Talk:United States/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

United States hegemon - consensus

Okay, so this is the second time that my revision - an attempt to return what was properly stated about American influence on this article text' for years prior of it's sudden removal - was removed, again without evidence or sources to prove that such an action was justifiably necessary and, or; prematurely acted upon.

I have provided my revision with proper sources, which was approved by one of the editors here and another discrediting it as "weak factoid." Now I am under the impression that there is some disagreement on whether or not the US is still indeed leads the world' in a cultural, economic (which I have not attempted to bring back because of PPP complications) and political basis. However, no counter proof or sources were provided to discount my revision as a non-canon factoid - therefore, my concern is to whether there is a motive of personal interest; as to promote isolationist sentiment, rather than to educate readers of informative knowledge concurrent to the political theater. In all actuality, general knowledge and political science states' the American hegemony while in decline, hasn't quite ended and is still unequivocally the leader of Western culture, political influence, economical standing (USD being the world's reserve currency still) and militarily; which is the only concept not being challenged by fellow editors.

I would like to debate this issue with anyone here who is in disagreement with my revision before it creates a conflict. Please enlighten me on your opinion with tangible sources instead of a repeated and bias discrediting.

Thanks, and looking forward to your contribution.

NocturnalDef (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I would call being a leading "soft power" a "soft fact" -- not something to draw hard conclusions from. If there are specific demonstrable effects of being such a leader, expressed in dollars or votes or such, then those can and should be noted. Otherwise, I think it sounds like some vague ranking with no more significance than a popularity contest, and therefore WP:UNDUE. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There's little reason to mention "soft power" in a WP country article at all. It is, at best, a fuzzy concept and, at worst, not measurable. I find its emphasis in the lead-in to the article "United States" especially objectionable. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

When you begin a sentence with "According to" you are casting doubt. The assertion is only as credible as the organization quoted and it suggests that other organizations could question it. I don't see the reason for including this information anyway since it is as Mason.Jones says fuzzy. TFD (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have contributed a factoid of America's standing influence in the world that is neither biased or misleading. As America is the largest media export in the world and known the world over for it's; pop culture, fashion, music, television shows, cinema, Facebook, Google, ect... even wiki. Many nation's in the world also host American military personnel and the UN is hosted by NYC which the US leads -- which can be denoted unmistakably as being a significant political influence in the world.

Once again, I would like to point out - I am NOT implying that we're in the lead...only stating the facts. I hope the general consensus can agree with my compromised revision. Thanks for your contributions. NocturnalDef (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There was one more thing that this factoid was that you failed to mention, unsourced. You claim is it not biased or misleading but individual editors do not get to decide those things. We report what reliable sources report and those sources need to be included as inline citations. Until you provide those sources it does not belong. ~ GB fan 11:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

IDK GB fan. I've been doing quite a bit of self-debating on the issue - while we still have influence in the world, I have become rather conflicted on the matter just within the past 24 hours. I could easily source my contribution of American influence in the world, but at the same time I question whether or not I should. While the US is still big on paper, declining more and more each day - I have to question the nation's moral fiber. This is not the same America that I love and know. It's leaderless. Corrupt. The very institution that reintroduced democracy into the world is crumbling before us. A majority of millennial Americans have given up on the two party system, while on the right - there is an ever growing surge for authoritarian nationalism and white supremacy. I'm debating as a liberal, whether America even deserves such a privilege as archived accolades. At least not at the trajectory this nation is headed. The world may yet just have become unofficially multipolar, ever more so because of this administrations isolationist agenda. Retreating from free trade deals. Normalizing ludicrous behavior of what used to be the highest position held. I'm not even sure if the presidency will ever be as it was or if our former prestige will ever recover. At this point, I think I'm just going to put this whole thing on hold.

For now at least... NocturnalDef (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

NocturnalDef, one of the main reasons Wikipedia demands neutrality and proper sourcing is to not allow articles to reflect the editors' feelings about a topic. Whether the United States achieved hegemony status or not, depends on its political, military, and cultural influence on other countries. Not on its morality or where the country is currently heading. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dimadick, but America has reached hegemony status. It has held it since the end of the cold war and secured it since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I have been enquiring on why that status has been removed from the article since I'm not entirely certain that it's hegemony has ended. And I agree editor neutrality, but like it or not, a lot about ranking soft power has to include a nations morality to measure it's influence - the Soviet Union was a super power but it only had control over the satellites forced into it's domain...the rest of the world never followed it. I'm discussing the same position with the U.S. I'm not sure what your accusation is. NocturnalDef (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're actually concerned about improving the article, instead of just venting in a frustratingly vacillating way, you'll need to specify what text was removed that you think belongs there, as well as what text you propose to add. Your additions, if I recall correctly, tend to be unsourced and too boldly stated; and they don't belong in the lead, unless the concept is developed in the article. Again, what was there before that you miss, and when was it taken out? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dhtwiki+ I have already shared the text which was removed several times prior but I will share it again; the part/text that was removed was the sentence describing the US as "the foremost political, cultural and economic force in the world" which was correct. I have inquired why many times but was given no answer. On a side note, I am not vacillating my suggestion in anyway, I am only doing my part in staying neutral on the consensus by challenging my own belief and offering counter evidence against it; although I still believe that America is the predominant force in the world, at least culturally. NocturnalDef (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been told why your edits were removed, they were unsourced. You need to provide reliable sources that directly support the information you want to add. ~ GB fan 18:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've have done the research and I have sources proving my claims. I'm not going to do it now but eventually I'm going to edit this page and add the sources. NocturnalDef (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And yes, they are reliable. NocturnalDef (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And if anyone would like to go over these sources with me before I make the changes and add them, please have no hesitation in asking. I would be more than obliged to share them in discussion first. NocturnalDef (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources and the changes you wish to make should be posted here, and agreed to, before you make changes to the article. It would help to delineate proposed text by the use of quote tags or templates. I see that you, or someone, has already inserted a succinct paragraph without footnotes, but where the text is in accordance with the main article on culture. Should that stand? Also, it would be helpful if you learned to indent, or outdent, your followups, so that others can more easily see who you're replying to. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

-'The Soft Power 30' (2017 survey) NocturnalDef (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

-'The Elcano Global Presence' index (2017) NocturnalDef (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Http://softpower30.com/country/United-States/

-While initially ranked third, Portland explains its US ranking as more to do with sentiment than fact, and that the United States was still unequivocally still the leading soft power; politically, culturally and economically, ect - referring that trump was rather a deterrent to world view than the US losing it's top perch.

Hope this helps. NocturnalDef (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

www.Globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/ NocturnalDef (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe you will find these sources 'factoid' satisfactory. NocturnalDef (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So I believe we are all in consensus of my evidence? NocturnalDef (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current article revision and have no further need to add anything. Thank you all for hearing me. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

...removed the cultural part again...

Ok, you guys removed the cultural part again, even though I provided you with solid evidence? Now I am going to edit it myself and add the sources. NocturnalDef (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I would anyone to challenge my sources. Somebody please inform in my sources are non-factoid. NocturnalDef (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a paragraph inserted here, by Cskamoscow100, on November 24, but without discussion or agreement on this page. It read:

Many American cultural elements, especially from popular culture, have spread across the globe through modern mass media. America stands as the most prominent cultural force today.

That's the part I referenced above: "I see that you, or someone, has already inserted a succinct paragraph without footnotes, but where the text is in accordance with the main article on culture." It was deleted here, by GB fan, on December 1, for being "unsourced", which was true, at least by inline citation here, although it was well written and seems in accordance with the article Culture of the United States.

What you've recently added here, today, December 2:

In accordance to the (Elcano Global Presence) index, the United States in the predominant global cultural force in the world.

Is not properly sourced (the reference to the Elcano Global Presence index should be by inline citation, e.g. by <ref>{{cite...}}</ref> markup) and not as well written ("In accordance to" should be "... with", and it's not as well linked, nor as specific, as the previous).

As far as the sources you've provided, I can't vouch for or against their reliability, although they didn't seem particularly detailed or footnoted. They are suspect, at least. We should be deciding on the reliability of sources and the form of the text here, before making edits to the article. You've been proposing sources but not text for us to examine and agree to. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, The text I removed may be in line with another Wikipedia article but that means absolutely nothing. It needs inline citations here from reliable sources. If there are sources for the information that can be moved across from the other article then that may solve the problem.

NocturnalDef, lack of comments on your sources above for 3 days is not consensus that they are adequate sources. I can find the primary source for the information but can not find any secondary sources that use the information. Articles shouldn't be using primary data, we should let reliable sources interpret the primary data and then we used that to write our articles. ~ GB fan 12:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources that protect the biased text that claims that mainstream media views american culture as classes? There are no sources there and there is no proof that suggests such a thing...yet you do nothing. I've read the UK article who's text states that they have great influence within the world and nothing to source it, and still, you do not seem to care. But when I provide you with proper sources that HAD secondary sources, you say that my sources are improper? What is it about that you are so desperate to down play? I am going to write down what I read in the text and I am going to properly site it. I did everything that you've asked and more...to prevent me from adding the correct information on this article at this point is to block the correct standing of the United States. Again, what is your evidence to suggest otherwise because you still haven't answered that question? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do most editors here seem to be so biased against American accolades? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are other statements in the article that are not reliably sourced they can be removed as well. I have not read the entire article and probably won't. You should read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If you actually added the sources to the article, I wouldn't object as I am not confident they are not reliable. What you have never done is actually add any source to the article itself. If you need assistance in how to add references to the article you can read Help:Referencing for beginners. ~ GB fan 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC

OK. I've added proper sources and cited it properly and still it was removed by Mason with little or no reason. I have to admit that there are some editors here that don't want to keep this thing neutral and this is getting a little frustrating.

Your citation was excellent in terms of its markup, but Mason.Jones gave a rather full, although not really clear to me, explanation as to its removal: "DELETE. "Soft power assets" is news-speak. The source given is minor and validates no such sweeping claim. US film, TV, and popular music (along with UK for music) have been dominant since the 1920s."

You need to be bringing your proposed additions here to get consensus (i.e. the support of other editors) before adding them to the article. You'll probably find them much amended, if not refused. You might want to read WP:BRD, if you haven't already done so, which details how this process is supposed to work.

Also, I've found that what I thought was support for the idea that the US's cultural preeminence on the Culture of the United States article was just the lead sentence that you added, without its being a summary of what was in the article. That violates WP:LEAD and should be reverted.

You're not the only one frustrated by this. You have a statement you want to make that should be supportable, although not necessarily in as bold a form as you might like. However, you need to show support for it in published accounts, and not just bare online lists without much self-explanation of their rationale or evaluation by other reliable sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

First off, the source was reliable, power Softpower30 is an organization index ranker, not news-speak. Second, if you actually read the source, you would find that I only qouted the author; I in know way made up my own text. Third, how is fair that the UK article can the described their political influence and the US can't... especially since the UK source is purely news-speak. I am sensing complete bias on the issue and have been trying to comply with you but non of you respond to my questions. If I am in any way in violation of any code or standard, then why do the codes and standards only apply to the US article? Again...are you implying that US cultural prominence has ended or are you just promoting it? Again...I ask you to source the evidence here on this consensus discussion, if not, please leave my revisions be. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I In no way made up my own text... I only qouted the author.
• How is the WP:LEAD code fair that the UK article can describe it's own political influence but the US article can't?

Sorry for the typos, it's difficult to type on a media device.

Again...if you would like me to revise it in a way where it makes the description of US influence seem more neutral, you are free to edit that part. But removing entirely is unethical and unnecessary. I am willing to compromise if you are. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have also linked all secondary index sources in this discussion. Feel free to look. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Would you mind doing that again? I only see the softpower reference which is neither reliable nor secondary. The others are probably lost in the text so it would be helpful if you provided them again. --regentspark (comment) 22:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Dhtwiki- I will agree with your suggestion to change the text to the beginning of the US cultural section if you believe that to be necessary. I have revised the article at the top section, the same as the UK article... still I am very willing to compromise in all fairness to the consensus. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok regentspark...I will give it another go. And to be fair, if you disagree with my current edit, you may remove it without further protest from me, as long as we are all willing to discuss the matter and not ignore it. I also apologize if I too, take a long time to get back to you. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

NocturnalDel, I'm going to revert your addition. As I say above, the softpower source is a primary source and is not a reliable source. Primary sources are generally avoidable because both the statements made in them as well as their methodologies need to be evaluated by reliable secondary sources. You're also using a term, soft power, that is not readily understood. If the intent of the text is to state that the US is culturally dominant, then you need to state that clearly and provide reliable secondary sources to back up that statement. You haven't done that. Additionally, please read WP:EW because you're currently edit warring and you could be blocked for that (I'll drop a note about that on your talk page as well). Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood regentspark, more than happy to discuss this further with everyone. NocturnalDef (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@regentspark--www.globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en

Elcano Global Presence' index (updated 2017) that is my secondary source. NocturnalDef (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a primary source, not a secondary source. You need a source saying Elcano's rating is relevant and important. "Secondary" doesn't mean second. Please see WP:PRIMARY. --Golbez (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will look into it - All spectrums. NocturnalDef (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Give me a day or two. NocturnalDef (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

https://geographica.gs/en/showcase/elcano-global-presence-index/

NocturnalDef (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Also; I don't believe that a secondary source is necessary for providing evidence of US cultural prominence since this particular article (aside from the fact of it being common knowledge), has originally stated this "in text" since wikipedias existence. I also find it hard to believe that as editors of this page, some of you would be oblivious to this knowledge... especially since you claim to have been editing this particular page for years now. Hence, the WP: PRIMARY would not be applicable - as this is not "original thought" or subversive in theory to be proven otherwise. It also states that news articles CAN be used as a reliable source, that only tabloids are considered non-factoid. Nevertheless, I'll still provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

And I quote the original text and the latter edited version: "The United States is a leading political, economic and cultural force in the world."

Then the latter version stated: "The United States is a prominent political and cultural force in the world, it is also the foremost economic and military presence."

@regentspark: so you and others who agree with your sentiment have no recollection what so ever of these text sources? Because I've been reading them on this article for years, all up until the end of summer when it was removed without proper consensus. NocturnalDef (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

NocturnalDef, I haven't been following or editing this article so, no, I haven't seen the source before. Regardless of whether it was there before or not, it is a primary source. The new link you've provided is no better and so your statement shouldn't be added to the article. Merely repeating what you've said many times, and providing what is essentially the same source again and again, is not productive and wastes the time of other editors. I suggest you not post here again unless you can provide many secondary sources. Otherwise you'll end up being blocked as disruptive. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 02:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We're all here to improve articles, which (hopefully) means the articles were not as good before. WP has evolved to be much more stringent on having unsourced information in important articles. That's a good thing, even if it means stuff I "know" to be true gets removed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And subjectively, if seemingly (not accusing anyone but merely accessing), that using Wikipedia codes and violations as loopholes to keep other, or less experienced editors from bringing back the original texts as stated about the American LEAD; be an improper consensus among a gang of veteran editors with akin political beliefs, agendas -- such as framing the illusion that America is not and has never been the leader of the Western world in order to promote a type of isolationist propaganda and sentiment throughout the American popular digest of Wikipedia users? Because if a true concern resides in just the rules, then wouldn't it also apply to every national article as well... such as the UK article which seems to enjoy all the privileges of boasting international influence, not just in one sentence but throughout the entire article. My concern being that this would make it look as if American leadership has been surpassed by Britain. Again, this is only a measure of speculation and my chief motive because in all actuality, you are giving false data on a site that's dedicated to education and free information...not an abuse of authority through the improper consensus empowered by only a collection of editors who happen to share political solidarity.

Again, Wikipedia is an open site and should be for everyone to contribute...not just a few.

Personally, I don't appreciate being accused of warring with other editors, nor the threat of being removed as a voice entirely because I view globalism in a positive spectrum, as did happen with remdon115.

Now you see my point of view respective.NocturnalDef (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC);:

I am off Wiki for a bit but I will say this much, I removed content that had no proper source that supported the actual claim. As long as there is a reference that supports the claim it can be added back however, if this is just original research and yet another attempt to add content that puffs up the subject...it should not be added back.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This may be what was removed

This 04:07, 11 September 2017 edit by Mark Miller seems to be what NocturnalDef is missing from the article:

...and is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.

If so, should it be put back, as a belated reversion, and the appropriateness of its removal discussed? The edit summary read: "This apears to be original research or synthysis presented in this manner. There must be a better way to word this to be better referenced" Dhtwiki (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC) {{reflist-talk}

Anyways, blocking me would just prove my point. My apologies if I appear overly direct... just my opinionated nature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef (talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a response that was meant for the previous section. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dhtwiki, indeed that's how it was. And I only wish to contribute as everyone is allowed, and the revision you suggested seems very fair. Thank you for discussing this with me. So what would be a better way of putting it do you think, so not to violate the rules?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm proposing to restore the text to the article, as though you had been here to revert it, as it's referenced, and very possibly by reliable sources (unlike others, I believe that we're dealing with secondary sources, just not always ones whose reliability has been established). I'm going to wait a bit, as there's no rush at this point. Also, it would help if you remembered to sign your posts (~~~~), as it's rather time consuming for me to do it manually. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to restore the edit in question, wouldn't it better to also include the softpower30 citation NocturnalDef added alongside it? Surely, the other three sources could act as secondary sources in that case. -- ChamithN (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of restoring what was there without changes, as a straight reversion, without prejudicing any further discussion about the appropriateness of sources or text. NocturnalDef's additions should be agreed to before they are re-added, as they were new additions that were reverted. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for improper procedure. I'm still learning how to do all this. NocturnalDef (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC) NocturnalDef (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're responding to me and indenting your post appropriately. WP:THREAD is a page you should read, as I've practically stopped trying to manually indent your replies; and it's sometimes quite helpful to know, by indentation or by using the outdent template, to whom you're replying. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank all the editors here in making this consensus possible and restoring a proper text to it's roots and standing. I know at times there has been little bouts of frustration but I'm glad to say that it all worked out in the end. Again, I thank everyone here who contributed their time.

I would like to give special recognition to the wonderful editors "Dthwiki" and "ChamithN" who have been especially patient. You have my gratitude and my respect. NocturnalDef (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC) NocturnalDef (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Metro Populations

The table of the largest US urban places (see under Population section) is off. Some editor decided back last summer to include the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) figures for the first five cities only—even though the table head specifically states that these are metropolitan areas, with the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) name listed just to the right. Now, fifth-ranked Houston is listed with a smaller population than 6th-ranked Washington, DC. Moreover, Los Angeles is listed with its full CSA stat of 18 million-plus, which means that Riverside–San Bernardino should NOT be listed at all further down the list. (Riverside–SB is included in that CSA population of Los Angeles. LA's MSA population is actually 13 million, without Riverside-SB.) I don't care much which yardstick editors prefer—the CSA or the MSA—but it should be consistent, without comparing apples to oranges. That's simply mistaken and misleading. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the first six MSA populations in this table, which should record the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) population as indicated across the table head: latest estimated population of MSA (2016), official U.S. Census name of that MSA, and overall Wikipedia link ("see complete list"). Any other version is inconsistent and erroneous. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph above this table, I'm going to bring up a topic that I mentioned earlier this fall. In this sentence: "The metro areas of San Bernardino, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix all grew by more than a million people between 2000 and 2008." San Bernardino should be changed to Riverside, as it's the first-listed city in the Census Bureau's Metro Area title and is by far the largest city in the metro area. I made a similar edit to a section that no longer exists in the article (I changed "Riverside-San Bernardino" to just "Riverside" since every other entry in that list was single city only). Mason.Jones reverted that edit with the argument that the metro is "officially" titled with both cities since they are "officially" co-equal, and that San Bernardino was listed first up until two years ago, as it was the larger city until just recently. I don't want this to be an argument or edit war, but I want to point out that a) there was no "official" definition of this area having "co-equal" cities, the same way that has not been defined anywhere else, and that b) Riverside has been larger than San Bernardino for 50 years, and the title of the Metro Area has listed Riverside first since 1970. I haven't changed the article, since I'd rather have a discussion first, but if an argument is going to be made for one phrasing or another, the "evidence" presented to support that argument should be based in fact. Dtcomposer (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

While I do think the two cities are the "coequal" ones on the Top 20 list, it's just an opinion. General references to U.S. metro areas should use the U.S. Census name as the yardstick. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Add an italic explanation at the top that readers may be looking for Organization of American States 98.197.198.46 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is not a plausible search term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2017

English is not the only national language in the United States when 42 million of your citizens speak Spanish at home and the territory of Puerto Rico speak Spanish as majority language it deserves a proper recognition something that has been constantly covered and ignored by the anglo speaking majority. Armando1492 (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Feel free to continue to discuss but looking through the archives 1, this is not simple, uncontested opinion, and so is out of scope of an edit request Cannolis (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination

I think that this page should be a featured article. It meets the FA Standards it is well written and has a lot of info. So I decided to nominate it. Felicia (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Per FAC instructions, nominators should be significant contributors to an article -- or at least have discussed with significant contributors -- before nominating for FAC. This is largely so that they can field questions and criticism of the article when it's reviewed. Since that's not the case here I removed the nom as out-of-process. By all means continue this discussion here to see if significant contributors would like to initiate a new nomination according to FAC instructions. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(quick review) currently tagged in cats for ...Articles containing dated statements....Accuracy disputes.....Articles in need of updating....This article needs a big trim of details to even meet GA standers in my view. Plus I found some dead links and there was just a content dispute. --Moxy (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Moxy could you link to that for us to work through?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Checklinks: United States--Moxy (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixing dead links will have to wait until the Internet Archive comes back online. -- ChamithN (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Great....as for a trim...things lIke abortion and fertility rates....naming of many people with little historical value...huge sections on crime, food etc....are best covered at main articles. Not sure how a "Water supply and sanitation" merits it's own section let alone even needs a mention here. Over all not bad just cumbersome to read. Moxy (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The article "United States" remains largely overwritten. One problem is that editors are constantly expanding sections that touch on their own pet obsessions (religion being the most recent). The article is too detailed and at times overwrought. It's a decent article, but it deserves neither Featured status nor Very Good designation. Some WP articles meet those bars; this one doesn't. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes religion section bloated to hell (pun...lol)--Moxy (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Bloated indeed the article is at about 400kByte about four times larger than the length at which the guideline on article length rule of thumb suggest to split off part into their own articles. So for this one to be readable we should condense it to less than 25% of the length if we use that rule of thumb. And to get it stable at that reduced length before listing it as FA. Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So for this one to be readable we should condense it to less than 25%. No, we don't need to take it that far. As WP:SIZERULE says, what matters is the readable prose size. And the readable text size is currently sitting at 103kb according to Prosesize, which barely passes the "almost certainly should be divided" criteria. I think it'd be fine as long as we get it below 100 kB given the scope of the article, but that's not to say we should give up on trying to get it below 60 kB or 50 kB. To me, the reason why the article is uncomfortable to navigate is those hugeass reference and bibliography lists; but hey, that doesn't mean we should get rid of them. I'm calling it right now. If this article were to be designated a featured article someday, it'll be among the top 5 of Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length, or it will at least get there, eventually. -- ChamithN (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An obvious concern here is that this process of "trimming" the article opens the door for editors with political agendas to begin removing reliably-sourced material simply because it doesn't conform with their ideological worldview. If the material in question is not reliably sourced or outdated by a decade or so, then removal can be considered once discussed on talk. Reliably sourced materials should not be removed unless there is a very good reason to do so. For example, the section on Law enforcement and crime was mentioned. I see no real issue with that section, except perhaps with dated stats that simply need updated, not purged. The article was nominated by the OP because it "has a lot of info". So let's not gut the thing and potentially start edit conflicts in the process.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ok lets start clenup this week.....tagged the religion section as per above as first section to work on. Step by step.--Moxy (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That section is very much condensed as it is already.Ernio48 (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

+ Languages spoken at home by more than 1 million persons in the U.S. (2016) 147.0.112.99 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Already done Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 U.S. population estimate

I just updated the U.S. 2017 population estimate in the historical chart (the historical chart uses decennial U.S. Census figures and annual estimates, and the new 2017 estimate was released this week). That said, I don't see the logic of using a different metric in the infobox, which is the population clock from a different U.S. government agency. The U.S. Census estimate is released annually each December, and this estimate is within a few thousand people of the population clock. If editors insist on the clock, then the reference should say "population clock," not "estimate". Across Wikipedia articles about U.S. states and cities, "estimate" means the Census Bureau estimate, period. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I really hope your not adding estimates all over.....we go by official census statistics numbers not the guesswork on quarterly dates.--Moxy (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We "go by" whatever the table says, and this one's headnote links the reader to the complete WP "List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas" updated yearly by the U.S. Census Bureau. If you feel the stats should be only the last official decennial census (that is, 2010), there is no consensus on that. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear.....we don't replace the census numbers we simple add the estimate.....thus have both.--Moxy (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This table has always shown the latest yearly population estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau. There's no room in the chart for the estimate plus the official 2010 Census figure (and that would require an additional column for the percentage gain). You can propose a format change "for more information," but it'll require a debate and wide consensus. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Size of this article is getting crazy

Lots of junk has been added lately....should add {{Very long|date=January 2018}} bUT don't want to cause problems. How can we fix this ? Where to start. Was going to start on the religion section but there's so many other things to clean up. Anyone want to help? The article is going to loose it's GA status if things are done to fix the size and layout problems. Moxy (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:TOOBIG the article should be brought back to at most 100 kB and preferably even 50 kB. The current size is about 400Kb. So yes, the article size should be drastically reduced to somewhere between 12 and 25% of its current length (or in other words at least 3 out of every 4 words need to go). While I agree it should be reduced I am not sufficiently aware of specific US topics to relevantly participate in such a major operation though). Arnoutf (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The prose size of the article, what is referenced at WP:TOOBIG, is only a little more than 100kB, as ChamithN pointed out above, to you in fact. If "junk" has been added, then revert so that it can be discussed here, assuming that the addition isn't consensus. There is a lot that gets added, and probably a lot that's here already, that duplicates what is discussed in more detail at linked articles, and which only needs to be referenced in summary here, if at all. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

‎United States ‎[403,480 bytes] is prose size. Not sure where your getting bit more then 100.--Moxy (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Circa 400 kilobytes is "Page size" at page linked to by "Revision history statistics" on the article's "Revision history" page. It's probably the total file size of the article. Nothing is said there about its being prose size. I'm using User:Dr pda/prosesize, which is a javascript you install. It's linked to from WP:RPS, on the same page as WP:TOOBIG. Its recent output for this article was:

Document statistics: (See here for details.)

• File size: 79 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 239 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 25 kB
• Prose size (text only): 105 kB (16781 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 3297 B

Dhtwiki (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wow that's not working right. I will contact the creator.--Moxy (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll assume that you're responding to me and that you're calling my measurements into question. What's not working right? I use this script all the time, as do other. I've thoroughly edited another 16,000 word article, which this resembles in length, more than it does a 60,000 word article (105 kB / 16,781 words = 6.26 characters/word, which is close to the well-known 5 char/word rule-of-thumb average). I haven't gone to the trouble of submitting the article's text to another word-counting routine, such as Office or Unix's 'wc'; but I have done so before for other text and have found their measurements in line with this javascript routine. How did you arrive at your number? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Moxy is confusing page length mentioned here with the readable prose size. Page length means the size of the page including everything (e.g., HTML code, text, and images), which is not the same as the readable prose size, that is, the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections according to WP:SIZE. This discussion provides a clear idea about what the readable prose size refers to. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Spanish as a secondary langauage

Even thought not everyone speaks it, many across the US speaks Spanish so should be listed as a national language after English? Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigcheese (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The USA has no official language, though the Senate did vote to recognise English as such in 2006. Language law is typically dealt with at state level. Many languages are spoken throughout the USA but English is typically the sole de facto language at federal level.Bbx118 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Some obviously don't understand what a "national language" is: a country's lingua franca, the formal language of government (written or oral, in every federal, state, and local body of the 50 states), the language of the courts, the language of instruction in all schools and universities (and required every year of U.S. education). English is the only language that is part of U.S. naturalization. It is official in 32 states (Spanish zero). Spanish is taught as a foreign, or "world", language in U.S. schools everywhere outside Puerto Rico. Spanish is also totally optional (you may satisfy the foreign-language requirement with any language other than English). Three-quarters of Americans who speak Spanish at home speak English "well" or "very well", according to the 2016 ACS survey, while few non-Hispanophones in the United States can speak Spanish at even a basic level. English is the national language, while Spanish is not even close to one. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

General American (GenAm), is the perceived language of the states and most of her territories. Spanish (espanol), is widely used among Hispanics within the country and while it's relevant that policies have been established to make the language more applicable for an ever increasing Spanish populace, it is still only that minority of Hispanics who actually speak it. Very few Americans in general understand the language and it's only established for those newly arrived Hispanics who have yet to learn general American. Overall, it is not required for students of elementary grade levels to learn it otherwise, so I cannot vouch for espanol to be even remotely considered as a second American language. Perhaps one day, but not at the present. ---- NocturnalDEF (talk) 07:33, 15 January (UTC)

Make a quote about America denomination

I think should be a link or a quotation explaining the "America" nomination emphasizing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestor Acevedo (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what you are asking as America does not have a "recognized autonomous branch of the Christian church" or "face value of a bank note, coin, or stamp", nor is America being "proposed for election".--Khajidha (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Geography, climate, and environment typo

I think the first line has an extra 0 added on by mistake when stating the total land area of the United States, as the source only lists it as being about 3,800,000, rather than the 38,000,000 currently written. If someone could fix that, my neuroticism would greatly appreciate it! 68.184.219.213 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed General Ization ^Talk 04:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

Under the Area section, Total Area should be listed as 9,833,520 km2 (3,796,742 sq mi), Total land area as 9,147,590 km2 (3,531,905 sq mi). Under the Population section, Density should be listed as 35.0/km2 (90.6/sq mi). This is to maintain consistency with every other country's entry on Wikipedia. Riakm (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See here: The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of "strong national ties", where applicable:In non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97 pounds (44 kg). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

En dashes

@Mason.Jones: The name Spanish–American War uses an en dash, not a hyphen. Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, MOS:DASH, An en dash between separate nations; ... France–Britain rivalry; French–British rivalry. It doesn't matter what an editor learned in school; Wikipedia's own style guide takes precedence. Chris the speller ^yack 17:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WP:MOS confirms your change. I dislike it (and every U.S. editors' stylebook I've seen requires a hyphen), but the MOS is the MOS. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Group of references

There are some group of references in the article. Can we split them? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What groups of references and what rationale for splitting? There can be citation overkill where some can be removed, for being redundant. There can be references grouped at the end of a section of text that each citation supports only a part of the text and it might make things clearer if the citations are distributed so as to be closer to the text each supports. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Dhtwiki for example

<ref>{{cite news |title=Did Clinton Do It, or Was He Lucky? |author=Dale, Reginald |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-think.2.t_2.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 18, 2000 |accessdate=March 6, 2013}}<br />{{cite book |last=Mankiw |first=N. Gregory |title=Macroeconomics |url=https://books.google.com/?id=58KxPNa0hF4C&lpg=PA463 |year=2008 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-0-324-58999-3 |page=559 |accessdate=October 25, 2015}}</ref>

Can we split this references? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Those references have been batched, which is done to reduce the number of inline citation numbers in the text and is seen as a benefit, if both references are needed. Why do you want to split them? I didn't look at the NY Times article, and I couldn't view the book's page online, although a URL is given. So, I can't at this point evaluate their appropriateness. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted religion fact

The most religious area of the United States is American Samoa, not Mississippi. The rate of religious affiliation in American Samoa is more than 30% higher than in Mississippi. A sentence mentioning this fact was added, but it keeps getting reverted.

One objection is that mentioning American Samoa is too trivial. What makes mentioning American Samoa more trivial than Mississippi? While it's true that American Samoa is not a state, it is still part of the United States (it has a zip code, U.S. National Park, people there get U.S. Medicare and sign up for the U.S. military, they have a representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, etc.)

Another objection is that this article is only about states, which isn't true. This article is about all components of the United States: states, territories, the federal district, etc.

The religion fact is not explicitly about territories: for example, if the religious rate in Mississippi was 99.5%, then American Samoa would not need to be mentioned. It just happens to be that American Samoa has the highest religious rate in the country.

I'd like to bring the religion fact back, but first want to acknowledge whether it will get reverted again. LumaP15 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Gallup poll mentioning the range of religious affiliation is mentioned at the main article, Religion in the United States, which apparently doesn't mention American Samoa. The relevance of the A.S. number should be vetted there before it is put here. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That article (Religion in the United States) did mention American Samoa, but like with the U.S. article, it was reverted. I restored the American Samoa mention in that article. LumaP15 (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That may mean that you're just going to be reverted there. Per WP:BFD you need to discuss the appropriateness of the A.S. figure there, and get consensus for its inclusion. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

American Samoa has a much lower population than Mississippi. The entire population is estimated to 54,194 people. It is not that surprising that they are less diverse when it comes to religion.

"CIA Factbook 2010 estimate shows the religious affiliations of American Samoa as 98.3% Christian, other 1%, unaffiliated 0.7%. World Christian Database 2010 estimate shows the religious affiliations of American Samoa as 98.3% Christian, 0.7% agnostic, 0.4% Chinese Universalist, 0.3% Buddhist and 0.3% Bahá'í.

According to Pew Research Center, 98.3% of the total population is Christian. Among Christians, 59.5% are Protestant, 19.7% are Roman Catholic and 19.2% are other Christians. A major Protestant church on the island, gathering a substantial part of the local Protestant population, is the Congregational Christian Church in American Samoa, a Reformed denomination in the Congregationalist tradition. As of August 2017, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints website claims membership of 16,180 or one-quarter of the whole population, with 41 congregations, and 4 family history centers in American Samoa. Jehovah's Witnesses claim 210 "ministers of the word" and 3 congregations. " Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Efforts to overemphasize U.S. territories in this article are questionable. American Samoa is a tiny, unintegrated territory of 54,000 people, less populous than a small U.S. city. Mississippi (however much some editors wish to dismiss it) is an integrated state of the Union with 55 times the population of American Samoa. Comparative U.S. stats rarely if ever cite U.S. territories. Even the WP listings of largest U.S. cities and metros don't rank San Juan, Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican cities are listed separately. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet, in its wisdom, the community has deemed the territories to be part of the country. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the "inclusionist" side. I'm just concerned when its supporters include territorial facts/factoids that should be rarer than comparisons of actual states 55 times more populous (and far more complex and diverse) than American Samoa. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think size really matters. For example, American Samoa has a quarter, just like populous areas such as California and Texas. And American Samoa sends a non-voting representative to Congress just like the much more populous Puerto Rico. Also, with regard to size (population), California is 68 times larger than Wyoming, and yet both are treated equally in many ways (they each have 2 senators, etc.) With regard to integration, while territories of the U.S. are not states, there are numerous examples of them being under the jurisdiction of the United States; for example, people in the territories get medicare, sign up for the U.S. military, vote in presidential primaries, have federal employees, U.S. post offices, etc. If looking at religious figures from all distinct entities of the U.S. (all the states, territories and DC), one sees that American Samoa happens to have the highest rate of religious affiliation. LumaP15 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Making sweeping statements about U.S. demographics using a tiny U.S. territory of only 54,000 residents is problematic, no matter how many USPS facilities it hosts. If the American Samoa religious stat follows "Vermont is lowest/Mississippi highest", it must at least be qualified ("unusually high due to 100 years of evangelical and Mormon missionary activity on sparsely populated islands"). Otherwise, it's irrelevant for a country of 325 million people. Territorial stats should be an exception, not the rule, in this article. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

How about saying that "Mississippi has the highest rate of religious affiliation of the 50 states" and that "the territory of American Samoa has a higher rate, but a much lower population".--Khajidha (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need this statement at all? It's pointing out ~1/30th of the political units in the country, comprising 1% of its population. Why is it so important to say that Mississippians and Samoans say they're more religious than the rest of the country? That doesn't add to an understanding of the country as a whole. I'll come out against having this whole clause in. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced content moved from article

I moved this section here for discussion as to whether it should be sourced and included or excluded.

Lutheranism in the United States has its origin in immigration from Scandinavia and Germany. North and South Dakota are the only states where a plurality of the population is Lutheran. Presbyterianism was introduced in North America by Scottish and Ulster Scots immigrants. Although it has expanded across the country, it is heavily concentrated on the East Coast. Dutch Reformed congregations were founded first in New Amsterdam (New York City) before spreading westward. Episcopalians/Anglicans played a pivotal role in the country's founding and separated from the Church of England after the American Revolution. They tend to be concentrated on the East Coast. Quakers are present mostly on the East Coast as well. Anabaptists and Pietists have a strong presence in Pennsylvania and in some East North Central states.

Utah is the only state where Mormonism is the religion of the majority of the population. Eastern Orthodoxy is claimed by 5% of people in Alaska, a former Russian colony, and maintains a presence on the U.S. mainland due to recent immigration from Eastern Europe. Finally, a number of other Christian groups are active across the country, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, Restorationists, Churches of Christ, Christian Scientists and many others.

--Mark Miller (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Its oddly detailed, yet non-informative and unsourced. Look like a simple attempt to link some articles. Best covered in main article because it would be overly detailed if fixed. This is not GA level writing......I would ask.

• Lutheranism in the United States has its origin in immigration from Scandinavia and Germany

Where and when did they arrive?

• North and South Dakota are the only states where a plurality of the population is Lutheran.

by what kind of margin?

• Presbyterianism was introduced in North America by Scottish and Ulster Scots immigrants.

When last year?

• Dutch Reformed congregations were founded first in New Amsterdam (New York City) before spreading westward.

So this is about 1609–1625 right?

• Quakers are present mostly on the East Coast as well.

who, how?

• Anabaptists and Pietists have a strong presence....

is this meaning by the numbers or political power...or both?

• Utah is the only state where Mormonism is the religion of the majority of the population.

again by what kind of margin?

• Eastern Orthodoxy is claimed by 5% of people in Alaska, a former Russian colony, and maintains a presence on the U.S. mainland due to recent immigration from Eastern Europe

I like this fact....but like the rest no source

......and so on. I guess some good sources would be the first step, if all think we can make this informative over just links..--Moxy (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposition

How about leaving the sentences about distribution, historical links, etc. out of that section? Focus on what denominations are present and so condense it entirely?Ernio48 (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

UNESCO World Heritage Site

The list of World Heritage Sites in the United States of America is incorrect and leaves out Poverty Point in Northeastern Louisiana. This was designated a World Heritage Site on June 22nd, 2014 at the UNESCO Convention in Doha, Qatar. JonCaz (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization ^Talk 15:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Added In the future, please cite sources for your suggested changes and additions. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 16:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2018

Change the default motto of the United States from "In God We Trust" to "E Pluribus Unum." The original is the latin and the alternative is "In God We Trust." Digital2analog (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking. E Pluribus Unum translates to Out of Many, One not in God we trust. According to this, "In God we Trust" is the motto. ~ GB fan 16:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: As GB fan's cite shows, request is incorrect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Unitarians

change ((Unitarians)) to ((Unitarianism|Unitarians)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Type of Government

It should be a “Federal Constitutional Republic” Willis Hanger (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

The sentence in the lead, " is the foremost military power in the world needs to be reworded, the source is from 2013 but now China has the largest active military in the world, followed by India. The source is used to validate the largest army claim, which no longer holds true. So please replace it or reword the sentence. 31.215.112.224 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 31.215.112.224 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kuyabribri: See the sources at List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel. 31.215.112.224 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of humans is not the only measure of military power; there's also hardware, weaponry, tactics, etc. Also, that's not how the semi-protected request works. You discuss and get a sentence you want, then make the request. Telling us "fix it" without giving what you want to be put in doesn't fly; we're not doing all your work for you. --Golbez (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Religion year

Hello. I think we have to change |religion_year from 2017 to 2016. Because source data is for 2016. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Kritarchy

Can someone please explain why my edit about the U.S. being a kritarchy was considered disruptive? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The burden is on you to explain how it's backed up by multiple reputable sources and also isn't you just trolling, thinking that it's cool to change a widely-used, long-accepted, and obvious infobox structure into your pet project. --Golbez (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Biodiversity

no info about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobomanokio (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the paragraph about how it's megadiverse, what were you looking for? --Golbez (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

'current' constitution

In the intro I had removed 'current' before 'constitution' on the thesis that it is the only constitution the United States has ever had. My edit was reverted on the grounds that the Articles of Confederation had preceded it and constituted a 'constitution'. While the Articles were adopted by the Continental Congress in 1781, and therefore certainly preceded the Constitution which was ratified in 1788, the Articles were actually a wartime confederation which did not establish a central government, and therefore were not a 'constitution' as that term is recognized today. In view of the fact that the Founding Fathers agreed with this definition by deciding to abandon the Articles and write a new Constitution establishing a federal republic with a strong centralized government, one Constitutional scholar has stated that the U.S. Constitution "is regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world."[citation 2] (see WP article U.S. Constitution - lead). Therefore, to use the word 'current' implies that other constitutions preceded the Constitution. I would like to remove the word 'current' and add the citation 2 noted immediately above, but I would appreciate other editors' opinions. American In Brazil (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Take note of the words in force in what you quoted above. The Articles of Confederation are older, but not still in force. So, "the oldest" doesn't contradict the use of "current" in the article. I think that it's fair to consider the Articles a constitution, as they describe, or constitute, the basic processes of governance, which otherwise might be according to accepted, but unwritten, usage. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

What you say about the Articles no longer being in force is certainly correct. However, the issue is whether the Articles were a 'constitution'. Dictionary.com defines 'constitution' as:

   noun
   1. the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or 
   the like, is governed.
   2. the document embodying these principles.

Since the Articles never provided for a centralized government, there is a strong argument that it was never a constitution. Therefore, the 'current' Constitution is the only constitution the United States has ever had. American In Brazil (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Articles reserved to Congress the right to make treaties, coin money, resolve disputes between the States, etc.; and it enumerated a number of rights, mostly those of the States. There wasn't an executive branch as we know it, nor a judiciary, and the power given to those branches that they now have; but the Articles set out a "system of fundamental principles" as I understand it. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Executive power was exercised by Congress. It was similar to the weak mayor system of government where executive power is exercised by the mayor and council, as is the case in some U.S. cities and some major cities outside the U.S. such as Toronto. Heads of departments are selected either by the mayor and council or by relevant committees. That does not mean these cities have no constitutions. TFD (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this article citing (current Constitution) referencing towards a revised version of the original? Meaning, other amendments added.

I think it's fair to say that we've always had a constitution since our founding, and many founding Federalists like (Alexander Hamilton), pushed for a strong Central government. So we've always had that as well. NocturnalDef (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)>>>>NocturnalDEF

Actually, the United States has not "always had a constitution since our founding". The nation was founded on July 4, 1776 by the Declaration of Independence; the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1781; the Constitution was ratified in 1788; and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) was ratified in 1791. But the issue I have raised is whether the Articles can be termed a 'constitution' as understood today since they did not create a strong federal government, and did not establish a judicial or executive branch. If not, then there were no constitutions prior to the U.S. Constitution. I have argued that the current Constitution is the only 'constitution' in U.S. history. However, there is a plausible (though in my opinion, weak) argument that the Articles were a governing document sufficient to be defined as a 'constitution'. As I've indicated, the definition is arguable and therefore I will not make any changes without further discussion that reaches consensus. American In Brazil (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant "generally." >>>>NocturnalDef NocturnalDef (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh??? American In Brazil (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Democracy Vs. Republic

To Whom It May Concern,

It is a common misconception that the United States of America is a democracy. According to Diffen.com, the United States of America is a republic. I'm not very good at knowing whether or not a source is reliable. Can one of you please check the following source: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic. The reason I am mentioning this is because, in the section before the "Etymology" section, it first says it's a republic, and then it says it's a democracy. I just want the article to be consistent. Thank you, in advance.

Sincerely,

Daniel Klimovich

Daniel Klimovich (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Daniel Klimovich

The two forms of government are not mutually exclusive, there is plenty of room for overlap. See Democratic republic.

Also, Wikipedia tends to stick with professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources where possible. Diffen can be edited by anyone, so it fails our reliable sourcing policies because it is a user-generated source. Academic sources specifically about American politics (or even history) would be more appropriate sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

The map about "ancestry" is ridiculous because it is not possible to compare "Mexican" or "German" ancestry with "African" ancestry as "Africa is not a country". You can compare "European" ancestry with "African" ancestry, but not "German" or "Mexican" or "French" ancestry with "African" ancestry. It only could be with "Nigerian" ancestry, "Kenyan" ancestry, "Algerian" ancestry etc.--213.60.237.52 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The ancestry is all self-reported. If you have an issue with it, you should contact the census bureau. --Golbez (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, most Americans of African ancestry have no way of knowing what part or parts of Africa their ancestors came from. --Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing period in intro

I can’t edit because the article is protected, but there is a grammar error in the first paragraph. There should be a period between “third-most populous country” and “A ‘nation of immigrants’.

That is all. Chaws1 (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed, though that sentence needs work. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I removed that as it seemed to be focusing on a new article created by the new member and may not be appropriate without a strong citation for the exact claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We really do need to expand our coverage of immigration in the united States however...the article does seem lacking in that regard.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Addition to lede

A recent addition was made that I objected to only in that it does not sufficiently summarize content from the article and I believe needs direct sourcing to include;

"A "nation of immigrants", America's population is almost exclusively made up of the descendants of immigrants from a high variety of nations and peoples."

Thougts?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if the claim of the united States as a nation of immigrants is a solid fact. I am also not sure if the insertion of the material is political in nature and as such might be contentious.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I object to any vague reference to "diversity" and "large-scale immigration from many countries" without the specific legislation that allowed and fostered it: the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The arrival of Latin Americans, South and East Asians, Africans etc., as immigrants happened—and it only happened—after that bill's passage by the U.S. Congress. Previous white, European, Christian or Jewish immigration is not "diversity" as Americans think of it today. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a fraught assertionA "nation of immigrants", America's population is almost exclusively made up of the descendants of immigrants from a high variety of nations and peoples]].

• There is a meme going 'round that Africans brought over chained in slave ships were 'immigrants'.
• Annexation of territories by the U.S. brought many citizens of other nations involuntarily under the U.S. government: by purchase—Lousiana Purchase, Gadsen Purchase, Alaska; and by war—Texas, California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico (I've omitted some transfers).

The added sentence summarizes neither U.S.history nor the body of the article accurately. There may be a possible single sentence that would not be egregiously wrong, but the deleted sentence is not it. Perhaps something on the order of how the U.S. as a nation grew in geographic extent and population—by colonialism, expropriation, importation of slaves from Africa, purchase, force of arms, and immigration—blood and sweat, voluntary and involuntary. At least that's factual and could be verifiable—but maybe not so easy to gather consensus around.

Oh, and "a high variety" is at least a ferret phrase if not entirely a weasel one. — Neonorange (Phil 01:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Lead Sentence

Currently, the lead reads:

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.)

The inconsistency between USA and U.S. seems odd. It seems like it would be more proper to have both with .'s between them both (U.S.A. and U.S.) to have it be the same, but I'm not sure if there is any prior consensus on the matter, and I wanted to bring the issue here for discussion before making an edit.

Thanks, Fritzmann2002 17:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says that when using abbreviations longer than two letters, periods are discouraged. They're even discouraged in two-letter abbreviations,"but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it". USA seems to be forbidden ("Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes)."), but it is a legitimate abbreviation and is allowed here by consensus (I've certainly argued for it). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok! That's good enough for me. Thanks, Fritzmann2002 17:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Indeterminate Grammy aware.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Native American

As explained in my edit summery, the term "Native American" is far more used to refer to the indigenous people of the U.S. rather than "American Indian". The latter also creates confusion with Indian Americans. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I had original restored the term but then realized it was the census questionnaire. That covers very specific terms and people. Although I agree the term is outdated its clearly still a question on the census. When we talk about statistical data we should be correct in conveying the terms used in the census.--Moxy (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of thing wrong with the first paragraph.

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.

These are not various possessions. They are the minor outlying islands. Why are we only mentioning the 5 inhabited territories? There are 16 total. --Wyn.junior (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone reading would think there are territories and minor outlying islands. The 9 minor outlying islands are also territories.--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making a new section pasting the intro for a single sentence. You're allowed to write more than one sentence at a time.

We are mentioning them because they warrant mention. The uninhabited territories are mentioned, as the possessions. In its wisdom, this article's community has decided that the inhabited territories are part of the country, whereas the uninhabited ones are not. So this article considers them possessions of the country rather than part of it. Furthermore, I'd argue that we don't need to, and even shouldn't, go into numeric detail on the outlying islands in the intro because it inflates their importance. Those 11 "territories" total in area less than Manhattan, and in population are near-zero.--Golbez (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Great information. Why is this information you are writing not included in the first paragraph? So the 9 minor outlying islands are the uninhabited territories.--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's included in a footnote linked from the opening sentence because it's far too extraneous info for the intro to the article. --Golbez (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The territories article should only list the 5 inhabited territories then. The articles should be renamed to Inhabited Territories of the United States and Uninhabited Territories of the United States from Territories of the United States and United States Minor Outlying Islands, respectfully.--Wyn.junior

No? They're still territories. They're just less integrated into the country than the inhabited ones, as per lengthy discussion on this talk page from years in the past. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A statistic used in two separate sections has a significantly conflicting value.

There are two separate statistics for the percent of global wealth held by Americans. The first one is listed as 33.4% in the intro paragraph. It is listed as 41.6% at the top of the Income, poverty, and wealth section.

Intro: "Though its population is only 4.3% of the world total,[33] the U.S. holds 33.4% of the total wealth in the world"

Income section: "Accounting for 4.4% of the global population, Americans collectively possess 41.6% of the world's total wealth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.68.203.43 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

amerika e kur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.47.83.110 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Declined request - you dont seem to have actually made an edit request. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"America" redirects here

When you type "America" in the search engine, it takes you here, instead of taking you to the page about the continent of the Americas. I believe this is a serious - and very chauvinistic - mistake. It is an insult to the millons of americans who don't live in the U.S.A. It is as if "Europe" will take to the page about the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.245.150 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read the frquently asked questions (Q9) above for an explanation of why America redirects here, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2018

There are lots of broken outgoing links on this page.. I'id like to either make them correct or remove if correct link doesn't exist Sahil7459 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Drives on left

Drivers on left Tharealmaya (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox already says drives on the right, if you are suggesting a change then you will need to make your request clearer and provide a reliable source. Although it is unlikely they have changed overnight. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The original poster is probably just confused as to what the infobox field means. The "drives on right" designation refers to which side of the road a vehicle travels on. However, the actual driver is on the left side of the vehicle. I know I was confused the first time I encountered the "drives on right/left" nomenclature as I had always considered the difference from the perspective of driver position, not vehicle position.--Khajidha (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Dominant ancestry in each state" graphic

In the graphic about the "dominant ancestry in each state" it refers to "African" while anybody in the rest of the World knows that "Africa" is not a country but many countries. If they mean "Black", then there should be also "White" (which is the domiant ancestry in those Southern states too)...and if they mean "country of ancestry" then use "Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, Angola..." the same way as they use "Germany, Ireland, Italy..." etc. Otherwise it is ridiculous.--213.60.237.52 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all: That's self-reported. So we couldn't change that if we wanted, because that's exactly what the data says. Secondly: Perhaps you've heard of slavery? We had it. A lot of it. The vast majority of black people in the United States can't trace back any more detailed than "Africa", because they have no way of knowing. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

America is an oligarchy

The type of government listed is inaccurate. America is now an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B --Platocres (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No. One source does not overrule everything else. (also, isn't it interesting how 100% of the people who propose this are new users with no other interest in wikipedia? hm) --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Improper ethnicity percentage order in infobox

In the infobox on the right, in the ethnicity tab, the minority (Hispanic & Latinos) is on top, whereas the majority (Non-Hispanics & Latinos) is on bottom. Shouldn't it be like race where the larger percentage is on top? Sorry if this seems unimportant, it's just bothering me. If you could, fix please.

(NitrocideWP (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" bother me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. --Golbez (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Imbalance of Photographs

The preponderance of photographs used in this article shows images of New York. Apart from photos of the President and Vice-President, 10 out of 35 photographs are dedicated to New York. This represents a staggering 28%. The majority of other US states have absolutely no photographic representation at all in this good-rated article. The currently skewed situation should be better balanced, especially for an article named United States. New York certainly has an important place here, but not taking up more than a quarter of the total photographs. I leave it to American Wiki editors who certainly know their country better than I do to rectify this. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that 28% of the photos being of New York is "staggering". A tremendous amount of history of the country has taken place there. You say you think New York having a lot of pictures is bad, then say you don't know the country well enough to know how to fix it, which ... I guess you're allowed to have that position, but it's not a great one. We probably aren't going to add more pictures - the article is crowded as is - so I guess it's a matter of removing pictures. The least helpful one is of Rockefeller Center, or maybe NY Presbyterian, but then that section would have no picture. Texas Medical Center would be a good option. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I do think that some other cities could use some increased representation; without taking up too much more space in the article. I think that a few more city skyline images could be used in the leading population centers table, maybe adding Houston and DC and shrinking the image sizes might be a good idea? Fritzmann2002 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States}}? The convention with "largest cities in x" templates is to display images for the four largest cities, although since the US article is using a custom version, it can certainly be tweaked. There is a proposal above to standardize on one of the versions based on {{Largest cities}} listed in the sandbox, which may affect this. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 22:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I think that instead of just 4 images the template could easily fit 5-7 images. The images don't need to be huge; if you really want to see the skylines you can click on the thumbnail. Having more would balance out how few cities are represented in the article. Fritzmann2002 17:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the photos on this article have a pretty tight consensus. Additions can be made if they are agreed on but changes should not be attempted until editors understand the outcome of several image discussion that were very detailed.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The number of photos taken in New York has now risen to 11; almost one third of the total photos in this article. It's moving in the wrong direction. I haven't seen any consensus for this over-representation. We can open it up to a larger group to look at if that would be helpful. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You still have not demonstrated how it's over-representative. What proportion should New York be? --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This has already been demonstrated with statistics. Perhaps a table would be easier.

Break down of photos demonstrating the disproportionate number from New York

Photo content	Number of photos	Percentage of total photos
New York	11	30.5%
8 other states represented*	17	47.2%
Misc. (Food, sports, portraits, etc.)	8	22.2%
41 States not represented at all	0	0%

_{*Including: District of Columbia, Mississippi, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Texas, Virginia}

_{N.B. This table does not include, paintings, satellite imagery, or maps}

The current article is missing photographs of 82% percent of the States, while New York has not 1, but 11. That is disproportionate. The article's title is United States. New York does have its own page. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have not demonstrated how New York is over-represented, because as I see it, it's properly represented considering the amount of history that's happened there, and the importance it still has in the country. So I ask again: Instead of telling us what you think an incorrect proportion is, how about telling us what you think a correct proportion would be? --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For reasons already given, it is not for me to suggest how many photos of New York should be included. Moreover, it is not the point I raised. The problem is one of disproportion. If you do not believe that the article could benefit from the addition of other photos selected from the remaining 41 states, then perhaps other editors do. Some contenders might be: Massachusetts (Boston, MIT), Alaska (Gold Rush, natural gas & oil, wildlife, Mount Denali), Michigan (Detroit, Ford factory), Washington State (Boeing, Starbucks, killer whales), Louisiana (Mardi Gras), and Montana (Rocky mountains). These ideas are meant to be a springboard, not a list to be shot down. “Contribute and let go” is my editing philosophy. Our input in this discussion is getting repetitive. It might be better now to leave it to others. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I am an educated layman and rare editor of Wiki, but I do understand much of the way a wiki works.) I am with Verity. As an American in the midwest, just a few hours from Chicago, I'm in the middle of the country and see/hear a lot about all areas with a mild mainstream perspective. And having 30% of all the pictures in an article about a large country/world power all be from one state is kinda ridiculous. I mean, New York is very important as far as history is concerned. But that is somewhat moot as this is not the History of the United States article. And it may be one of the most important US states (about 8% of the US GDP is made up in NYC alone.) But, as much as I don't care for the culture of California, it actually is the number one in population and agriculture, and contributes more to our culture and country by way of silicon valley, Hollywood, a staggering number of Fortune 500 companies, etc. Texas is another example of an extremely important state for it's oil and other natural resources, history, among many other things. And if you want to talk about history... Pennsylvania has more to do with the founding and building of the nation than all other states combined. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War and beyond.

So, yeah, New York is over-represented in the images department. It would be like going over to the Italian Cuisine article and finding 30% of their pictures were of pasta dishes. Yes, pasta is a large part of Italian cuisine, and it may be what most outsiders know it for, but wouldn't warrant nearly a 1/3 of it. Just my $0.02. 98.215.130.156 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If one town in Italy invented spaghetti, pizza, and parmesan cheese, you might see pictures of that town unduly represented at an article on Italian cuisine. The New York pictures aren't just limited to one state, they're of one town. The ones that are questionable are those of the NYPD cruiser, the large hospital, and ABC headquarters, none of which are as iconic on a national, or even international, scale as the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, Wall Street, Broadway, the World Trade Center, the Chrysler and Empire State buildings, and the United Nations buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhtwiki (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

America is an oligarchy

The type of government listed is inaccurate. America is now an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B --Platocres (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No. One source does not overrule everything else. (also, isn't it interesting how 100% of the people who propose this are new users with no other interest in wikipedia? hm) --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Improper ethnicity percentage order in infobox

In the infobox on the right, in the ethnicity tab, the minority (Hispanic & Latinos) is on top, whereas the majority (Non-Hispanics & Latinos) is on bottom. Shouldn't it be like race where the larger percentage is on top? Sorry if this seems unimportant, it's just bothering me. If you could, fix please.

(NitrocideWP (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" bother me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. --Golbez (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Elite oligarchy vs democracy

A study has shown that the United States is more of an elite oligarchy than a democracy: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Should this be incorporated into the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why a single study from four years ago, reported on by an outlet naturally biased towards its conclusions, is worthy of inclusion. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It is already included in the section on poverty and income. As a major academic study I would argue it is worthy of inclusion, certainly more so than some of the polemical articles which were cited in rebuttal.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say it is worthy of inclusion. The article does not state the United States is a democracy but rather a "federal republic". How can wikipedia editors judge the study's conclusions were "naturally biased" ? Maybe add something to this effect: "A 2014 scientific study concluded that the United States was an elite oligarchy controlled by the wealthy, rather than a democracy." The two links I cited would be used as source references. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the Largest Cities in the US template

I have made an alternative version of {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States}} at {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States/sandbox}}. The new version is based on {{Largest cities}} and would provide consistency with many other country articles also using this type of template. Should we replace the template with the version in the sandbox? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 23:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What are the advantages to using the {{Largest cities}} template? I don't like the images being on both outside margins and the smaller print. Can formatting be modified? Dhtwiki (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Images in these template are to small to be recognizable or useful in any anyway. --Moxy (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Mainly consistency. The template is currently configured with class=nav which is the navbox class. Leaving it empty gives a more infobox-like color scheme. Actually, I went ahead and did that.

I wouldn't change for mere usage consistency unless the new template promises to be more feature-rich, such as automatically updating itself; and I don't see much ability to specify that, or formatting, at the template documentation. I'm with Moxy on the relative uselessness of the images, and I see that they don't have to be specified. However, I don't see a place to specify a larger text size that the default used. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: That is easily solved by clicking on them. The template would take up far too much space if they were larger anyway. They could be left out completely as well. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 00:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear.....yes no images is best....like FA article Canada Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of Canada.--Moxy (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm personally not attached to them, so removing them is easily done. Although, it does make the template seem a bit more empty without them. The sandbox shows both versions now. Anyone else have comments on the proposed replacement? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is attached to all images on the article. Removal should only be attempted with a full discussion and new consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned with swapping the existing version with the standardized version. Removing the images is not dependent on that and can be done with a separate discussion, if someone feels the need for it. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that I look, I'm not sure that template was on the page for that last major image discussion anyway so....--Mark Miller (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in on the proposed replacement? Note that changing or removing the images is orthogonal to this proposal. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I like the Navbox style the best. However, I think the text size does need to be a little bit bigger; i.e. more on par with the standard tables' text size. I also think more skyline images could be fit in, at least 3 or 4 per side. I think this would help out with the imbalance of photographs as mentioned below in the other discussions. Fritzmann2002 15:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Images...again

I have removed the "Treaty of Penn with the American Indians" as it replaced an image that had actual context to the precise section it was in and the new painting is merely decorative and not mentioned.

We are having some images replaced that have strong consensus so I am going to check the last discussion to be sure the correct images are still in place.

Thoughts and/or discussion on images or what should be replaced or removed?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, looking through the history a lot has been added and replaced without a lot of discussion but there has been silent consensus. For the moment I am not changing or removing anything else but I replaced the Law enforcement vehicle to the last consensus discussion as that apears to still hold as I see no discussion to replace that.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a bunch of new images added which I removed because it was a bulk addition of far too many at once without a discussion on whether the mostly graphic map additions are needed or sourced properly etc.. I tried to rescue one photo of Martin Luther King Jr but a quick check of the copyright status on Commons shows that this might have been an accidental flicker washing by a historical society which has removed the image. I don't believe the Historical society owns the rights to the image to release it.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest adding these two pictures [1]. See page history for comparison: August 2017, August 2016, August 2015, August 2014, August 2013, August 2012, August 2011, August 2010, August 2009, August 2008. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Map of the British and French settlements in North America in 1750, before the French and Indian War
• 
  U.S. territorial acquisitions–portions of each territory were granted statehood since the 18th century.

• There appears to be sourcing issues with the first map. The second map has been marked as having probably errors.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

First map is flawed, too. It shows empty Spanish territories. It leaves out the two Spanish cities, Santa Fe (1610) and San Agustín (1565), as well as several military forts and missions. Rather egregious considering the nice detail of English- and French-held land. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: @Mason.Jones: The second map looks fine, I don't see any errors. The map was published by the United States Department of the Interior. As for the first map, unfortunately I don't know how to modify it. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What about these pictures?

• 
  Map of the British and French settlements in North America in 1750, before the French and Indian War
• 
  United States territorial growth from 1840 to 1850
• 
  United States territorial growth from 1810 to 1920

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

First one's better, though key Spanish forts and missions are still missing. German map labels must appear as "Canada," "Acadie," "Newfoundland," plus 3 bodies of water changed to English. "St. Augustine" should appear in Spanish, "San Agustín," and Albuquerque should have its original Spanish name "Alburquerque" (which lost its first "r" after N.M. became a U.S. territory). Also, "Santa Fe" (not "Santa Fé"}. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious, do you have a source on when Albuquerque lost the R? Our own article just says it lost it at some point, without specifying American acquisition. --Golbez (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• anybody look in [2].--Moxy (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That first map (British, French, Spanish settlements) is an excellent historical aid. Wish we could include it (with above copyedits) under European Settlements section. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Golbez, you are the curious type. As the map labels show the original names given by the European settlers, it must be Alburquerque, from Villa de Alburquerque, named for Spain's royal administrator at the time. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, but you said it lost the R when the city was acquired by the US, I was wondering if you had more info on that. --Golbez (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Lots of theories, but the one most cited is the 19th-century (gringo) painter who got the sign wrong for the N.M. railroad authority. From Albuqerque's Sister Cities site (from a 2005 article published in the Albuquerque Journal): [3] Mason.Jones (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Other useful maps:

• The Thirteen Colonies and neighboring polities in 1748
  The Thirteen Colonies and neighboring polities in 1748
• 
  Map of the states and territories of the United States, c. 1834

-- Tobby72 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)