Talk:Manifest destiny

message: This is a WP:BRD discussion. WP:GTL says that the See also section of an article contains wikilinks to other articles relevant to the article topic and that the question of relevance is a matter of editorial judgement. Here, two editors have differing judgements about this case.
A wikilink to March to the West (Brazil) was added here to the See also section. I AGF-reverted the addition here questioning its relevance. My reversion was undone here with an assertion that the relevance is instantly obvious.
According to MOS:FIRST, the initial sentence of an article identifies the article subject in plain English. The initial sentence of this article reads, "Manifest destiny was a cultural belief in the 19th-century United States that American settlers were destined to expand across North America". The wikilink at issue is to an article about Brazil. Its initial sentence reads, "The March to the West (Portuguese: Marcha para o Oeste) was a public policy engendered by the government of Getúlio Vargas during the Estado Novo (1937-1945) in order to develop and integrate the Center-West and North regions of Brazil, which until that moment had a low population density, quite different from what occurred in the Brazilian coastal region." The relevance of the linked article to the subject of this article is not instantly obvious to me. I propose that this link be removed from the See also section. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen neither objection not discussion, I'm removing this wikilink. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wtmitchell It appears to me that the article is relevant to Manifest Destiny, as it was the movement of Brazilian settlers to the Western portions of Brazil and the forced displacement of indigenous communities already living in those regions. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRD discussion: Proposal for removal of a ''See also'' wikilink 

message: WP:GTL says that links in the See also section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number, that inclusion is a  matter of editorial judgment, and (quoting) "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous."
I opened this discussion after seeing the addition of a See also link to the Lebensraum article. The relevance of that article to this one is not at all clear to me after a look at it. Some other currently linked articles where relevance to this article is not obvious to me are
*Discovery doctrine
*Liberal internationalism
*New Frontier
*New Frontier
*Wilsonianism
*Young America movement
It seems to me that some or all of these could be candidates for removal and those not removed need clarification re relevance. Discussion? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen no othr discussion about this, I have gone ahead and remove all the items I mentioned except Young America movement. I'll be traveling for the next few days, and won't be able to participate further re this;. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Wtmitchell, I just saw this message! I had added Lebensraum in the See also section after the above discussion regarding whether March to the West should be included in that section. As the concept of Lebensraum was inspired by Manifest Destiny, I thought it was appropriate to include it in the See also section. I'd agree with removing all of the articles that you've linked expect for the Young America movement. It looks like the political movement vouched for expansion of the United States, so it could be an interesting related article BaduFerreira (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement, but I've removed it again per MOS:NOTSEEALSO as I see that it is wikilinked and clarified in the Legacy and consequences section of the article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it-- scholars in fact call it Manifest Destiny in Brazil: see Sternberg, Hilgard O’Reilly. “‘Manifest Destiny’ and the Brazilian Amazon: A Backdrop to Contemporary Security and Development Issues.” Yearbook. Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers, vol. 13, 1987, pp. 25–35. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25765677.  Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''See also'' section 

message: I disagree with these two edits  ,  and believe we should retain the image of the Battle Molino del Rey.  The editor's edit summary says: "drop highly misleading illustration--this battle and its locality did not involve expansion (expansion = Texas, Arizona-New Mex. & California, which could use an illustration".
I don't see it as misleading.  The Mexican–American War was all about expansion and forcing Mexico to sell land they did not want to sell.  By attacking Mexico City, the U.S. was able to win the war and force the sale.  If it were not for Manifest Destiny, all those lives might have been saved.
 Please restore the image to the status quo before you made the change per WP:BRD.--David Tornheim (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to solve two problems. 1) a small problem: the Gast painting is clearly marked "School Book" and not just "Book"--there is no need for a footnote to explain that School Books = learning and knowledge. It just clutters and makes long article longer.  (And it hints at an old debate when viewers thought it she carried a Bible and was bringing religion).  2) a bigger issue: an unsourced claim that is false:  the small battle near Mexico City was NOT  part of Manifest Destiny and no reliable source links it. Polk's  war was fought to expand into California & protect Texas (and also Arizona-New Mexico) and it's highly misleading to suggest the goal was to take over heavily populated central Mexico. The illustration in a prominent position at the tpop of the article suggests to readers a false goal. Furthermore, it is unlike the highly informative Gast illustration: this one is very hard to read and see what is happening. And its imaginary--it's by Adolphe Jean-Baptiste Bayot a French artist in Paris who was not present.  Rjensen (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the battle Battle Molino del Rey 

message: The edit-warring on this article needs to stop.  I have already reported one editor to WP:AN/I.  I prefer not to discuss editor behavior here. I am only mentioning it here, because I am concerned that one of the editors is aware of the warnings. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Thank you for  restoring the important material in the WP:LEDE saying in a rather tame way how Manifest Destiny was used to justify the genocidal behavior of settlers to expel Native Americans from land the colonial settlers  'discovered'. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEDE regarding Native Americans expulsion 

message: Shouldn't the Doctrine of Discovery (also ,) play a more prominent role in the article?  
When I searched for the term "discover", it did not show up in the WP:LEDE at all and did not come in the text until ~2,000 words down in the article.  There are countless hits when I searched for both "Manifest Destiny" and "Doctrine of Discovery" on Google scholar.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, with qualifications. The doctrine of discovery was a religious concept; manifest destiny was political policy. Separation of church and state implies the doctrine could not be used to justify the policy. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrine of Discovery 

message: I don't see any need to delete so much material in Filibusterism.  Please explain why you want to remove so much material.  It looks to me like this material has been in the article since at least 17:21, 20 March 2021.  A significant portion was in the article as early as late 2006. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  In terms of Manifest Destiny, it makes one short point: some people who disliked slavery opposed filibusters to spread slavery  and they came to oppose Manifest Destiny. I kept tyhat point-- all the other stuff is stuffing that distracts from Manifest Destiny--the more time readers spend on this section the less time they will have to spend on more important sections. Rjensen (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to decide how people should spend their time on the article.  The section is informative and the bulk of it has been there over 10 years.  I see no reason to delete it now, when there was no objection to it before. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Seen from a different perspective: perhaps much of that material about the connection between filibustering and manifest destiny could be used to improve the filibuster article. There seems to be a logical place for it there, creating a new sub-section of the History section. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 08:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large deletion in Filibusterism