thirteen colonies" or "the only thirteen colonies anybody ever had anywhere ever ever ever." As it is, it's just a convenient elliptical way to refer to the thirteen colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America which declared independence in 1776. It's commonly understood that way, and as such, is perfectly acceptable for an article--nowhere does the article say that there weren't other colonies. I'll cease my replies there, since I think it's clear we'll have to agree to disagree. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic to have an article about something that never existed. Are you talking about a phrase? You mention it as a "phrase" and invent all these other phrases, attempting to ridicule me. So if the 13 colonies were nothing but a phrase, it should say so in the lede. If the article pretends to be encyclopedic, it should be called the 13 original states of the United States of America. There never in history was a group of colonies called the thirteen colonies, there never was a club of 13.......when the Declaration of Independence was being shopped around for signatures they went to New Brunswick, they went to Ontario, there was never a club of 13. There was a Declaration of Independence, naming a country the United States of America, signed by 13 colonies and unsigned by 8. MorganDWright (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I don't intend to make any further substantive replies, but I did want to say I was honestly not trying to ridicule you. I was going for a bit of humor, and my apologies that I am bad at that. Have a nice evening. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki follows the reliable sources and they all talk about the 13 colonies. It's not mysterious to anyone with a middle school class in US history. Encyclopedias? just look: it's used in 1) The Encyclopedia of Money (2009) - (2) The New Children's Encyclopedia (2009) Page 119; (3) The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture (2014) Volume 11 Page 80; (4) The Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History (2009) Page 215; (5) Enslaved Women in America: An Encyclopedia (2012) p 174; (6) Political Encyclopedia of U.S. States and Regions(2008) p 33 (7) Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections (2008) p 815; (8) The encyclopedia Americana (1997) Volume 27 - Page 710; (9) Times Encyclopedia and Gazetteer (London 1933 ); (10) Collier's New Encyclopedia (1928); (11) Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (1983) v 1 p 77 (12) Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (1966) - Page 1182. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The thirteen colonies is a very common and encyclopedic subject. It does not matter whether your personal view is it is a "club" or not. Your argument will not get anywhere with the idea that "there never were 13 colonies." Your edit is undone and cannot go forward without a new consensus here supporting it, which you do not have, see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. The lead of this article already acknowledges that the thirteen and others existed. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That's all great, but it's completely wrong. Before 1776, England made maps of their colonies. There was no distinction made on those maps between these colonies and those colonies. New Brunswick was the colony north of New England, Florida was 2 colonies south of Georgia. There were no 13 colonies. Even after the Boston Massacre, English colonies were English colonies. Which colonies were the Stamp Act addressed to? All of them. Was there taxation without representation in Prince Edward Island? Of course. At no time was there ever drawn up a list of colonies enumerating 13 until July 4, 1776, the date they were no longer colonies. And it's too early to declare consensus when so few people have given their opinions. As for listing other Encyclopedias, get hold of a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica's 2nd edition dated 1776 for Volume 1, and look up America in that volume. It lists all the colonies, making no mention of the 13 that would declare independence in future volumes. (The last volume, printed in 1783, lists Virginia and (New) York and calls them states. MorganDWright (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least your latest post finally attempted to support something with a citation. But it does not support your argument, at all. As anyone with access to the internet and Britannica can read. If you want more encyclopedias feel free to look at a number of others [3], but they will just tell you your claims are completely wrong. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"The thirteen colonies" is short for "the thirteen colonies that joined together to declare their independence from Great Britain", and so commonly used in academic literature that its usage is beyond dispute. Trying to prove otherwise is tendentious hairsplitting. Carlstak (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm chiming in here in response to the OP's statement that "it's too early to declare consensus when so few people have given their opinions" just so that another person can endorse the fairly self-evident fact that "thirteen colonies" is a legitimate and time-honored phrase. The article uses it correctly. —Dilidor (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster, that the lede should be written in such a way to make it clear that "the 13 colonies" is a sort of reverse history, where something that was not known at the time became known in retrospect. The 13 colonies should be described as such in the lede. I'm not an expert on the subject, though. 67.84.132.211 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And, "thirteen colonies" is common usage and it is clearly understood what that means. If someone wants to change its meaning or usage then please write some widely cited academic papers or a book that is widely reviewed. Then Wikipedia can cover it. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• North America 1748.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

“Thirteen British colonies population” section (minor data error)

Hi everyone: I had planned to correct an error I’ve found, but it seems that I’m on a block list (although my IP address doesn’t even match the one in the block alert and I can’t imagine why I’d have been blocked anyway, seeing as all I do is read entries, but oh well) so instead I thought I’d report it in case anyone not blocked feels it’s worth correcting. If I leave it to pursue being unblocked then I’ll probably end up forgetting all about the error.

Worth mentioning en passant, I think, that the error would undoubtedly have been spotted earlier, were the dataset containing it presented in tabular form. As an in-paragraph textual list, the Census data error hides away quietly within the infodump string.

So perhaps that should also be addressed, but, if so, there’s then the question of whether or not to combine the Census data with the historians’ estimates, which currently appear separately in a side-table. Furthermore, the subsequent section which gives details on ‘Slavery’ could be merged with this section, to provide a more-granular level of statistical population data which supports the text for both topics and thus improves the quality of information discernible by the reader.

Anyway....

It’s nothing more exciting than a transcription omission: a missing “1,” at the start of the 1750 value for total headcount by census. At the source provided, it is “1,170,760” but it has lost its leading million on this page. I verified this by consulting page 1168 and, in the process, noticed the data table underneath it, presenting concurrent race population figures solely for non-whites, hence why it struck me that merging the two sections may be of benefit.

On a slightly-different subject: it seemed to me mysterious that the WP data list gave values for 1620 & 1610 until I spotted that these years, and matching values as totals, appeared as a separate data block to the bottom-right of the source table, listing Plymouth and Virginia Colony headcounts. But I couldn’t work out if they were valid for inclusion in the “Thirteen Colonies” population dataset, by which I mean, can the “Thirteen Colonies” monicker be applied prior to 1630?

Jinnyboy (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Will fix the missing million. I will leave your other recommendation and question to others. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References

North and South Carolina

The below is copied from the article:

Province of North Carolina, previously part of the Carolina province until 1712; chartered as a royal colony in 1729.

Province of South Carolina, previously part of the Carolina province until 1712; chartered as a royal colony in 1729.

I think that it should read something like this:

For both North and South Carolina: until 1712 was part of Carolina province which was chartered as a royal colony in 1629 (not 1729)

1729 in the article seems to be a typo. Could someone with more experience than I check this and consider a correction?

Thanks. Carvet (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Carvet, Up until 1729, those were proprietary colonies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Thirteencolonies politics cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The request to delete appears to have been withdrawn. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)