Talk:Postwar United States

Scope/end-point

Does this page only deal with the cold war era in the US or does it include the 25 years since 1990 as well? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That is an open question. 1945 is a natural turning point, with the end of the war; it is also the beginning of the "nostalgia" years, when today's oldest people were young. There is no natural ending year, though. Are there many interesting sites of the 1980s? Or the 1990s? /Yvwv (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well there sure is an important site of the 2000s in New York City... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There might be some ghost towns which were abandoned in the 1980s and 1990s; Centralia (Pennsylvania) (1984-92) or w:Times Beach, Missouri (1983) for instance. Picher, a lead-mining town on the OK/KS border, was abandoned circa 2008. For that matter, Route 66's existence extends from 1926 into 1985, although most of the nostalgia markets the 1950s and 1960s on that road. K7L (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Still no Aim

1945-1970s is still so arbitrary. Was this article created simply to have an article for every period of American history? I really don't think that's necessary. The LGBT movement is mentioned quite a lot but that's an ongoing battle that is hardly confined to or even predominantly associated with the timeline in question. The Understand section is well-written, but how does it suit the traveler? If the Civil Rights Movement doesn't have an article, it would make a nice article with a clear aim, but is someone really going to plan a trip to visit things that were built in or were famous specifically between 1945 and 1979? The above discussion suggests that the years were chosen simply because "nothing interesting has happened in the United States since 1979". I'm not sure if Last interesting events in US history is really a good basis for an article... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As an experiment, we can prolong the period to present day. If the article gets too large, we can try to split it. /Yvwv (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Status

Should this still be rated outline? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Who knows? It's mostly a random hodge-podge of Civil Rights and "gay people live here" locations. It's an article written without any traveler in mind; it has no purpose except to have an article covering all of American history... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is rather hodge-podge. I don't believe any traveler is asking for a combined 'space discovery, musical and civil rights movement' tour. All these things may however make decent itineraries if separated out. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Post-war United States#Locations section needs to be split by topic into subsections (cold war, space race, civil rights, US66 and motorcar nostalgia, whatever) to avoid long lists. Items in the individual subsections (which could remain as part of this article) should be in some geographic sequence (such as east to west) so that the sites on one historic topic may be visited in sequence.

You posted to the pub "When I asked about its status rating, people argued that and proposed it be broken up into several different articles. What say yes? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)". I disagree. This article is one of a series created to split excess detail out of United States of America#History. If some sub-topic (such as Route 66, or a cartoonish caricature of a random piece of it, or even part of one town formerly on the road) merits an itinerary, we create it. This article (or nostalgia tourism, were it created) is merely an overview. It's basically valid in structure, but the destinations should be organised by topic and location so that the voyager may sequentially visit the points of interest.

The bar for "usable" status for a bottom-level article is very low. Organise this article properly and it should qualify, without breaking it apart. K7L (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The historical travel category is experimental, and there is (yet) no manual of style for these articles. While articles such as Ancient Egypt can pin down a limited number of destinations, the scope of post-war United States is obviously more difficult to define. In the 72 years covered by this article, more buildings were erected than in the total lifespan of most ancient empires. /Yvwv (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's also harder to judge the importance of "current events". We all have a pretty set image of President Buchanan or President Roosevelt and it's perhaps even easier to pass judgment on King Tut or Ramses. But the very mention of Trump's name will cause a debate and no consensus on anything regarding him. So while there might be a narrative of our decade and the ones preceding it, it is not yet fully formed as it is all too close. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The first version of this article's timeline ended with Nixon's resignation. That would collect the post-war boom, the Civil Rights movement, the Space Race, the counterculture years and the Vietnam War within the same epoch. /Yvwv (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think shortening the timescale necessarily helps address the issues raised above... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Name

In the U.S., I always see "postwar", one word. Does anyone object to my renaming this article "Postwar United States"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

well given above discussion some seem to think this whole article is pointless. I for one have no objection to the proposed change in spelling. Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's without prejudice to whether the article is useful or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the name: yes, "postwar" would be the preferred way to render it. As for the discussion on the scope of the article that I guess I'm late to: the post-1945 history of the U.S. is as worthy of traveller interest as any other time period, but I see this article as a Frankenstein's Monster of several different travel topics rather awkwardly grafted together - the Civil Rights Movement, the Space Race, '60s counterculture, probably others - which perhaps should be split off by topic rather than lumping them together just because they happened to occur more or less contemporaneously with each other. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I will rename the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

When did Democrats and Republicans "switch"?

Well the last Dixiecrats who had not joined the GOP only got voted out way after the 1960s... However, the Republican party shed a large part of its progressive wing after the disaster that was the 1912 election, so the thing was complex and not at all evident or inevitable to contemporaries but it only became crystal clear after the 1960s. However trying to do this justice would probably require several paragraphs and there are even some on the political right who say no such thing ever happened... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly where are you planning to mention this and for what purpose? Is it really going to be relevant to the traveler? I want to refrain from judgment and assume good faith, but I'm highly skeptical of another political insertion proposal... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[Edit] Okay, I guess it comes from the recent insertion and then reversion of that content. Let's just leave it as is (deleted/reverted). The information had no value. Just more unnecessary political insertion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

9/11 tourism?

Swept in from the pub

Isn't this new article in very poor taste? 9/11 tourism

Museums and memorials do exist in the location articles of the attacks already. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm of two minds. I hear what you're saying, but is it really in poorer taste than, for example, the article on Nazi German architecture that's being advocated for on the Tourist Office? Or, in the realm of already existing articles, the one on the Atlantic slave trade? I suppose the ultimate answer would be that it depends on how the topic is handled, and the article isn't yet well-developed enough to make that determination. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's good to have articles on travelling to sites where you can learn about large-scale tragedies and pay respects to their victims. I think our best-developed article of this kind is Holocaust remembrance. But calling it "9/11 tourism" does seem quite strange and in poor taste to me. Would we have an article called "Holocaust tourism"? Maybe 9/11 remembrance would be better. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, 9/11 remembrance does sound better. Sorry if I offended anyone. Vulcandor (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I was actually commenting on the article title with the word 'tourism' (for which there was no content at the time). It was more concerned with the depiction of tourists heading to sites of recent atrocities for selfies. Visiting memorials is however a reasonable activity to have on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not enthusiastic about this. Agree with the above comments on the validity of remembrance articles but this one is just a list of destinations. Having stood at the base of twin towers site and seen so many insensitive people smiling, joking and taking selfies amongst a few people clearly moved and remembering a tragic and emotional event I tend to look at this as being in bad taste at this point. It is too fresh in peoples minds, not a historical article. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I support changing it to 9/11 remembrance. Next year, people born after 9/11 will turn 18, so I don't agree that it is too soon. I've seen people talking happy-smiley selfies at Auschwitz, but that isn't a good reason for omitting it from our travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the title, since even the article's creator seems to support that. But I admit I'm not sure there's enough to write about this topic for a separate article to make sense. Unlike the Holocaust or the Atlantic slave trade, there aren't that many places to visit related to this topic. Maybe it would be better as a subsection of Postwar United States. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a global guide, and there was another tremendous act of terrorism on a Sept. 11, in 1973. I actually think deleting this topic would be best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion suggestion. There's topics on the WWI and WWII which have affected far more people across many more countries and those articles are there. Getting back on topic, I was wondering if I could add Gander, Newfoundland which hosted many stranded flyers when US closed its airspace (and the subject of the Broadway musical). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be best to delete. Expanded, the most the article could hope for is an unsourced summary of the Wikipedia article and a handful of fairly obvious listings. ARR8 (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

OhanaUnited, if you disagree with deletion, I think you need to support including remembrance of the Sept. 11, 1973 Chilean coup d'etat. Again, this site is a worldwide guide; it isn't a U.S. guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: as you are our resident New Yorker, I'd like know why you think this article should be deleted. I think you must have better reasons than the lack of an article about the Chilean coup. If there are sites related to that event that could be assembled into an article, I'd be in favour of it. Ground Zero (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're right, though I would point out that many people initially thought the attacks in 2001 could be revenge by Chileans, considering that the CIA had its hands all over the 1973 coup, so I would maintain my point about the significance of the date in Chile as well as the U.S. But I'll admit that I resent people going to the ugly hole in the ground where the World Trade Center used to be for tourism. I've seen it once, and in no way did its being a fountain save it for me. The only thing that saved it somewhat for me and my girlfriend is that it's an absolute delight for pigeons, who love to ride the ripples on its top, but I went only because we were somehow in the area (I forgot why). The pigeons were a living presence in what otherwise felt like a huge dead zone where there used to be a building whose interior I still have a mental picture of. I normally go to that area only to shop at Century 21. I also feel strongly that even people who try to learn a lesson from visiting sites damaged or destroyed in those terrorist atrocities are learning the wrong lessons, because focusing only on those acts of terrorism ignores what the G.W. Bush Administration did to exploit them, including the tremendously larger number of civilian deaths due to his act of aggression against Iraq, which I considered a huge act of terrorism, and the stupidity of the attempt at a long-term occupation of Afghanistan, in league with corrupt drug lords and election-thieves. And I have also never forgiven G.W. Bush for refusing to pay any attention to any of the warnings before the atrocities in the first place, and then demoting or firing the warners and promoting and decorating the ignorers. I'm sorry to bring in politics, but these attacks were deeply traumatizing for New Yorkers, and many of us don't appreciate anything about the way many visitors choose to "remember" them and would rather they do something else for tourism. Maybe you're sorry you asked now, and you'd get x different views from x different New Yorkers, but for better or worse, I've said my piece. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ARR8 raises a good point about the article possibly being too narrow in scope. 9/11 was no doubt important, but only a single event in the global War on Terror. It's like having an article on the Battle of Gettysburg or the attack on Pearl Harbor. A broader terror attacks remembrance page would be better in theory but 1. unlike WWII and the Cold War, the War on Terror is ongoing and most relevant destinations are unsafe for travel and 2. nearly every big city in the world has been struck by terrorist attacks in the last two decades. It just might be too early to have a travel topic on it. Gizza ^(roam) 08:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the title "War on Terror" would give rise to political arguments, because ever since 9/11/01, the U.S. government has claimed that every hostile act they've taken, including the aggression against Iraq, was part of the "Global War on Terrorism". I oppose such an article. And if we instead called it "terrorism remembrance", would it include remembering nationalist or religious terrorists as heroes, which many monuments and countries do? Nope, no way is that a good topic, and it's also more than a little ghoulish to have lists of sites of atrocities for people to visit just because they're sites of atrocities. We do that for the Holocaust, but that's because the death camps were specifically established as factories of death. The World Trade Center, the Bataclan club, the school in Beslan, hotels and pizza parlors in Jerusalem and Netanya - these are or were ordinary places where people went to work, party, study, eat or sleep. Do we really want to encourage people to gawk at everyplace just because it's been attacked? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

VFD discussion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Are we still in the post-war era?

Is it time to split this article in two or create a new article for more modern history? Is it now worth doing just that, or does it make more sense to keep this article together for now? 1945-2019 is a long time considering how much has happened between those two dates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 06:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

From the beginning, the article's scope was up to 1974 (when Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon), with the intention to include the civil rights movement, the counterculture and the space race. Still, the article is experimental, with no set concept for an end result. /Yvwv (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's an OK travel topic (though it could be better, I guess), but what about history after 1974? Where should that be included? Should we wait until we're agreed on this travel topic before creating one for more recent history? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1945-2019 is not all that much longer than 1865-1940... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that all marked as one era, on here? I guess it is for the U.S. It's probably okay for now, but splitting that into two wouldn't be a terrible idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

yes Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Understand section

Am I the only one who thinks it should be trimmed? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The "Undersand" section is nearly the entire article. There aren't enough listings to warrant such extensive history. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)