Jump to content

Talk:Manifest destiny

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleManifest destiny was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 27, 2013, December 27, 2015, December 27, 2019, and December 27, 2021.
Current status: Delisted good article

capitalization of Manifest Destiny

[edit]

I think Manifest Destiny should be capitalized, capital M, capital D. the concept is commonly stylized this way. i might just be wrong here, though. almost everyone here on this talk page is, similarly, stylizing it such. it may make the page look cluttered, however. » Bray talk 05:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Is So Wrong

[edit]

There used to be a wikiarticle on the Westward Movement, though I haven't looked at it in years. Today I had occasion to look something up, but poof! it's gone, replaced by DAB links to "territorial expansion" and this article. THIS IS SO WRONG. The Westward Movement has been a distinct social and cultural topic in American history since before the Civil War, and many many many books and articles have been written about it. It overlaps with "manifest destiny" and "territorial expansion", true, but it is bigger and different from both of them. To delete the article and dissipate it into the other two is an editorial crime in my view - quite literally rewriting history for political correctness. And that stinks.

But I'm retired and it's not worth my "golden years" time to argue with the misguided and the self-righteous about it. I'm just posting this as a note of protest, and will leave it at that. I won't respond to any replies, so have at it, boys - do as you please. But don't act all shocked and surprised when other people do unto you. Textorus (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Westward movement” has been a redirect to this page for nearly twenty years…
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westward_movement&oldid=17829979 38.71.13.109 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biased presentation

[edit]

Every article should present objective facts and not opinions. For example, linking “”American Exceptionalism” and Christianity to this concept is not factual and is propaganda -opinion. 172.250.22.27 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We present both the facts and higher-level analysis of our reliable sources on a subject, cheers. Remsense 🌈  05:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that higher-level analysis would be done by other cited reliable sources having differing viewpoints, not by Wikipedia editors; see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source in heading

[edit]

The book "Mexicano Political Experience in Occupied Aztlan: Struggles and Change" in no way a reliable scholarly source. It's an irredentist opinion book involving the pseudoscientific concept of Aztlan, a racialist and nationalist concept using quack science to justify a racial entitlement to certain land in the southwest US. It includes a pseudoscientific idea that the Aztecs had migrated from that region, despite scholarly consensus stating the Aztecs had never lived even remotely close to the modern day United States -in fact they most likely migrated from a just few 100km northwest from the valley of Mexico. It's simply a irredentist concept to try and claim a racial entitlement to land, very similar to manifest destiny on its own. This book doesn't belong as a source in the article, especially in the heading as it's not reliable or scholarly and does not meet Wikipedia standards for reliability. ArslanKhan98 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether of not this info is useful -- I may even have misidentified the book author -- however, this piqued my curiosity enough to do some quick googling. From the results, see this and this. It looks to me as if there may be WP:DUE issues here. This article is on my watchlist but isn't a hot-list item for me, so I'll leave further discussion to editors who know more about the details than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Greater United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 9 § United States Expansionism until a consensus is reached. Skemous (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Greater United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12 § Greater America until a consensus is reached. Skemous (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]