Jump to content

Talk:United States/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

I would like to edit this article. I noticed that it does not include the names of the 50 states or any of the statistics of any of the states. JoshuaKingofasgard (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.

Please note that the information you mention is listed in the section Political divisions which includes the links to

Main articles: Political divisions of the United States, U.S. state, Territories of the United States, and List of states and territories of the United States
Further information: Territorial evolution of the United States and United States territorial acquisitions

We do not want to repeat all of that information on this page, the article is long enough already. - Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

U.S. as an abbreviation

Is it possible that one might add U.S. as an abbreviation as well as US for United States in the introduction of the article? It is "U.S." which is represented in particular on the official seal of the United States House of Representatives. Freddiem (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Abbreviation#Miscellanea provides guidance – "U.S." or "US" is acceptable. Both are mentioned a bit lower in the article and this particular item is not significant enough for a more prominent explanation. "U.S." is used consistently in the article (except for quotes and article titles). – S. Rich (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Creed"

I am restoring this section from the most recent archive because it warrants further discussion. EllenCT (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Americans have traditionally been characterized by a strong work ethic, competitiveness, and individualism, as well as a unifying belief in an 'American Creed' emphasizing liberty, equality, private property, democracy, rule of law, and a preference for limited government," is sourced to a 2004 unreviewed monograph about "challenges to national identity." Since the peer reviewed secondary sources disagree with multiple aspects including equality and democracy, the so-called creed is itself an exceptional WP:REDFLAG claim which should be removed. The "preference for limited government" is particularly suspect because private sector rent seeking is enabled by special interest laws and regulations, which the US has in greater abundance than any other nation. EllenCT (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you specify what are the 'multiple aspects' please. And who are the sources that say Americans do not have a belief in equality, democracy, etc.? Who are the sources that say Americans do not prefer limited government? The passage you quote talks about what Americans believe and prefer, not about what actually exists. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC) PS: Ah, yes. It was Simon & Schuster the published the 2004 monograph by Samuel P. Huntington. A bloody flag to be sure. 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that Huntington was one of the nation's most prominent political scientists for several decades (not that it matters; the claim is as pervasive and mainstream as it's possible to get in political science), actually isn't your study premised on the same assumptions, that Americans believe in equality and democracy, hence the point of doing the study? VictorD7 (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Victor, when you say "your study", what are you referring to? If you mean something that Ellen has in mind, it will help to see her cite the peer reviewed secondary sources. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the only source on the matter I've seen her produce, the "oligarchy" study above. VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The peer reviewed #Charts corroborate the Princeton study. Do you know of any reliable sources suggesting that the American middle class has as much political power as the top 1%, or anything even vaguely similar? EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Sidestepping your irrelevant question, I'll again remind you that your study doesn't address this issue. You're confusing the topic about principles that are traditionally widely embraced and celebrated in American culture with the topic of how a political system should be described. VictorD7 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Americans believe in democracy the same way that people at the poles believe in sunlight for half the year. EllenCT (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Arctic dwellers didn't invent the sun for the modern world, and aren't traditionally associated with it by themselves and others. The sun isn't considered a major part of Arctic culture. VictorD7 (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Jeez! The thread was opened and titled "Creed". The initial indication is that the sourced material about what Americans believe in is not based on RS. (E.g. Ellen seems to say that Americans do not have some general belief in these different aspects of American democracy and/or culture.) So, what is the RS to the contrary? Posting a link to charts or to a Princeton study or posting hypothetical questions as to what people believe about sunshine at the poles does not, DOES NOT, DOES NOT enhance article improvement with regard to the "Creed" that Americans believe (or don't believe) in. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that an unreviewed monograph can not be challenged unless there is a reliable source to the contrary? It's jingoism and biased as such. It is the burden of those who wish to include challenged statements to find support for them. I don't need to find sources contrary to such nationalistic jingoism. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you look at Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity and consider whether it is a "monograph". With this in mind, your characterization of the 448 page book is not on target. You brought up this thread with the heading "Creed" and you suggested that the support for the line (about what American believe) was not RS. Now, without counter-RS, coming here to characterize the book as jingoism & biased is not helpful. Please post RS that says that American do not believe in such & such, and then the thread can move forward. IOT, challenging a statement does not work unless you have something to back up your challenge. – S. Rich (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
How is it not a monograph? The "creed" it suggests isn't rooted in research, it's just one author's opinion without any relation or substantial correspondence to the official creed approved by Congress which says nothing about democracy or preference for limited government. You know what is even less helpful? Failing to produce a reliable source supporting challenged text. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I like multiple quality sources generally, when something is challenged, it needs corroboration.
Alexander Keyssar in "The Right to Vote: the contested history of Democracy in the United States" (2009) suggests the ideals of voting expansion to universal adult suffrage are realized as a result of party competition, increasing and decreasing over time, that however well received it is at this modern day, democracy is a project which "has never been unanimously embraced in the United States, but it has animated and shaped a great deal of our history.”
The ideal continues to inspire as it is the U.S. chosen mechanism for ensuring individual rights, equal opportunity and a federal republic, sort of like it says in the official creed approved by Congress, belief in a "United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic". --- That surely says something "about democracy" in the American creed to be included in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to American's Creed. Please see the article improvements made incorporating that link. (BTW, if you are going to object to text supported by sourced material (such as the Huntington book), you've got to come up with other RS that supports the objection.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
What does it even mean to say that Americans believe in democracy but not astroturf or gerrymandering? Clearly the Americans who brought about the latter believe in them enough to have voted, spent, or lobbied for them. If the House of Representatives says that Americans believe in declining economic growth, wasteful insurance spending, infrastructure neglect, and an uneducated workforce, would that be suitable for inclusion? Do any of our other articles about political geographic divisions assign a single creed to hundreds of millions of people at a time? It is unwarranted article bloat and should be removed in favor of a one sentence #Health by political preference summary. EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You started this thread with the title "Creed". And you quoted the one sentence that mentions creed. One sentence, supported by RS, is not bloat. That one sentence is important to the article and your comments have prompted improvements. If there are other sentences that need improvement – such as those dealing with astroturf, gerrymandering, economic growth, etc., then please make improvements and/or raise them as topics for discussion. (Tying these topics into the American creed topic is not helpful.) But I do not think you will find much community support to remove that one sentence about the American creed. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is a subjective creed more worthy of inclusion than objective health outcomes by political preference? EllenCT (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Because unlike other nations bound by race, religion or repression, the United States is the idea of a federal republic [insert creed]…which is held substantially in common among the population. Where is it not?
You are correct it does not apply to extralegal “militia” interfering by force of arms with punitive collections by the federal government. Recently an individual who has not paid millions in grazing fees owed, insists on not paying the outrageously below-market fees for grazing on federal lands. He sees grazing without pay -- literally feeding at the public trough -- as a God-given right higher than the Constitution, because he does not choose to recognize the legitimacy of the United States Government.
But likeminded WP:FRINGE outliers should not dictate editorial policy here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not anywhere near what I asked. It's inaccurate to say all Americans believe the Creed because the House of Representatives said so. They don't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It would be much better to describe objective health outcomes by political preference.[1][2] EllenCT (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is the connection between objective health outcomes by political preference and "Creed"? Posting the motherjones & researchgate links does nothing to clarify the issue. You seemed to say there were "multiple aspects" about the creed that differed from what Huntington said. These two links do not address the subject of the American Creed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@EllenCT: The House of Representatives is noted in the citation, it represents the people of the United States, unless you are a Nevada militiaman denying USG legitimacy. Okay. Never mind the fundamental question whether a republic is legitimate merely on a widely-held conception of liberty, equality and self-determination, apart from most of the world's state-sponsored religion, ethnicity or repression.
It may help if you think of Congressional Joint Resolutions as a two-tiered stratified random sampling of the population, with the House stratified by equal population segments, and the Senate stratified by meaningful political communities of people (states). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If the French legislature resolved in 1920 that the French enjoy wine and cheese, we would include objective measurements of the amount of actual economic outcomes, i.e., how many euros were spent on how much of which kinds of cheese, in preference to reiterating the subjective resolution of beliefs from decades ago which may have been representative then but isn't today. Actions speak louder than words. Whether there is a more direct conection between a declared creed and objective health outcomes does not change the fact that subjective creed resolutions are not noteworthy compared to objective data pertinent to the subject of the article. EllenCT (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
This stuff about French wine & cheese and health outcomes and NV militia wackos and whatever have nothing to do with the "American Creed" or the "American's Creed". If there were some focused concern about the paragraph which contains the Creed material, then please discuss it. E.g., if there is material which explicitly and directly contradicts the American Creed description, then that material with backup from reliable sources should be discussed, Without such material and sources that can be discussed from editing perspectives (and not other perspectives), then this thread is disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Should this be added?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/oligarchy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.228 (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Worker Productivity

This edit was reverted, so I will discuss it on the talk page. The reference given for this information is 8 years old, and current worldbank/cia data indicates that this is no longer the case, and the USA is 4th in productivity. I intend to remove the information, but if people think it is better to modify it to say 4th, thats good too. This article has a rundown of "productivity", although obviously if people felt that the information should be changed, the reference would have to be worldbank/cia itself. The problem is that this ref would just be a list of figures with no mention of the actual quantity, as "productivity" is derived from the data on the page. This is why I thought it would be best to delete. Benboy00 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, from what I can tell looking at the wiki page on Productivity, thats not the only measure, and the only reason that the info was there is because there was a news article on it. I cant seem to find a more recent news article on that topic, so if someone else can that would be helpful, otherwise it might be better to delete. Benboy00 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't think 4th is "high"? Over the decades the USA has ranked at or near the top in every study of worker productivity I've seen, and every source presented here. It was common knowledge among economists since long before the source currently used in the article was published and still is. We don't need specific rankings there. The preceding portion of the sentence states that the economy is "fueled by an abundance of natural resources". Keeping those items appropriately vague (but accurate) is probably the best way to go, since doing so enhances article stability. There's certainly no cause for deleting the noteworthy economic factor. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I aplogise, I thought it still said "highest". In that case, I will simply add a ref to the latest worldbank data. Benboy00 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What now?

I'd like to see this article reach GA, but for that to happen we must be proactive in actively improving the article. With that said, what should the next short-term goal be in the improvement of this article? What still needs to be done? --Philpill691 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's the most pressing concern, but from a GA standpoint (judging by comments from the old reviews) at some point we should examine sources. Not necessarily adding sources (not everything needs sourcing), but checking to make sure they belong and are in the right place, especially in the History section. Some current ones may be vestigial remnants once attached to since deleted prose. VictorD7 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Should I add the United States UNOCHA map?

I've been seeing UNOCHA maps that are popping up in country articles like Bangladesh and China. Should I add a UNOCHA map (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_-_Location_Map_(2013)_-_USA_-_UNOCHA.svg ) for the United States article too? TehPlaneFreak! talk 07:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence it would be helpful to readers? EllenCT (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It would help readers know the major cities of the United States at a glance, but I'm not sure if that would be a constructive contribution to the United States article. TehPlaneFreak! talk 05:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
My favorite map showing the major cities of the U.S. at a glance is a satellite night-time photo of the continental U.S. The larger concentrations of light correspond in a general way to the larger population centers, and the distribution is interesting. It might be overlaid with an outline of the Census SMSAs for political mapping reference. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a great idea! But maybe we could add a note that more light signals more economic activity... TehPlaneFreak! talk 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The UNOCHA map is not going to be helpful for readers. It certainly does not show the major cities of the United States. It shows only 9 cities, two of which are Honolulu and Anchorage. It's hard to define what makes a 'major city', but neither of these are even in the top 50 by population. On the other hand, a map showing the location of cities of high population would be far more useful/informative in the cities box in Demographics than the various skyscapes are. CMD (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Differing definitions of poverty and Including the source of the definition

I noted this edit today removing attributing to poverty rates to the Census Bureau. I have not made any edits in this regard, but are different ways to measure poverty. The Census Bureau only looks at personal income, whereas other sources include a bigger picture including government programs to help with poverty. Even the Census Bureau has two different methods. Quoting the same wikipedia article (which is sourced), "The federal poverty line also excludes income other than cash income, especially welfare benefits. Thus, if food stamps and public housing were successfully raising the standard of living for poverty stricken individuals, then the poverty line figures would not shift since they do not consider the income equivalents of such entitlements.[91]" Since this is a debated topic, it makes sense IMHO to include reference to the Census Bureau in text, and not just rely on the reference. Thoughts?Mattnad (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I agree. In fact I'd go further and argue that the poverty clause doesn't belong in that lede sentence because the rest of the sentence consists of international comparisons, whereas the Census "poverty rate" isn't an internationally comparable stat. As you say, there are numerous measures of poverty, and international agencies often apply "poverty" definitions that are very different than what the US government counts as "poor" in its own population. For example, the World Bank's frequently cited poverty rate is set at living on $1.25 (PPP) or less a day, and virtually no Americans fall under that line. Stuffing the segment into that sentence risks misleading readers, especially if it's done without qualification, though even with the qualification it doesn't belong there. A few days ago I moved the poverty rate clause to the Economy section, where it seemed to fit nicely with a paragraph discussing the effects of the downturn as of 2011 (the poverty rate source is for 2011). Somedifferentstuff put it back in the lede today, so I left it there and simply added the qualifier. He apparently erroneously assumed I had deleted it again, so he reverted me (as you link to), and I just reverted him pointing out that I hadn't. But we should. The material is also now in the Economy section where it belongs. It's not something that warrants repetition and is a frivolous detail for lede inclusion, which is supposed to focus on describing salient, distinctive traits amid an international backdrop, not reciting cherry-picked, US agency invented stats that don't mean anything outside of a US context and have definitions that are frequently changed by the Census anyway. Such material is relevant in certain domestic policy discussions, but not to the intro of an encyclopedic country summary article. I'll add that, while many nation article ledes include international economic comparisons (e.g. IMF rankings), I'm having trouble finding any that include poverty rates. Of the several major nations I checked zero did, not even Mexico or Russia. VictorD7 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The material is no longer U.S. centric but comparable. It is now sourced to the OECD[3] like everything else in the sentence. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the poverty change because it's a relative pov. measure, which is essentially just another way of showing inequality, which is already covered by the preceding segment. It's even more misleading and less deserving of inclusion here than the Census version. For example, Poland has a lower relative "poverty" rate than the USA (meaning it's more equal), while virtually the entire Polish population would fall below the USA poverty rate. At least the Census version says something about poverty in absolute terms (as do the international measures I described earlier), even if it's not internationally comparable and probably doesn't belong in that particular sentence either. By including both the relative poverty and inequality segment we're basically just repeating ourselves in a lede that's already widely seen as too long anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Creed vs. health outcomes by political preference

Original poster has performed a self-close on the original RFC. On the original RFC, consensus was against the idea to replace the "Creed" section with a "Health outcomes" section in the article. The new "alternative proposal" subsection is not set forth as an RFC and is posed as a conjunctive "Should source A and source B both be included [in the article text]" which is not a helpful RFC. (Article text must be evaluated in context.) Also, the sources mentioned in the "alternative proposal" have been linked for discussion and commented upon, but no consensus developed regarding them. Suggest that "alternative proposal" be reworded and set forth as a new, independent RFC. (Non-admin closure.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-closed RFC. Please forgive me if I don't use the contrast-unhancing template. EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Should the Creed be replaced with a discussion of health outcomes by political preference?[4] 23:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes because a congressional resolution passed almost a century ago which makes sweeping generalizations about the subjective goals and motivations of all Americans is unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, and should be replaced with an objective discussion of the outcomes associated with individual political preferences. EllenCT (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No Mattnad (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No I am for both. Interactive effects of liberalism by state actors and social capital by private actors on health, seem inversely proportional. Liberalism has greater impact on good health where there is less social capital, and social capital has greater impact on good health where there is less liberalism. (Herian, Tay, Hamm and Diener 2014) The prescription for better health using various combinations of state and private actors is sorted out in the democratic laboratories of the states in a federal Union, sort of what the Creed explains. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. The suggestions below that this is not a fertile and ongoing research theme are clearly incorrect. That the subject is touchy makes it all that more important to address squarely, no matter how many troutings are suggested. EllenCT (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternate proposal

Should [5] and [6] both be included in a discussion of Americans' outcomes by preferences? EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No your first link has been overwhelmingly rejected by multiple RFCs now and your second link isn't any more relevant to this article. VictorD7 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to reword this as requested above: Why should health outcomes by political preference and M.D. contributions by political preference and specialty not be a noteworthy aspect of major nations? I would like to read input from editors who are willing to discuss the merits of either or both sources. I am not interested in discussions which amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Continuing to push for this, despite near universal consensus not to include it, is disruptive. Calidum Talk To Me 02:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Calidum Talk To Me 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The two articles suggest two different dimensions of particular interests developing in different environments of health care. One relates to the surrounding culture of medical practice, with varying proportions of public (liberal) versus private (social income) inputs. The other article relates to the practitioners of medical providers, showing varying proportions supporting political parties, by specialty, gender and employment.
Both articles are generally addressed in the discussion at Politics of the United States in the section on ‘Political pressure groups'. There the article use would probably be limited to choosing them as examples of political pressure groups. I think that the first can show how the nation divides on something like the Affordable Health Care vote in Congress. The second can demonstrate how a profession can divide within the same industry.
We see health policy outcomes are dictated by political preference, but now over time, we will be able to see whether outcomes of community health itself will now be dictated by political preference. Texas in particular offers a large and diverse test case of a state making a clear choice to depend on its health care by emphasizing private contributions. After a while, when results of policy differences are clear in public health outcome variations, I would want the related political preferences and their correlated public health outcomes noted here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
One is a poorly constructed partisan talking point heavily criticized on methodological grounds (among countless other problems, results seem to correlate more with geographical region and ethnic breakdown than with state ideology; plus the article actually lists conservative high scoring health states like the Dakotas and Alaska as "moderate" rather than "conservative"), while the other simply shows male physicians and surgeons skew Republican while female physicians and pediatricians skew Democrat (at least in political donations, donors being a small percentage of physicians). Why focus on healthcare rather than other professions? How about a breakdown of political preference among military personnel, engineers, university professors, reporters, cops, small business owners, etc.? Just because some people may find a certain niche topic interesting doesn't mean it belongs in a broad country summary article. VictorD7 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, the health care policy concern interest does not belong in a broad summary article until we can see whether policy outcomes result in significantly different health results, and at that point, that impulse to consider health care choices as a topic will be descriptive of the general population, rather than an aside about interest groups influencing policy one way or the other. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Images that lack relevance to the section or article

I replaced a number of images in preparation for GA review per Wikipedia:Image use policy "Content" (bolding for emphasis): "[Images] should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article."

General discussion



It's already being discussed below. By far the best new picture proposed for the Science section is a spaceship photo. Do we really want two spaceship section images? It's more appropriate there than here, plus it's a much better image. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (cold war)

in the "Cold War and Civil Rights era" section there is no mention of Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev or Geneva in the article.

  • (edtit for clarity) Ronald Reagan is mentioned in the prose with:"President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free-market oriented reforms.". So an image of Reagan would have context if it were attempting to illustrate that concept. But this simply added an image of Reagan with a different subject matter not discussed in the article. it would still appear that the bases of the argument to illustrate the article with images directly relevant still holds but that an image of Reagan, just to have an image of Reagan in some other manner wouldn't be acceptable and I still strongly feel that image is not relevant. But an image of Reagan in context to the mention would be fine and I would support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually that's still wrong. The following sentence reads Following the collapse of détente, he abandoned "containment" and initiated the more aggressive "rollback" strategy towards the USSR. That and the economic segment were one sentence, but victor falk split it up. A couple of lines later we have....The late 1980s brought a "thaw" in relations with the USSR, and its collapse in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. So the current picture is perfectly in context. In fact it represents the section better than anything else proposed. VictorD7 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope. You have me there. I don't know why I didn't catch that but I did not. You are 100% correct and I will strike out my comments. I owe you an apology VictorD7. You were right and I was very wrong on that part. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
US President Ronald Reagan (left) and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, meeting in Geneva in 1985.

I replaced the image with one that has direct relevance to the article and section:

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-30483-002, Warschau, Konferenz Europäischer Länder....jpg
The Warsaw Pact conference, 11 May 1955, Warsaw, Poland.

Support the removal, but the new pic is too small to really add any value. Suggest either

this image of two famous civil rights leaders or

an image of the March on Washington. Gamaliel (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh my....I could go for either of those images suggested by Gamaliel but if I had to choose I suppose the MLK and Malcolm X image has the better encyclopedic value....but then the other is pretty darn good as well. either would work for me though.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem with the Warsaw Pact image is that it is a meeting of Warsaw Pact nations and thus has much less relevance to images directly pertaining to the US, such as the one with Reagan. I added a third image of MLK Jr., one which I remember being in the article for quite some time before being replaced. The image with Malcolm X is unfit for inclusion based on Mark's criteria because Malcolm X is not specifically mentioned in the body of the section. Cadiomals (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ronald Reagan is explicitly mentioned in the section. Did you not even read it? The late 1980s "thaw" in US/Soviet relations is also mentioned, so the current picture is perfectly in context. If we can only have one picture per section it should be Cold War related since the section spends more time on that than civil rights, and since that had more global impact than the domestic civil rights movements. VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I'm talking to myself. HELLO....HEllo...hello....ECHO...ECho...echo....Can I at least get someone to acknowledge that the section op's claim and premise is factually inaccurate? VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL! No VictorD7, I have been trying to disengage from the dispute, but caught your comment below in the science section. If Reagan was mentioned I missed that and went over the section a number of times to find it. I will look again.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If you had an image of Reagan, like a portrait and just captioned it with his name that would be fine, but mentioning Reagan is not license to stick in an image with different concepts not mentioned. But what still holds true is that we can add the context but just using any image because we feel it fits is not right. There has to be direct context, so...no, I wasn't entirely wrong with removing the image and replacing it with something that does have a direct mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest the following Apollo-Soyouz picture:

File:Astp-S75-25823.jpg See better alternative below walk victor falk talk 00:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The 1970s are given very short shrift in the section, almost to the point of wp:undue. This picture restores the balance somewhat.
  • It is hugely emblematic of both the Cold War and the Space Race and how those two things were tightly intertwined.
  • It depicts an actual historical event, the first international space rendez-vous.
  • It more than compensates for the removal of Armstrong's portrait in representing space exploration, which is by far the worst alternative for the science section.
walk victor falk talk 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that this image is of lower quality than the more profound images above. Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer king and X. It really is an iconic image. If we go with Apollo–Soyuz, I would prefer a picture of a spacecraft, not of astronauts. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we use a map of the Cold War to depict the overall situation described in the text by showing the truly global nature of the conflict:

  • This map shows the situation of the Cold War in 1959
    This map shows the situation of the Cold War in 1959
  • This map is similar to the one to the left, except it is for 1980
    This map is similar to the one to the left, except it is for 1980
  • This map also shows the Cold War in 1980, but gives China its own color, as well as some other differences
    This map also shows the Cold War in 1980, but gives China its own color, as well as some other differences

There are many maps of the Cold War on Commons, but I felt that these three were the best candidates. I would have to say the middle one is my favorite, as it depicts the situation with the guerrilla warfare and general competition in the third world (which is directly mentioned in the text) unlike the map to the left, and I generally like its color scheme more than the map to the right. Please give your opinion about whether a map would be the best image option for this subsection, and which map appeals to you the most. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's a bad idea to include a world map in a history of the United States. These would be much more relevant in a section which covers global/international history, not one on the United States. There's a broad variety of images we could include, but let's focus on what kind of image it ought to be, such as a photograph of persons, to narrow our focus. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Version of Apollo-Soyuz
The Apollo-Soyuz space rendez-vous, one of the attempts to defuse tensions between the USA and the USSR.
  • The 1970s are given very short shrift in the section, almost to the point of wp:undue. This picture restores the balance somewhat.
  • It is hugely emblematic of both the Cold War and the Space Race and how those two things were tightly intertwined.
  • It depicts an actual historical event, the first international space rendez-vous.
  • It more than compensates for the removal of Armstrong's portrait in representing space exploration, which is by far the worst alternative for the science section.
  • As User talk:Guy Macon points out, a spacecraft picture is better.
  • It has historical artistic value, being painted in a typical 1970s style.
  • Being a work of art, it makes for a more diverse and varied visual representation.
walk victor falk talk 00:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Relevant to both détente and the Space Race, and quite a unique image. Perhaps we should mention détente in the caption, such that it reads "The Apollo-Soyuz space rendezvous, one of the attempts to defuse tensions between the USA and the USSR during détente". --Philpill691 (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, especially since we're probably going to end up with a (better) spaceship picture for the science section. Detente was a burp in Cold War history that turned out to be a mirage, but it's already been added to the text, which, along with the stagflation and Vietnam mentions, give the decade adequate coverage. Plus it's a freaking painting. VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If we're going to get rid of "freaking paintings", there won't be much to illustrate anything before the Civil war. It being a painting is exactly the point, as it illustrates a period of modern art history in addition to its other merits. walk victor falk talk 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't have good photos pre-Civil War, and I don't necessarily see being a specimen of modern art history as a plus. Since the section op failed to read the section and got his facts wrong, no reason has been presented to change from the current picture. VictorD7 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for Apollo-Soyuz painting It is difficult to pick an image that says "cold war", but I think this one nails it, plus it illustrates the space race and the 70s-style art illustrates the period of time we are talking about , which are nice bonuses. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you rather have a spaceship image here or in the science section? And how does a joint space photo op in the 1970s "nail" the Cold War? Seems more like a temporary exception. VictorD7 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose World maps For this kind of article, I don't like images that make no sense without looking at the key, I don't like having to compare multiple images, and it emphasizes the wrong thing - we need to show the US-USSR cold war, not something that happened in Africa --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: How about we use one of the various images available of ICBMs? I would probably say either this or this would be the best option for this article. The constant threat of nuclear warfare was no doubt an important aspect of the Cold War, which is illustrated with either of these images. Thoughts? --Philpill691 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is there an idea that we have to change the image of Reagan and Gorbachev in the first place when almost no one has actually complained about it? No one believes in "if it ain't broke don't fix it?" Not only is it relevant and violates nothing, it clearly portrays the major relationship between the two superpowers in the Cold War as the two heads of state sitting opposite each other, and the fact that it was never changed in a highly visible article is implicit approval. Remember we could potentially add any one of an endless variety of Cold War images but we have to narrow our focus lest we prolong this discussion indefinitely with endless suggestions. Cadiomals (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
As another editor has pointed out, it doesn't matter how we got to discussing this, what is important is that we are discussing it. Seeing that others do support the replacement...we should replace it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It certainly does matter if the discussion started and occurred under false pretenses until now, though I appreciate you striking the claim at the top and admitting it was wrong. There's certainly no consensus for changing the status quo here. Best to move on and focus on other issues. VictorD7 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think an image of two politicians sitting with each other near the end of the Cold War is the most representative image we could use. I've disliked the present image for a while now but have't mentioned it until now. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not just "two politicians sitting", it's iconic leaders of each side in a high stakes diplomatic give and take at the Cold War's climax. And I agree with Cadiomals. The picture is perfectly fine, so spending time, space, and energy on this is a waste when there's so much else going on here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Philpill691: If you did not like the current image and bit your tongue until now, that's perfectly fine. But suggesting more and more kinds of images we could add will not help us reach a consensus at all, it will prolong this discussion indefinitely. We now have everything from politicians to political meetings to civil rights leaders to space missions to maps and now to ICBM's. Cadiomals (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I like the painting and I could support it as well. You seem pretty keen on adding images but sure like to bitch when others do the same as you. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In short, I’m for the Reagan-Gorbachev photo for the Cold War, MLK and Malcolm X photo for Civil Rights, oppose Apollo-Soyuz space rendezvous for the Cold War, oppose use of multiple world maps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: The "painting" was used for a joint US-USSR postage stamp issue, and thus has particular significance for US-USSR co-operation. Collect (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    And such "cooperation" does not have much significance to the section. Plus it looks like the Science section is likely headed in a spaceship photo direction. VictorD7 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (income, wealth & poverty)

I removed an image from the "Income, poverty and wealth" section that had absolutely no releveance in anyway. Just a n image of random tract houses in San Jose.

A tract housing development in San Jose, California
  • Remove,not illustrative of subject, poor esthetic quality. walk victor falk talk 05:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This image is an attempt to portray how the American "middle class" generally lives, so loosely relevant to the Income, poverty and wealth section, but since it shows generic homes it wouldn't take away much if it was removed. Cadiomals (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The current picture is very long standing and was recently supported by consensus when someone tried to replace it. If we remove anything from the section it should be the stupid "productivity" graph that was added as a misguided political talking point before the section said anything at all about productivity when most responsible article stewards weren't paying attention, the lone productivity sentence now present and sourced to an obscure partisan think tank being added later as a lame ex post facto justification. I could live with both images being removed, though I don't see anything wrong with the housing picture as it illustrates a home type uniquely common to US society. VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Getting a better picture of how you make decisions with the partisan remark but if there is truly a consensus for the image just link the discussion here and I will accept that for the moment, but I will be adding the content to any image that remains to get over the hurdles needed for GA review.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I edit with neutrality in mind. Given your behavior here you're the last person who should be leveling ad hominem attacks. I said it was supported over a proposed replacement, most recently in a section that's still on the page and that you voted in, so I won't bother linking to that. Here was where it survived the previous attempt at replacement. I'm sure there have been others. VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not buying your good faith since the lie you led the Cold War section off with has been pointed out to you multiple times now and you've refused to retract it or even acknowledge the correction. VictorD7 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt your neutrality as your bias shows clearly but I still assume good faith and have not lied about anything and if anyone should retract something you need to retract that personal attack. Just point out what it is you want retracted and why as I disengaged as much as possible on this discussion and haven't been reading all the comments. If I erred, I will retract.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Being so quick to attack my neutrality isn't doing a very good job of assuming good faith. Regardless, your Cold War section lede, your entire rationale for trying to remove the image, claimed that Reagan isn't mentioned in the article, which he clearly is. Here are three different corrective comments: [7], [8], [9]. The first two were direct responses to you; I even bolded key portions of the first in a later edit. VictorD7 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, now...we can't be arguing in a circle like this, because I could surely just say that your quick assumption of bad faith didn't give me faith in your neutrality. Lets move on. I believe you think you are being neutral, even if I don't see the same things as you.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Except I made no quick assumption, as my first unheeded link shows, but alright. Let's move on.VictorD7 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The chart is divided into the top 20% (blue), upper middle 20% (orange), middle 20% (red), and bottom 40% (green). (The net wealth of many people in the lowest 20% is negative because of debt.)[1]

Like the tract housing image until a graph on income distribution/disparity can be found, which seems to be the point of most of the narrative. The section would support one image in my view, unless our consensus is in these economics-financially related sections to allow one image and one graph per section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that this section still has issues and is likely to be further streamlined in the coming months. VictorD7 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This works for me as a replacement to tract housing. Again, the question arises whether these sections merit two images or one. One is my preference.
This editorial choice for streamlining has particular relevance in the Geography section, or "spectacular geological feature" section showcasing remote terrain unrelated to political geography, depending on how it is to be rewritten with multiple (3+) images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I also share the opinion that the section should only have one image. The wealth concentration chart is pertinent, but we should probably find a more up-to-date one rather than one from 2007. Cadiomals (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
And it is a wealth chart, not an "income" chart. Wealth is notoriously even harder to measure than things like income or tax incidence, and this chart comes from one guy's calculations based on what he admits is his own methodology (there are alternative methods). In general we should avoid relying on a single study, much less a single author's calculations, for information purporting to be precise, much less give that info the elevated status and implied authority of a visual image. For those reasons I oppose this image, especially if it's to replace the perfectly fine current image. VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The values of the pie chart correspond completely with the body text: Wealth, like income and taxes, is highly concentrated; the richest 10% of the adult population possesses 72% of the country's household wealth, while the bottom half claim only 2%. So we know now have two independent sources establishing that. walk victor falk talk 02:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not an exact match, especially for the bottom 40%, which your chart only gives 0.2% to. But that text line probably shouldn't be there either. The section was greatly expanded and screwed up by a couple of posters a while back and now has all sorts of undue emphasis and source quality issues. Much of it needs to be deleted and/or rewritten for neutrality. Quick examples - the "inequality" growth since 1976 omits the pertinent fact that the starting date was the record low for "inequality". The "household income had been increasing" sentence needs rewriting to more accurately reflect the source's data, particularly to capture the mid 2000s rise sandwiched by recession dips currently misleadingly labeled "flat". It's questionable why the "inequality" adjusted HDI is emphasized in the article rather than the primary HDI (whether either merits the focus the index gets on Wikipedia is yet another discussion). I've already discussed the "productivity" graph, which was nothing more than a poorly conceived POV attempt at a political talking point designed more for emotive than rational impact. If we replaced any current image with a distribution chart, it should be that one. The section currently pounds the "inequality" theme hard, but there are other things we could add. We could add info on how historically climbs in the top 1%'s share of income have been associated with stronger economic growth and climbs in everyone's income in absolute terms (the 1970s weren't exactly an economic glory period), the past few years being an aberrational departure from that pattern (due to the combination of rising stock market and falling median income). We could restore material on how the US went from a higher unemployment rate than the EU during the postwar period to a lower unemployment rate since the 1980s. We could restore even more pertinent facts about how the US has the highest number of millionaires and billionaires in the world (and by some measures the most millionaires per capita), which seems like a basic, appropriate thing for the article to mention in a section with "wealth" in the title. We could restore the long standing description of living standards for American "poor" that cited Census data on things like home ownership, car ownership, and household appliances. Etc.. Or we could streamline things further. Since North Korea having a lower Gini rate than the US (meaning North Korea has more "equality") shows the limitations of focusing on relative equality over absolute living standards ("2%" goes a lot further in the US than in other countries, including most European ones), we could drop most of it, including the skewed historical trend presentation, and just spend a sentence or two pointing out that the US has a wider income distribution than typical European countries (mostly because it has more successful people stretching out the top; less quintile squishing). That would fairly cover what makes the US distinctive on that front without pounding the "inequality" theme to an undue, campaign like level. Replacing the current mainstream housing image with a "wealth distribution" chart would make the emphasis even more undue, particularly when it's been ripped from what amounts to some guy's glorified blog. VictorD7 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
And even if we did add a distribution chart, it should be income, not "wealth", since at least relatively more established, better known, less partisan outfits like the CBO do income distribution calculations. VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong views on what should be included in this section, and obviously from your account different editors have very different views on what should. I just think that graphs and charts are more appropriate for a section on the economy than an example of typical American architecture. As far as I can make out the pie chart I found is correct and accurate enough, and having an illustration of wealth distribution seems adequate in a section titled "Wealth income & poverty". Now if this section was to be eliminated altogether, as I gather from what you're saying would be the wish of some involved editors, well that's another matter, and the illustrations would go away with it of course if consensus was reached for that. But as long as it's there, one cannot say "let's not include pictures in this part that we want to remove anyway", that could be considered disruptive editing. I just want to point one more thing: the 40% poorest have 0.2% and 50% have 2%, meaning the decile between 40 and 50 has 1.8%. walk victor falk talk 08:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
You didn't address any of my points, but I'm glad you don't have strong views on the matter. I'll just point out that the current picture doesn't so much represent "architecture" in style as much as typical home type, which is uniquely American, dovetails with the text segment on international comparative home size, and has educational value for international readers. By contrast a relative "wealth" chart, aside from its other deficiencies, can be misleading in an international context as it's devoid of absolute measures of wealth. Since the "inequality" campaign theme is already pounded to an undue degree in the section, let's not make it worse. I could think of countless other topics we could potentially display in chart form that don't reinforce the "inequality" theme (e.g. home size, millionaires/billionaires, living standards for US "poor", middle class living standards, caloric intake, entrepreneurial startups, international productivity, small business job creation, etc.). VictorD7 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (science)

NO ACTION
Agreement to use the luna-tics (Moon landing)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the "Science and technology" section I replaced an image with no relevance:

Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the Moon

The above image was replaced with an image that has relevance:

American inventor Thomas Edison
I have no feelings toward either image though I still prefer color. Both figures are prominent for their contribution to scientific achievements/milestones in American history. Cadiomals (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong is not mentioned nor the fact that he was the first person to walk on the moon and I also feel his contribution is not actually so much a science feat but of human endurance. Neil Armstrong was not a scientist or even an inventor. He has almost no relevance to science or technology as he didn't build the rocket, he flew in it. He was an astronaut. A great man (I actually got to wave to him and the others still in their containment chamber as they passed by my house near the flight line in Hawaii when they were being transported back to the states after the splashdown), but of no relevance to the science and technology section. I have no opinion as to color or black and white images. It isn't a matter of what I like, but what has the most relevance to the section or article.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I propose the following alternative that I put in earlier but was reverted [10]:
A Tesla Coil, generating massive electric sparks. The inventor, Nikola Tesla is sitting in the background.
  • It illustrates SCIENCE!! science, and not only a scientist.
  • The legend has links to important scientific concepts and inventions.
  • By being an idiosyncratic immigrant Serbian American inventor, Nikola Tesla is a nice illustration of the US national character at its best.
  • In contrast to most of the pictures that are mostly sedate, this image has a dynamism that is refreshing.
walk victor falk talk 06:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tesla I prefer the Tesla picture to the others. Tesla's story is equal in prestige to the other presented options. Armstrong is notable primarily as a figurehead of something much bigger than he himself, and there is negative controversy around Edison for his bad attitude. I think Tesla is a more well-liked figure, plus as Victor falk says he represents the US immigration culture, plus the picture is much different from any other used in the article which is another positive factor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I strongly support the status quo Armstrong photo. The section isn't a list of US scientists, it's a section about USA science and technology. Putting a man on the moon was an event of world shaking importance and scientific achievement, and the American who took those first steps is extremely notable. A US article would be deficient if he's not mentioned by name. That societal achievement is certainly more important than a drawing of a Tesla coil, and the picture is more informative than a mere personal portrait of Edison. The space race is explicitly mentioned in the section so the picture is perfectly in context. There is no rule that says every name and detail about a picture has to be in the text. VictorD7 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer Tesla over Armstrong or Edison, but better than any of them would be a picture of the LEM on the moon or of a Saturn 5 lifting off. More emphasis on the accomplishment, less on one of the men. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Guy's suggestion, I suggest this image. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Apollo 16
  • I'm concerned about how certain readers may perceive this image. Tesla invented in the US but he was born to Serbian parents in Croatia. I can imagine some IP or other user coming on here and saying the image should be removed because Tesla was foreign-born and arguing that he is therefore not "American" because he wasn't American-born. I've encountered many people who can't grasp America's immigrant culture/history. Should "Serbian-American" be mentioned in the caption? Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Coverage of space is covered by Apollo-Soyuz image in the cold war section. @user:Cadiomals: I think you didn't read the caption correctly, it is not mentioned there that he is Serbian American (not that such a relatively minor detail should be either in this context). walk victor falk talk 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I know it isn't, that's why I asked if it should be mentioned based on my reasoning above. Cadiomals (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, there's sure as hell no consensus for making the Apollo-Soyuz painting the Cold War image. At best you're jumping the gun, falk. I like this Apollo 16 picture for the Science section. For one thing it's an actual photo, and not a drawing of a light show. It would be a shame to lose the first human to walk on the moon, but if we're going to change this image for whatever reason (I guess the heck of it), it's better to stick with the Apollo theme since that perhaps best illustrates a singular US high tech achievement. The manned space program represents a huge array of skill and knowledge from many different fields, so the picture illustrates a societal scientific achievement. VictorD7 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Holy crap on a stick! I didn't know we had that image. I !vote for the tesla image! Very much...er...or uh,...per Guy!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
In what universe is a partially fake black and white photo of a largely useless Tesla coil better for this section than a clear, beautiful color photograph of an Apollo lander sitting on the moon, especially when Tesla isn't mentioned in the section and the space program very appropriately is? VictorD7 (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand that either. Mark has repeatedly insisted that the subjects of images within sections be directly referenced in some way within the body and he has used that justification when he attempted to change or remove several images. But neither Tesla nor developments in electricity are mentioned in the section at all, and he is enthusiastically supporting that image? How can he just change his tune like that when he was trying to force others to abide by his narrow interpretation of the image guidelines in the first place? Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
My interpretation? No...the community consensus as to image use policy...yes. Now, I read that caption and wgree the image has been manipulated and will have to reverse my !vote on that based on the fact that the image is not real.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm also still waiting for him to retract his false claim at the top of the Cold War section. VictorD7 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • While I am not directly opposed to the Tesla image itself, there is still no clear consensus for its inclusion. Tesla or electricity is not mentioned at all in the section. Neither the image or section explains how Tesla's experiments contributed to advances in understanding of electricity or electrical engineering (This image is also semi-fake since it is multiple exposure and these arcs did not all exist at the same time, but that is the least of it). Given Mark Miller's enthusiastic support for this image, he has yet to explain this apparent contradiction/inconsistency in his reasoning. So far there are 3 people in support of the Tesla image, 1 weak/lukewarm with support for an alternative, 2 not supporting it and 1 proposing an alternative. Given that the Armstrong image has existed here for over 1 1/2 years, retaining the status-quo is the norm so long as there is no agreement that it ought to be changed and what it ought to be changed to. Cadiomals (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If anything, there might be more support for the Apollo 16 picture, though most haven't clearly weighed in yet.VictorD7 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Addition: In looking through the history of the article, I found that Tesla was mentioned in the section back in 2012 but some time later was removed altogether (But given that a mention of Tesla doesn't exist now and hasn't for a while Mark is still contradicting himself). Finding the specific diff would be like finding a needle in a haystack. I have no proof of this, but I have a feeling a user removed mention of him because he was foreign-born and not all his work was done in America. Tesla later gained citizenship and I don't agree with that mindset, but still, why add an image that would potentially cause that kind of disagreement? Cadiomals (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't believe that only natural-born Americans are allowed in this article. But that is the only reason I can really see for why someone would have removed that mention of Tesla when it used to be there. Cadiomals (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that was pretty disgusting but coming from Cadiomals it isn't that shocking to me. The dude still can't shut up about me and even he has admitted over and over that we can add the context. He just doesn't like it I guess. I am seeing some owner ship issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Way to make it seem like I held those views when I clearly stated I didn't. I brought up the fact that Tesla was mentioned in the section some time ago but somewhere along the line was removed by someone, not me, and gave reasons as to why it could have possibly been taken out. If the Tesla image is added (still no consensus for it) then that sentence mentioning him should be re-added too, but it still doesn't change your contradiction regarding your requirements for context. Cadiomals (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The lunar module picture is an improvement over the Armstrong portrait, but it's not as good as the Tesla picture, as it is not as illustrative of fundamental scientific concepts. The Tesla image also has the advantage of extending the coverage of science in the section, while mentions of the moon landing are already made both in this and the cold war section, which makes it repetitive and redundant. walk victor falk talk 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to adding the lunar lander though I agree that with the space image you already proposed adding to History it would give a bit too much weight to space exploration, so it ought to be one or the other. So no one wants to add an image of Thomas Edison? At least a numbskull wouldn't be able to argue that Edison "isn't American" because he was born here and he has always been mentioned in that section from the beginning. Cadiomals (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That is highly offensive.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's superior to the Tesla image because it represents a societal achievement rather than one man's. It also looks better, and isn't fabricated like the Tesla image. I'm not sure either really illustrate "fundamental scientific concepts", but at least the lunar landing really happened. Also, the Science section just mentions the "space race", not the moon landing. The History section mentions the moon landing but doesn't go into any detail. That's not much of a redundancy. You're allowed to mention something important in more than one section if it's pertinent. Having two spaceship images, on the other hand, would be a little much. Since this is a high tech feat it would be better to choose the clear photo over the kitschy 1970s painting. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Apollo 15
I like space as a theme for the science section, man and mission is pictured at this Apollo 15 image. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I created a cropped version of this picture that looks better as a thumbnail. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
That's an even better one. I could live with that. Others should weigh in with what they think.VictorD7 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Science pic survey #1

I think there's a general consensus to use the Apollo 15 photo. All we need now is a caption. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion (education)

NO ACTION
Consensus to keep UV Rotunda image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the "Education" section I replaced an image with no relevance:

Some 80% of U.S. college students attend public universities such as the University of Virginia, founded by Thomas Jefferson[2]

The above image was replaced with one that has relevance:

The united States Department of Education
  • Oppose replacement. The USDoE is a generic image of a generic building, the UoV is significant for historical, educational, and architectural reasons. Gamaliel (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Now on this image there is actually a pretty easy solution but then just being easy doesn't mean it will gain consensus. What I would do if this image were to remain by the choice of editors would be to take the caption and add it to the prose in either the exact manner and then replace the caption with something more straight forward or leave the caption and add something similar and perhaps extended for relevance, to the section.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Do whatever you want to the caption or body as long as the current image of (quoting from Gamaliel) "historical, educational, and architectural" significance is kept over that utterly bland image of a generic building which teaches the reader absolutely nothing about this country's educational heritage. Cadiomals (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Artistic opinion about the second image is irrelevant, however the "historical, educational, and architectural" significance is pretty relevant to our project goals so, rescuing this the original image should have some importance per Gamaliel.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion (health)

In the "Health" section I removed an image with no relevance to the article or section:

File:Aerial of Texas Medical Center with Downtown Houston in the background.jpg
The Texas Medical Center in Houston is the world's largest medical center.
What sort of "context" would you need for this image to be acceptable to you? I and others already consider it relevant since it is a Health center within the Health section, the largest in the world mind you, but of course you need some sort of specific mention. What should be added to the body or the caption? Cadiomals (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Again...this isn't about me or "others". I am not convinced this image is needed at all and that we should worry about adding any context for it. Its just the aerial view of a building that could be a library, an arena or anything really. What the section needs is something with direct relevance to the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"Its just the aerial view of a building that could be a library, an arena or anything really."
But it isn't, is it? It specifically states in the caption that the image is of the Texas Medical Center, the world's largest medical center, a crown jewel of America's (however imperfect) healthcare system, and portraying its degree of sophistication. Would the Dept. of Education building which you proposed adding, not look like any old office building if it wasn't specified in the caption? And what, if anything, would that image teach the readers about the state of education in the US? I'm trying to only discuss content here but I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your view of "relevance". Cadiomals (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said, it has no relevance to the article. This medical center is not mentioned, nor is downtown Houston.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would you think that? You asked on my talk page and I answered with the same policy as I placed at the beginning of this thread. Image use policy does state that images should reflect the content. I am fully aware of the differences btween NFCC and image use policy and have been good enough to explain it. So I have no idea why you just ignored that and continue to accuse me of using NFCC.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Texas Medical Center - alternate image
File:Wisdom-cover2.png
Jonas Salk

Here's my suggestion for this section. There are some disadvantages to this image, in that Jonas Salk is not yet mentioned in the text, so we'd have to update it, and it does feature a single person, but I suggest it because Salk is one of the most representative figures of American health innovation and because the polio vaccine and vaccinations in general are one of the great achievements of the American health system. Gamaliel (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • This proposal is in the right direction. "Salk" does not have to be explicitly named in the body text, it is sufficient that the image is clearly related to health care. walk victor falk talk 15:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • While Salk is a notable health figure from the past, the Texas medical center image is also notable as it is the largest in the world and does a good job of portraying the sophistication and advancement of the US health system today. There are many users already in favor of keeping the current image, but I agree that Jonas Salk is very notable, there does not need to be a specific mention of him in the body for it to be relevant, and I certainly won't fight it if a consensus builds to include that image. The only concern I have is that the Health section mostly talks about the state of health in the US today. Cadiomals (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (statue of liberty)

In the "Culture" section I removed an image that had no relevance and also seemed to be a glittering generality out of place in that section:

The Statue of Liberty in New York City is a symbol of both the U.S. and ideals of freedom, democracy, and opportunity.[3]
  • Put Statue of Liberty somewhere Culture seems not to be an inappropriate place. Americans themselves have talked about freedom without stopping since the founding of the country, and the Statue of Liberty is one of the best known symbols of the United States internationally. Any depiction of the Statue of Liberty is inherently descriptive of American culture perhaps more than any other symbol. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Find a place for the Statue of Liberty, but not here. I really doesn't relate to culture. Immigration maybe? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is with the caption. As the body text says "Mainstream American culture is a Western culture largely derived from the traditions of European immigrants with influences from many other sources, such as traditions brought by slaves from Africa.[12][416] More recent immigration...". The legend should reflect that, perhaps mentioning it is a gift from France and how it was the first sights of immigrants coming by boat. walk victor falk talk 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Find another location I would disagree that the caption is the issue as this was a gift to the US, designed and built in Paris, France and has little to noting to do with US culture. It was based on similar statues of Libertus from ancient Rome and really this is just in the wrong place.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Blue Rasberry and victor falk. The United States admits more legal immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined. The greatest port of entry for over a century has been New York City. "The United States is home to many cultures and a wide variety of ethnic groups, traditions, and values." from all over the world. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants, the iconic representation of the United States and that port of entry is the Statue of Liberty as an exemplar to the world, the symbol of the liberty found in a welcoming America unavailable in so many home countries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (culture)

Closing per snowball. Maleko Mela (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In a subsection of the "Culture" section, "Literature, philosophy, and the arts" I removed an image that had no relevance and was also making an innacurate claim. Times square is not the hub of the theatre district and it only depicts flashy billboard ads and no theatres from the actual theatre district:

File:Times Square 1-2.JPG
Times Square in New York City, the hub of the Broadway Theater District.
Though I wouldn't cry if it went away, instead of removing the image, how about changing the caption to "Broadway show billboards in Times Square" rather than the inaccurate claim that it is the "hub" of the Theater District? Or do you still not consider the image to be of any value? Cadiomals (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Because it is not encyclopedic and what does not represent culture. If we are going to add an image that reflects theatre, then it should be an image of Broadway or even any regional theatre from across America. It isn't that hard. I can even supply an image from one of the United States largest and most important regional theatres. But what is important is to have an image that represents something from the article or section and this is just nothing but a random image used because it shows a billboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, many years ago, Times Square was lined with theatres. There are still two major historic ones on 42nd St. and several more on 44th and 46th Streets. Times Square comprises several blocks along Broadway and Seventh Avenue and is not just "the place with ads." Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Mark was concerned about the "inaccurate" statement in the caption. I would change it to "Billboards for various Broadway shows in Times Square" if it is kept. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears to show at least two theaters, by the way. Not "billboards" on their marquees. Collect (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Times square is not the hub of theatre in New York. it isn't a true depiction of theatrical culture. It actually does not show any theatre that I am aware of but if Collect can demonstrate that it would at least be appreciated.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
New York's theater district is centered around Times Square, and "Broadway" is a metonym for theater in the city, so if that doesn't qualify it as the "hub" then I'm not sure what would. Also, Collect is right, both the Palace and Sage theaters are visible in the photo. It's worth noting, however, that the photo is actually of Seventh Avenue, but it's near the very center of the Theater District. --Jleon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The image shows advertisements for the following Broadway plays:
Our Theater District, Manhattan article says
"New York City's Theater District (sometimes spelled Theatre District, and officially zoned as the "Theater Subdistrict"[2]) is an area in Midtown Manhattan where most Broadway theatres are located, as well as many other theaters, movie theaters, restaurants, hotels, and other places of entertainment. It extends from West 40th Street to West 54th Street, from west of Sixth Avenue to east of Eighth Avenue, and includes Times Square." (emphasis added). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this long-standing (by several years) image will be kept as there is no consensus for its removal and clear opposition. The image is a fair representation of the richness and variety of American theater even if it doesn't show the inside of one. Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the theaters there, IPOF, so was quite sure they were there <g>. And the northern end is properly "Duffy Square". Collect (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is Times Square the intersection (which is to the South of this) and then there is the Times Square district (of which this is a part). Therefore, the present caption is accurate, IMO. --Jleon (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. If the convention is to allow iconic personages, Twain is good here, Edison in Science section. If two images is not the consensus for these subsections, then remove Twain image here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion (sport)

In the "Sports" section I did not have time to replace the image there that has no relevance But as Phelps is not mentioned it should be replaced, probably by a baseball pic: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talk • contribs)

Swimmer Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time.

Suggested replacement. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Babe Ruth
That's actually funny because this was the image I was considering. I agree with this as a replacement.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The first image above was long-standing by a few years before it was replaced by the Michael Phelps image around 2 years ago, and it should pass Mark's narrow view of "relevance" since American football is specifically mentioned within the section. The second image preceded it back in 2008 when this was a "Good" article. There is no rule that says a specific famed sports figure must be showcased. This would be considered common knowledge to an American, but there are still plenty of sources which show that American football is deeply ingrained into modern American culture, nowadays even more so than baseball, so it would be a fair representation of American culture to re-add this. Cadiomals (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You might want to stop misrepresenting me. Per WP:WIAPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.". So put up or shut up.
Long standing or not I think the Babe Ruth image is iconic and a better image to use here.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I personally interpret this as saying that an image of a dead baseball player, however iconic and famous he was in the past, is more relevant to the Sports section than an image portraying a sport which is a huge part of modern American culture, and a billion dollar industry which tens of millions of Americans spectate, even more than baseball. Again, that is how I interpret it, feel free to correct me. But in any case I guess we'll just wait for others' input. At least here you can't argue that the subject of the image "lacks relevance" because it is not mentioned in the body, you simply don't prefer it. Cadiomals (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing to correct. Your interpretation here is merely an opinion. I don't have to argue against your suggestions, just the original image. Any of the new suggestions do have relevance...just as you stated.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

--Mark Miller (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Prefer any contemporary image from a team sport The major impact of sports in America today is more as an entertainment industry than a personal experience of any single athlete. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would prefer one of the football images. The fact is that today football is a more influential aspect of American culture than baseball, and certainly Olympic swimming. Of these two football images I would probably prefer the top one, as it is more clear what is happening without closer examination. --Philpill691 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll note that Olympic medals are specifically mentioned in the section too, so I don't see a basis for removing the current picture or how deleting the noteworthy fact that an American is the most decorated Olympian in history improves the article. Maybe someone can explain that to me. VictorD7 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your general viewpoint, but would you be opposed to the current image's replacement by American football, the biggest spectator sport in the country and more representative of its sports culture? Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
At this point yes. I agree football is the most popular sport, but that would still be a more niche portrayal. The current picture deftly blends an informative specific name mention with a vagueness regarding specific sport that accurately captures the dominance resulting from America's long standing serious cultural emphasis on athletics generally. By replacing the picture we'd lose the noteworthy "most decorated Olympian" mention and create a new problem: Whose team do we show? Phelps represents the entire country, but football teams are sectional, and, as a rabid football fan myself, I'll warn you that choosing a particular team could lead to rivals seeking to replace the image with a preferred one. I think I remember seeing that happen when it's been a football picture before. Update - I see the caption does call him a swimmer (I was thinking it didn't; maybe I remembered an old version), but my point still stands that he represents the country rather than a region and the mention illustrates the USA's athletic emphasis discussed in the article. That said, if the picture is replaced, I'd prefer it be football than anything else. And between the two football proposals I prefer the first one, because, as Phil said, its action is clearer. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Football. Pick a great-looking action shot. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I ain't a sports fan but I did some research and football has overtaken Baseball as the number 1 US sport, so I would support any one of these football images for the section.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Football for current events in this section for a one-image only policy, baseball if there were a history sports section. One of each, football and baseball, if these sections are to have two images. Americans are predominantly team sports players, individual sports such as swimming and wrestling are typically styled "minor sports" in collegiate athletic departments... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, noting the absence of blacks in the imagery of this article, why not Jackie Robinson? An extraordinary person on several levels. ([11] may be under copyright, but this is not a commercial use, [12] is nice as showing him in a Negro League uniform)) (lots of images IIRC). I am pretty sure other images are available. Collect (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems that most people here seem to prefer a football picture. Does anyone have a good reason not to use one of the football pictures? I'm of the opinion that football is much more relevant to American culture (the subject of this section) than any aspect of the Olympics. An individual earning the most medals in an international sporting event really isn't that relevant to a section on overall American culture. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It would also be more stable over time, which would help in a GA review, and pre-empt endless discussions of which recent superbowl winner to choose. walk victor falk talk 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC

Discussion (Crime and Law enforcement)

This image:

Law enforcement in the U.S. is maintained primarily by local police departments. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is the largest in the country.

was replaced with this one:

Seal of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation

Cadiomals (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Victor falk: You changed your mind, but kept the rest of your statement as if the SFPD image has a "good informative caption" with a link to an "important" police department. Why pick a random police force like the SFPD over one of the largest, most well funded and sophisticated municipal police departments in the world? I will see if I can find some good images in the Commons which include both NYPD officers and their vehicles if that is what's desired. Cadiomals (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
"The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is a large metropolitan one."– Mentioning and including a random PD like this is much less educational than mentioning the largest and most highly funded PD in the country. Doing so would also give random editors an opening to keep changing the image to one depicting a PD they prefer. Like I said, I will try to find better images of the NYPD tomorrow. Cadiomals (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is another one very similar to the SFPD one but more clear. Cadiomals (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I think we should keep the police car image. It is mentioned in the section that law enforcement is primarily handled by local departments, so there does seem to be enough context for the car image. Plus it seems far more relevant to crime and law enforcement overall than the seal of the FBI, which really gives nothing to the reader. --Philpill691 (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A photograph of a police car or officers is far more appropriate than a law enforcement logo. --Jleon (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Police car. Either NYPD or LAPD. ==Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It would have to be NYPD since it is the largest municipal police department in the nation and so has more significance. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't have to be anything. But if the police are to be the image used I would prefer an image of an officer not a car. I am going to suggest one of my images here:
San Francisco Police Department Motorcycle Division

At least this actually depicts real people in law enforcement.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You can barely see any detail in that image. But in these (just picked off the NYPD article) you can and it's still the largest city police department (over just picking some random city)... I'll see if I can't find more or better ones. Cadiomals (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For a realistic take on everyday police work in the US, how about this one? Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Ha ha :) But no, seriously, it's annoying how we are now wasting time trying to figure out a replacement for a long-standing cop car image that was here for two years and no ever complained about because a single person wanted it to be changed. How are you feeling about that NYPD motorcycle one? Look okay? Cadiomals (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a waste of time to worry about other editors or why we ended up at this point. I don't think there's anything wrong with reassessing the image use in one of Wikipedia's most important articles, regardless of how the discussion got started. That said, if we're all pretty much agreed on this particular one, maybe we can consider tabling this sub-discussion. I think using an example of every day police work for the image for this section is a good idea, but I'm pretty indifferent to which particular one is used. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Since there is clear consensus here that virtually no one wants the FBI seal and wants some sort of depiction of law enforcement vehicles/officers, the motorcycle NYPD image should be good at addressing everyone's concerns. We have to check something off the list eventually. Cadiomals (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

[moved below to generate discussion ¨00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)~

(@cadiomals 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)) *I don't see why it has to largest P.D. from an an encyclopedic point of view. But I understand and share your concern about attracting change if the picture is not special in some kind of way. A one thing that attracts that is blandness, therefore a picture of cool motorcycles is better, and that's why the SFPD is good, because it is interesting visually. I think I found the ideal picture, because it shows the NYPD interacting with the public naturally:


A motorcycle police officer speaks with a passer-by; law enforcement in the U.S. is maintained primarily by local police departments. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is the largest in the country.
walk victor falk talk 12:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)~
The image directly above looks somewhat blurry and washed out. Looking at the original source it an old image taken with a lower quality camera and scanned from a slide. The other image is crisp, Hi-def, and shows multiple officers. It addresses everyone's concerns. You don't really have a problem with it do you? Cadiomals (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This one, sorry I didn't clarify earlier. To me it is not blurry and washed out like the single NYPD motorcycle image, and not too far away to make out any detail like the SFPD image. Cadiomals (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I could go with that one or the SF PD image, but I am still very concerned about undue weight to New York in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not intentional, a lot of things significant to the US as a whole just happen to be found in New York. New York is the place where a national tragedy occurred, where the UN international headquarters is located, the Statue of Liberty is the national symbol for freedom (but that one is probably getting removed based on discussion here), and the city is arguably the center of American theater culture. I reason that a law enforcement image ought to be of the largest department because if the image isn't particularly noteworthy I can see random editors changing it to one of their preferred PD, but this is only a presumption of mine. Cadiomals (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
We seem to have a clear consensus that the NYPD car is not flying, and the SF motorcycle division pic has gained some support.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree the car pic is not ideal, but the SF motorcycle brigade pic is not much better. The pic of the three officers is the best I've seen thus far. --Jleon (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
There was a desire expressed to include a picture of both law enforcement officers and vehicles, so I tried to satisfy this by finding the one below (moved down from above, not sure if you noticed it). Cadiomals (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It was a good choice and I support that as well, but as I said....I am still concerned about the undue weight of New York being too much.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support NYPD car Throughout the United States, most law enforcement interface with the public is by lone officers of local governmental jurisdictions in a marked police vehicle. Centralia, Missouri, is at the geographical center of the lower 48, if someone is looking for an alternative to NYPD, I suppose, but I think that is unnecessary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose FBI versus local police car, as FBI is a symbol of the national police forces, they are severely restricted in their jurisdiction, oppose --- unless the consensus for these sections allows for two images per section. Then an FBI illustration of some description would be appropriate alongside the first image representing local law enforcement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: I've only casually followed this discussion so far, haven't participated yet, and don't really oppose any of these pictures (maybe the doughnut one, lol), but what was the rationale for changing the picture again? Most cops around the country use cars, not motorcycles. Was it just that there were no people visible in the old picture? If so, are there no pictures of cops and cars in the commons? VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Cardiomals noted the NYPD cop car was replaced with the FBI shield. The current image shows a motorcycle cluster of policemen at a stop light, --- not representative of much of anything but a shift change at a downtown precinct in the rare jurisdiction which uses motorcycles rather than patrol cars. I don't believe motorcycles are even representative of NYPD patrols, they would be an arm of the traffic division. Motorcycles are cool, just not for this purpose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly dislike the motorcycle pic, but I would prefer a car image for the reason Victor stated. If for whatever reason you don't like the original car image, alternatives can be found here, but I do think that a car image should be used, and that the original car image is about as good as we have. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I will restore the car image if nobody provides a good reason not to do so soon. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations for the geography section

[EDIT: consolidated image discussion from up-thread walk victor falk talk 04:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)]

We need more images to illustrate the beauty of the landscape in the US. Besides the US has a diversity of climates that is unique. This needs to be shown on the main article's page.

This is my choice so far but I welcome any proposition to add more (may be four in total?)

Grand Canyon.
The U.S. State of Hawaii has a year-round tropical climate.
Mount McKinley (Denali) is the highest peak in both Alaska and in all of North America.

What say you?67.87.50.54 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is simply not enough room in this particular article to add that many images without overcrowding. We need to be selective and prioritize. At most one more could be squeezed in to the Geography section, and that is already much. Geography of the United States contains a rich variety of images and you can feel free to add more there. Cadiomals (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Please look at Switzerland or other countries' articles. I don't think it is as cluttered as you suggest. Specially if you use a gallery format. Besides diversity of climate is more fundamental characteristic of a country than sport in my opinion. I am trying to accommodate both views here; may be by using a composite picture or only two pictures? Any more suggestions? Thanks. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Now here is where I would propose removing an image, namely that of the Grand Canyon. This is WP:UNDUE at its most extreme, because there are far too many diverse natural landscapes across the United States worthy of imaging in this article. I'm going to remove this for now because it really adds clutter, and there is no consensus to keep it. Castncoot (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
And I wouldn't use the Hawaii pic. It lacks too much information on the image page and may have copyright issues. Seems to have been uploaded by the copyright holder that is not exactly clear and if this has been previously published and may need OTRS for verification.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Of all three of these images I do prefer the Grand Canyon image and have no idea what Castncoot is talking about..--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, let me explain, Mark Miller. You see, there is no consensus for this particular image as of yet. I am therefore going to delete this image for now; however, if one develops, then that would be the way to go. How about the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee, the most-highly visited national park in the U.S.? Or how about the Olympic National Forest in Washington State? Oh, wait - how about the Everglades National Park in Florida? Does the Grand Canyon hold a more iconic status than these others? Let's get a consensus for which image to use here, if any. My preference would be not to put one here for this very reason of a WP:UNDUE conflict, compounded by the spatial limitation. Castncoot (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey Castncoot thanks for replying. What I don't understand is the assumption that an image is "undue weight" or even the discussion or mention. To me, undue weight is seeing New York all over the page with excuses that it is the largest in the US. This isn't a book of national records or who is the biggest or the best. It should cover the subject broadly and to me the Grand Canyon has a good deal of history that shows that it could well be mentioned. We have already established in other discussions here that what is iconic is not necessarily the best choice or the first choice of editors. If we had to adhere to that then it would have to be an image of Yellowstone or Yosemite. See...I do know something about national park history. I lived in Yosemite Valley for nearly three years but my love and appreciation for Yosemite does not mean I should push that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I wonder which other park people might be interested in seeing displayed in that one spot, if any. My own second choice, after none, would be the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, specifically for the aforementioned reason. Castncoot (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree that the Grand Canyon is a bit too facile and predictable, it would serve our users better if we came up with something a little odder yet encyclopedic. Since we have a picture of fauna in the form of the Bald Eagle, how about a flora image, like the giant sequoia, Sequoiadendron giganteum? walk victor falk talk 04:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would we use a tourist snapshot of some dude between to big trees? Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose more than two images per section in these modern topical subsections. The satellite image is very good at illustrating the geographical diversity of the continental expanse, if there is to be only one image, that would be my pick. Most of the U.S. population is situated along coasts and rivers. Perhaps since the Hampton Roads combined ports in Virginia have exceeded the New York Ports Authority in shipping volume, it would be the best pictured.
In any event, Mt. McKinley, a stretch of isolated volcanic island beach and the Grand Canyon are spectacular isolated geological features unrelated to the political geography of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 9:02 am, Today (UTC−4) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This section would benefit from more images of nature beyond the satellite photo, which for all excellent that it is, is just merely a map. That's why the bald eagle, illustrating fauna, should be completed with a picture of flora or geographical/natural features. The section is long enough to have room for another picture. walk victor falk talk 13:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
As for nature, most live in coastal bands along the major oceans (though not on the beach), then the population can be found in uplands, rolling country of plateaus or piedmont. Nature is not only remote and isolated, --- and in any case there is a distinction between notable geological landmarks and the geography which is representative of the country and its inhabitants. The Shenandoah National Forest has both Northern and Southern forest varieties of flora and fauna.
White House rose garden
Indigenous flora would be a hard one to picture in that the continent is so diverse. although roses are pretty universal icons throughout the country around Valentine's Day -- probably there is a florist or gardening association which can tell us what the most popular flower is in America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest a photo-montage instead? I let you choose the pics (main thing: it has to be pretty and diverse). My 2 cents! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@67.87.50.54:, discussion of another proposal of a photo-montage seems to indicate that photo-montages are not desirable. walk victor falk talk 14:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Annuit cœptis & Novus ordo seclorum mottos

If E pluribus unum is considered the "traditional" motto of the United States of America then shouldn't Annuit cœptis & Novus ordo seclorum be listed as traditional mottoes as well? --Prcc27 (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

possess not possesses

"... richest 10% of the adult population possesses 72% of the country's ..."

The verb "possesses" refers to "richest" not "adult population", so it should be "possess" here, not "possesses."

The article is semi-protected which prevents anonymous spelling and grammar corrections. Could someone correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.110.86 (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Prcc27 (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Cherokee

"Cherokee is an official language in the Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdiction area and in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians based in east and northeast Oklahoma". But aren't there a lot of other official native languages. Either those should be included also or a general statement be made about indigenous languages. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a dumb question or not, but.......

Should we have a list (preferably at the end of the article) that has all of the actual 50, united, states listed? Or have I missed it?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a link should do it. I know there is a sub-article, so a link should be enough, rather than restating the information.--JOJ Hutton 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A collapsed list can be found at the bottom of the "Political divisions" subsection. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah cool! Thank you Philpill691.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem! --Philpill691 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut the "politics"

Cut the bullshit about the "unequal income distribution". That is an entirely liberal phrase. Conservatives would say that we are too "equal" since we pay high taxes so others can live on welfare. But in either case, liberal or conservative does not belong in the opening paragraph about America. Keep your politics out of this resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.107.176 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Income distribution is unequal pretty much everywhere. What can be valid, and quite non-political, is comparison with income distributions in other countries. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia's strong emphasis on income inequality and the Gini index (at best a non standardized metric unripe for universal info box inclusion) does reflect the site's systemic left wing bias. That bias had seemed to fade some in recent years, but it's still there. This is not a neutral encyclopedia. One might counter by saying that focusing on economic growth and median income would constitute a conservative bias, but such a person would likely pause before hitting "save", realize what he had just typed, and delete it.
I'm not saying this is a huge deal, but specifically regarding the lede segment...The U.S. has the highest mean and fourth highest median household income in the OECD as well as the highest gross average wage,[29][30][31] though it has the fourth most unequal income distribution,[32][33] with roughly 15% of the population living in poverty as defined by the U.S. Census.[34]....I can see a potentially legitimate complaint in using the word "though", since it implies a judgment that having an "unequal" (we might better say "fourth widest") income distribution is somehow unexpected given the high mean/median income rankings, or somehow mitigates it. I do think income distribution merits inclusion in the article, but it's debatable whether it belongs in the lede on par with more basic topline stats like GDP or even median income. Certainly the poverty rate doesn't belong there, since a US only agency definition that's not internationally comparable is being lumped into a sentence of international comparisons. I don't recall seeing poverty rates like that given in other country article ledes. VictorD7 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Issue

An editor removed certain map content from the infobox. I restored it. Please discuss infobox content first rather than removing it without consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

US vs China total/land area correction and explanation

To those that don't understand: From the inception of the CIA Factbook to around 1995, the US listed itself as the 4th largest country in the world behind Russia, Canada, and China (see old version of CIA Factbook). However, after the passage of UNCLOS, US set about to do a new geo survey. UNCLOS allowed countries to add 2 NEW kinds of water to their total area (coastal and territorial). Previously, only INLAND waters are allowed. For instance, Great Lakes are considered "inland" therefore included. In 1996, US added COASTAL waters to it figure, thereby, boosting itself over China since it did not also calculate coastal waters for China. Then, several years later, it additionally added TERRITORIAL waters for itself and again, not for China, therefore boosting itself over China further.

The ONLY source out there that calculates total area fairly (using no political bais) is Encyclopedia Britannica, which actually explains in it footnotes what types of water is included. EB calculates US and China under similar circumstance which results in China being larger. Listing US as 3rd/4th is already incorrect. It really should be 4th.

See source: EB US: http://www.britannica.com/topic/616563/United-States-quick-facts EB China: http://www.britannica.com/topic/111803/China-quick-facts

also see CIA Factbook from 1995: http://www.theodora.com/wfb/1995/united_states/united_states_geography.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.205.12 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Country "size" in this article reflects political bias and is not a neutral perspective. Comparing apples and oranges is inappropriate and only leads to continued confusion. If we allow "territorial" waters into the equation we open up an endless debate about what is or is not territorial. How would that be handled in the case of overlapping claims. This is nonsense. Stick to the basics. Use the EB reference. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Land area USA vs Russia, Canada and China

This seems wrong: "Measured by only land area, the United States is third in size behind Russia and China, just ahead of Canada"

should be "Measured by only land area, the United States is third in size behind Russia and Canada, just ahead of China". No?

83.134.163.231 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I always assumed, too. However, according to the CIA World Factbook, the United States is third largest in total area behind Russia and Canada and is third largest in land area behind Russia and China.--Kgartm1185 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is correct as written. The US has slightly more land area than Canada, and slightly less total area. Likewise, PRC has more land area than the US, but less total area. I could be mistaken, but I believe the discrepancies come from large fresh water bodies, of which Canada has much more and China has very little.--Jayron32 01:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is incorrect as written. Country "size" in this article reflects political bias and is not a neutral perspective. Comparing apples and oranges is inappropriate and only leads to continued confusion. If we allow "territorial" waters into the equation we open up an endless debate about what is or is not territorial. This is not agreed internationally. How would that be handled in the case of overlapping or disputed claims. This is nonsense. Stick to the basics. Use the Encyclopaedia Britannica reference. CIA Fact Book is not reliable or neutral. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--IseeEwe (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Language?

Why is it called English, when quite clearly and widely recognised by Americans and around the world that it is American English. It is extremely different to English (or "British English" for fussy people), Australian English and Canadian English. Just a query. --Warner REBORN (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Chinese is extremely different to English, American and British English are merely variations within the same language. Arnoutf (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
English is a language. US English is a regional dialect. That is how it is recognized around the world. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not extremely different. TFD (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I have difficulty taking the linguistics pronouncements of someone who says "different to" seriously. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
But seriously, the language is English, just as the language spoken in the UK, Canada, and Australia is English. The fact that the dialect is American, British, Canadian, or Australian respectively is irrelevant to the question of what language is spoken there. You will notice that all of the relevant infobox fields include the word language, not dialect. --Khajidha (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

On the Motto

I don't think "Annuit cœptis" and "Novus ordo seclorum" should be listed as mottos of the United States. Neither is as widely recognized as "E pluribus unim". The addition of the other two make the section look cluttered, and detract from the significance of the long-standing de fecto motto of the nation. "E pluribus unum" is the only of the three to appear on the obverse of the Great Seal and should stand alone next to "In God we trust". (128.103.224.4 (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC))

I think they should. They both appear on the reverse of the seal (which makes an appearance on the 1 dollar bill). Do you have a source that says E pluribus unum is the de facto motto but the other 2 mottos aren't..? Prcc27 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. has only one official national motto, see United States national motto, it is "In God we trust". Other earlier mottoes were unofficial at best. Prior to In God we trust, there was no official national motto, though certain phrases (like the Latin ones cited above, as well as phrases like "Don't tread on me" or "United we stand, divided we fall") show up often in Americana. The three Latin phrases, noted above, are not national mottoes. Instead, they derive from the Great Seal of the United States, and their prominence there caused them to carry a sort of "unofficial" weight as a motto. However, these phrases are not national mottoes any more than "Honi soit qui mal y pense" is the national motto of the UK, though it has almost the same usage in the UK (on the national Coat of Arms) as "E pluribus unum" and "Novus ordo seclorum" does in the U.S. --Jayron32 17:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I guess "In God We Trust" should be the only motto up there then.. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the unofficial, 'traditional' mottos could be moved to the bottom of the infobox, in note form? It would still let the reader know that other mottos are alternatively used or have been used in the past and it will de-clutter the motto parameter, solving the problem. --Hazhk Talk to me 01:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Longpage

Too long did not read it - way over the limit of the average concentration span .....also has a bit of a load problem on mobile devices for people with low memory and a slow CPU. Out of 4,576,238 articles on Wikipedia this one is 117th longest page we have. I think this was mentioned some time ago with some trimming done ...but that article has gotten bigger again since then. Having people Skipp the article because its to big and tedious does not help anyone. --Moxy (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the downsides of people pushing income inequality POV.Mattnad (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Er, this article has had length problems for close to a decade. The latest trend has nothing to do with its load time and length. Nice try, though. --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we mention hunger statistics in this article?

By 2012, about 50 million Americans were food insecure, approximately 1 in 6 of the population, with the proportion of children facing food insecurity even higher at about 1 in 4.[4]

I made a previous attempt to include this information (with slightly different wording) in the Income, poverty, and wealth section, but it was recently removed. Should this statistic be mentioned in this section, which discusses other socioeconomic issues such as homelessness? Jarble (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is already a sentence on food insecurity in the last paragraph of the "Income, poverty, and wealth" section, so adding this is superfluous. 1 in 4 children facing hunger also sounds dubiously high and since you are sourcing from a book I can't immediately know exactly what the source says. The issue is also with your other attempted changes, such as vague wording and trying to make a top level heading (thus giving undue weight) for a very specific topic. Cadiomals (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
In Wikipedia's food security article, I found similar statistics published by the USDA:

In 2012:

  • 49.0 million people lived in food-insecure households.
  • 12.4 million adults lived in households with very low food security.
  • 8.3 million children lived in food-insecure households in which children, along with adults, were food insecure.
  • 977,000 children lived in households in which one or more child experienced very low food security.[5] Jarble (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The food insecurity stats currently in the section could be updated to 2012 with the first and third figures listed, but that's about it in terms of the level of depth reasonable for this summary article. Cadiomals (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Cadiomals. Sufficient coverage of "food insecurity" is already given. VictorD7 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010
  2. ^ Rosenstone, Steven J. (December 17, 2009). "Public Education for the Common Good". University of Minnesota. Retrieved March 6, 2009.
  3. ^ "Statue of Liberty". World Heritage. UNESCO. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
  4. ^ William A Dando, ed. (2012). "passim, see esp Food Assistance Landscapes in the United States by Andrew Walters and Food Aid Policies in the United States: Contrasting views by Ann Myatt James ; also see Historiography of Food". Food and Famine in the 21st Century. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1598847309.
  5. ^ "Food Security Status of U.S. Households in 2012". USDA-ERS. 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2013.

Citizens' perception of and preferences on inequality

I inserted this sentence in the "Income, poverty, and wealth" section:

US citizens across the political spectrum substantially underestimate wealth inequality and prefer a much more equal distribution of wealth. [citing Norton, M. I. and Ariely, D. (January, 2011) "Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time" Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 9–12.]

Another editor removed the sentence and source, saying, "this section is not about presenting people's opinions or preferences, it is for concrete economic facts & statistics." In fact, the statement is an established concrete statistical fact based on empirical data about US voters' preferences. It explains most if not the vast majority of the political economic outcomes in the US over the past several decades. It applies to voters across the political spectrum, and has not been challenged in academic journals and is not controversial in the press, secondary or primary sources, peer-reviewed or otherwise. One of the primary purposes of encyclopedia articles is to correct widely-held misconceptions, which the sentence and its source directly address on topics central to social and economic well-being. Therefore the statement should be replaced. I would like to see other editors' opinions on the question for further discussion. EllenCT (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That section is entirely economic figures; that's what is meant by statistics, not "statistics" from opinion polls. It doesn't matter whether the information is not controversial, it doesn't fit with the purpose of the section or article in general. We don't add opinion poll information to any other section here. This is no different from your past attempts at inserting frivolous bits of information that have been consistently rejected by consensus across many different users. Cadiomals (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The idea that a measurement between economic inequality and democratic conditions is not an economic figure is absurd. How is saying that not a deliberately false WP:POINT violation? Voting is an opinion poll, so should we censor everything about voting too? Just because a vocal minority of editors refuse to uphold the standard of verifiable truth when it makes them uncomfortable does not mean they aren't violating policy and degrading the accuracy and quality of the encyclopedia. EllenCT (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
While I appreciate you waiting 10 days for additional discussion, an online survey of a panel with unknown response rate (per the authors note) is not sufficient for the claim being made. Additionally, this is only one paper, thus undue weight is being applied to the results of this opinion as well. Agree with previous regarding the use of statistics as well. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The authors responded to and incorporated data from critiques which I agree would be better to characterize without the estimations, just the preference vs. reality aspects. There are also very robust corresponding survey data on income preferences but I don't propose including them, because they seem secondary to general wealth preferences. I have included the numerical figures per the comments about the lack of them above. EllenCT (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Does the article on any other country include anything like these poll numbers? HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, but if you do a citation search on the 2011 paper, you can find the same survey data for other countries. EllenCT (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014

166.181.3.235 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2014

212.76.254.30 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC) The usa declared independance on july 2nd not july 4

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 I have modified the relevant paragraph, mentioning and wiki-linking the Lee Resolution. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a factoid which does not meet wp:significance. The national holiday is celebrated on July 4, there is no counter-celebration on July 2 anywhere. The July 2 date in historical context is included in History of the United States. It is not appropriately noted here in a country article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:SIGNIFICANCE refers to entire articles. I can then merely surmise that the date on which the resolution of independence was adopted by its legislature is more than an insignificant factoid on the main page, and under a sub-heading that includes "Independence", of the country whose existence can arguably be said to date from that legislative action, and not from the date of the adoption of a document that mostly sets forth some justification for the resolution, regardless of what day people have decided to celebrate in its aftermath. There is no treatment of the Lee Resolution that I could find at History of the United States. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Lee Resolution belongs on the history page. The history section here does not need to be expanded, as it just underwent copyediting to cut down its length in a country article to better serve the interests of the general international reader.
Independence is celebrated in the United States, now and from the beginning, on the date the Declaration is made public to the People of the United States, Independence Day (United States), the 4th of July. It is not celebrated on the Second, a date of ongoing secret deliberations in Congress. (Nor was the Declaration signed on the 4th, another factoid which should not be included in the United States article history summary.)
Although consensus here at Wikipedia may be to give John Adams his due and celebrate July 2nd online, it does not seem to serve the interest of a brief overview for a country article. It is a subordinate factoid of historical interest for the linked History of the United States, the contribution belongs there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think my brief mention constitutes much of an expansion of the section. It was done, by the way, in answer to someone posting from Brussels, Belgium. Where did the general international reader you have in mind make his/her wishes known?
The section you reference in your second paragraph actually says, "During the American Revolution, the legal separation of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain occurred on July 2, 1776..." Why doesn't that in itself make that date more than a factoid. Other dates, which I've omitted (May 15 - Congress recommends formation of state governments, June 7 - Lee Resolution introduced) are included in my Encyclopædia Britannica (14th ed.), in their United States article (i.e. its country article). That article glosses over July 2, but the accompanying article on the Declaration seems positively chiding for people having forgotten that "decisive date".
Your third paragraph mentions that a consensus has formed to "give John Adams his due" (and I'm not for trying to change Independence Day celebrations). If there is this manifest consensus, why shouldn't it be adhered to? Dhtwiki (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The Declaration is dated 4 July. 1776. TFD (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, like a nation celebrating its independence on the "wrong" day for 230-odd years, even were a consensus formed to make the attempt, and there is not. We are limiting mention of presidents by notability to a handful, --- your factoid aside mentioning secret-session deliberations does not make the cut, especially when the outcome does --- in the July 4th Declaration of Independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You're responding to someone who seems to agree with you somewhat, but you must be replying to me, except that you only partially understood what I wrote. I explicitly said that I was not trying to change Independence Day. Your continued use of "factoid" to denigrate the mention of July 2 doesn't stand the test of a dictionary or Wikipedia definition, and "secret-session deliberations" applies to what transpired on July 4, as much as July 2. Your statement that my "factoid aside[,] mentioning secret-session deliberations does not make the cut, especially when the outcome does" is either illogical or anti-historical. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
July 4th is the date on the document, that is the date the Declaration is published to the public. Why would you say a public pronouncement published as a broadsheet to be posted in the open air and reprinted in newspapers on the 4th is the same as a resolution passed in "secret session" under armed guard on the 2nd? The history section in a summary country article should not be bloated with narrative supporting procedural ... footnotes. The July 2nd information belongs in a footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
July 4 is the date the document was approved, and late on the 4th. Even in an era of telegraphic communications, it couldn't have been in print form until the 5th. As it was, it wasn't sent out for engrossment until the 19th and proofed by Congress on August 2nd. It was signed by November. Official copies weren't sent to the colonies until January 1777. The more I read, the more July 2nd becomes the crucial day on which political will coalesced and was registered; "after herculean efforts", according to Henry Steele Commager. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose what is relevant is the day the Declaration was supposed to come into effect. Most legislation contains a date at which it becomes effective, which may be months away from when it is passed. Britain's other former colonies for example often celebrate independence days on the anniversary of the date their countries became independent, rather than when the legislation was passed. The U.S. is a bit different because it declared independence unilaterally. TFD (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
So, it's also important to remember dates such as the 1778 recognition by France, without which the Declaration might have come to be considered as so much grandiloquent codswallop, and that of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, where the U.S. was recognized by its former colonial masters. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

American sports

Although basketball was invented in the United States it was done so be a Canadian. Does that really make it an "American invention"? And please, let's not argue about whether Canadians are "Americans" or not. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fine. Lots of achievements in the U.S. were made by immigrants. Should add American football is not on the list. TFD (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The current line is problematic "evolved out of European practices, basketball, volleyball, skateboarding, snowboarding, and cheerleading are American inventions". First of all it is unsourced. Secondly it depends on how you define evolve. For example snowboarding clearly evolved from skiing (and perhaps skateboarding). Basketball and volleyball evolved from physical education efforts in the late 19th century, which can be deemed a European practice. So the line is unsourced and in my opinion fairly ambiguous. Arnoutf (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2014

hello, please correct the total geographical area of United States. are 7,911,237, excluding Alaska. Alaska is an external area, that is to say separated from United States. thanks

Renzojav (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Alaska is part of the US, So is part of the "geographical area" - Arjayay (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Land Area of the USA

Why does the land area given by Wikipedia -- 3,717,813 sq mls in the summary side-column at the top of the article -- not match the figure on http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/mapping/a_general.html -- 3,718,694 sq mls? It also does not match the total land area given under the "Geography, climate, and environment" heading of "the contiguous United States" plus Alaska, plus Hawaii -- 2,959,064 + 663,268 + 10,931 = 3,633,263

The text goes on to say "calculations range from 3,676,486 square miles (9,522,055 km2)[146] to 3,717,813 square miles (9,629,091 km2)[147] to 3,794,101 square miles (9,826,676 km2)".

Clearly, part of the question is whether water area is included or not and another part is whether non-State territories are included. Please could somebody put together a table, land/water/total by type of territory, so that all these figures can be reconciled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPedant (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Although insular area is excluded as "unincorporated" for internal tax purposes, it is organically included in the United States for all other purposes including native-born census, military defense and environmental protection. Residents are citizens with fundamental Constitutional rights under U.S. federal courts, they are self-governing under three-branch governments and they enjoy territorial representation in the national councils of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The source provided for this article is the List of countries and dependencies by area. According to the footnote in that article, the total area is taken from the 1997 CIA Factbook which included the U.S. (excluding dependencies) and its coastal waters. 21:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Also, it should be noted, that the OP's two main sources (Wikipedia and Nationalatlas.gov) are different by about 800 square miles out of 3.7 million square miles. That's a difference of roughly 0.2%. I'd imagine the U.S. land area varies that daily much due to the tides. I'd not sweat that much difference; indeed those figures down to the exact square mile probably represent some sort of false precision given that their calculation includes many rounding errors and math which involves the ignoring of significant figures and precision of various measurements. In the end, the Wikipedia value is referenced to a reliable source, and it isn't different enough from other reliable sources to worry about a difference that small. --Jayron32 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The National Atlas reports area of states and “other areas” as total area of 3,723,033 sq.mi. land area as 3,541,447. and water area as 181,587. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32: The land area of CiA Factbook is about that of the National Atlas for the United States excluding territories (3,717,813 sq mi v. 3,718,694).

But the List of countries and dependencies by area purports to include dependencies (territories, other areas). The five places included in the National Atlas “other areas” are Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marianas and Guam.

The total area for the five dependencies is 4,339 sq. mi., with a land area of 4,025 sq. mi., over 3/4 of that area is attributed to Puerto Rico, with a population of more than 20 states. They should not be excluded here because of an oversight in another WP article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. If there is a problem with the way one number or another is calculated, have a reason for choosing a number, and go with it. If the reason is the methodology in coming up with a number, then choose a number arrived at by proper methodology. I'm cool with that. I just don't want people's only objection being "two numbers from two different sources aren't identical down to the exact square mile" especially with false precision working into numbers like this anyways. --Jayron32 12:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Agreed on the false precision element. The National Atlas is a reasonable source to replace a CIA Fact Book cite (or a previous editor misreading of it)? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Minerals

This article says almost nothing about the mineral deposits in America, such as coal, oil, iron ore and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissouriOzark1947 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is something about this in the article on Petroleum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissouriOzark1947 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
For most countries I don't think this would be worth mentioining in a summary article; howeverm given the massive importance of these deposits on the history and current status of the country, I think they deserve a mention here. Especially coal, oil, and , agruably, gold. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Proofreading

Here are some problems I found while doing this edit, that require more than my usual corrections to spelling and such:

  • "The original text of the Constitution establishes the structure and responsibilities of the federal government and its relationship with the individual states. Article One protects the right to the "great writ" of habeas corpus, The Constitution has been amended 27 times;[233] the first ten amendments, which make up the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment form the central basis of Americans' individual rights."
That is a strange summary of the Constitution. It mentions Article One, picks out one detail in it, and then it skips all the way to the amendments, and then makes several points about amendments. If I were to summarize the Constitution that briefly, I would mention legislative, executive, and judicial, before I mentioned the details picked out in that description.
  • I see in your archives that you have often discussed the "Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii" sentence, so add me to the list of people to whom it sounds wrong. The sentence doesn't say they were republics for a long time, nor does it say they were still republics up until they became states. Adding the word "well-established" before "independent" would fix it, if you don't want to get distracted by the California Republic and maybe West Florida.
  • The reference currently numbered 256 (numbers change when adding or deleting references) says:
Addis, Casey L. (February 14, 2011). "Israel: Background and U.S. Relations" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved August 28, 2011.
That is confusing this report with this different report with the same title, a different author, and a different date. Either report would seem adequate to document the point you're documenting, but make up your mind. The report you cite should be the same report you get when clicking. Art LaPella (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Second Bullet

Agreed, I attempted the copyedit so as to read that Vermont, Texas and Hawaii were well-established republics when they entered the Union. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

First Bullet

At the last paragraph in the introduction section of Government and politics, beginning "The original text of the Constitution...", the entire paragraph should be replaced with something which describes the U.S. government and politics, --- discussing the judiciary with the following wording:

Federal Courts rule on state law and constitutions and on federal legislation and regulations by judicial review as defined in Article Three of the Constitution. They apply the Constitutional principle of the Supremacy clause, that the Constitution, Congressional law and treaties are the supreme law of the land. State Courts also rule by their state constitutions in a judicial review of state legislation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading it again, I now have a better understanding than I did before, of how that paragraph fits into the entire section. So I'm glad I didn't mess with it myself! Art LaPella (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, your initial assessment is correct. The paragraph is a badly written, redundant and unsystematic stab at talking around the subject of the Constitution and the courts. Overall the introduction in the section treats the three major branches of government, then some consideration of lawmaking in the country. The judicial system has a hand to play in what law stands, therefore I crafted a substitute paragraph on the courts. Perhaps the last paragraph needs to be struck without any replacement, but in any case the paragraph as written is unsatisfactory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
My initial assessment was that the two sentences (or one comma-spliced sentence) were a poor summary of the Constitution. My second assessment was that the whole section is about the Constitution. Thus I have no further objection, to either the existing text, or to the suggested replacement which is probably better. Art LaPella (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Median household net worth fell 36% over past decade

A. NYT. Include that and the top 5% of households' net worth growing 14% over the same period?

B. Should we also include a chart showing the historical trend across economic recoveries? EllenCT (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Much too specific and recentist. I don't think it belongs in this summary article. We have articles on the economics of the U.S. that it can go into. --Golbez (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Golbez. This article covers a vast subject, and there is no need to provide excessive coverage to any aspect. TFD (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
We already have household net worth in the infobox, and a paragraph on it which discusses its distribution and its changes from June 2007 to November 2008 with three sentences, each describing general, absolute and relative terms. How is the past decade more specific or more recentist? The change over the past decade is both objectively less specific and less recentist. Since experienced editors do not even bother to examine the existing text when changes are proposed, it is obviously a mistake to propose changes before just being bold and making them. I regret I ever took the advice of those who want me to ask permission before being WP:BOLD. EllenCT (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a limit to how much detail there should be and there already is a lot. The article already has a chart showing median income. I think the main points are: the U.S. has the highest level of inequality of any developed nation and the weakest social safety net, and poverty has increased since monetarism was adopted in the 1970s. Plus the positives - the high average income and overall largest economy in the world. In might be worthwhile to say something about how the negatives and positives relate. But we should not provide undue weight to this aspect of the U.S. TFD (talk)
So how about replacing the three sentences describing the change in household wealth from June 2007 to November 2008 (which I agree is needlessly over-specific now that the recovery is eclipsing the recession) with one sentence describing the change in median household net worth over the past decade, one sentence describing the change in top 5% household net worth over the past decade, and one sentence describing the trend in income changes during recoveries from 1949 to present? EllenCT (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more recent stories on wealth and income over the longer time frame. Does anyone believe there is any reason not to replace the '07-'08 change figures with changes over the entire past decade? EllenCT (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Another quantification of wealth over a longer time period. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Earliest history

The second paragraph of this article begins "Paleo-Indians migrated from Eurasia to what is now the U.S. mainland around 15,000 years ago," then moves on to the more reasonable starting point in the 16th century. This beginning seems absurd. If we're talking about the piece of land, rather than the country, why not begin with another arbitrary event on that land? The next paragraph discusses contemporary native tribes, which is a more natural place to bring up the fact that the land was settled.

(After too many bad experiences editing myself, I'm just going to leave this here in the hope that someone with the cachet to defend their edits agrees.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.16.238 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Introducing American history with Paleozoic era migrations from Asia and the extinction of the earliest Mound Builders follows the convention of many introductory U.S. textbooks which then develop the theme of streams or waves of immigration from other continents, Europe, Africa, Asia and South America, over the course of their narrative.
Part of the modern historiographic agenda is to avoid an exclusively British-centric view of national development. It’s not that other starting points cannot be reasonable, only that it is now-a-days usual for the general reader with a recent American background to begin with "Paleo-Indians migrated". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It isn't only this article that does that. Many (if not most) articles on the history of countries begins with the earliest settlement of that country. History of England begins "The territory that now constitutes England, a country within the United Kingdom, was inhabited by ancient humans more than 800,000 years ago as the discovery of flint tools and footprints at Happisburgh in Norfolk has revealed.[1] The earliest evidence for early modern humans in North West Europe is a jawbone discovered in Devon at Kents Cavern in 1927, which was re-dated in 2011 to between 41,000 and 44,000 years old". History of France begins "Stone tools indicate that early humans were present in France at least 1.8 million years ago.[1] The first modern humans appeared in the area 40,000 years ago. The first written records for the history of France appear in the Iron Age." History of China begins "The Yellow River is said to be the cradle of Chinese civilization, although cultures originated at various regional centers along both the Yellow River and the Yangtze River valleys millennia ago in the Neolithic era. With thousands of years of continuous history, China is one of the world's oldest civilizations." History of Australia begins " Aboriginal Australians are believed to have first arrived on the Australian mainland by sea from Maritime Southeast Asia between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago. The artistic, musical and spiritual traditions they established are among the longest surviving such traditions in human history." I could go on ad infinitum, but you get the point. It is convention to discuss the history of a country by starting not just with the foundation of the specific state in that locale, but with discussion of the first human habitation at that locale. After all, if we only considered the current state, France has only existed since 4 October 1958, and starting there seems patently absurd. Instead, it helps to have a context for human habitation of that country from the earliest evidence of it. --Jayron32 17:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
All right, you two have won me over. It's not how I'd approach it (I think the history of a country's founders and inhabitants are more relevant than its geography), but it's consistently applied, well-intentioned, and harmless. Could have done without the reductio ad absurdum on France, though, Jayron32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.16.238 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Aboriginal Americans remain inhabitants, and remain a distinct group, and continued to play a role in American history. While the start date of the U.S. is 1776-83, some mention must be made of the history of the states that formed the union. The fact they were founded in territories that had aboriginal inhabitants is relevant. OTOH, the history section must remain brief, and extensive discussion should be left to other articles. Furthermore, unlike Australia, the U.S. had a huge range of aboriginal groups (especially when Hawaii and Alaska are included) and many of these groups also had members living in what today is Canada and Mexico. TFD (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, Such a diverse range of rich and important cultures and combined with interesting and fascinating general history of North America, Alaska and Hawaii absolutely deserves its own main page, history of the united states, which is more general than the country itself, which has a starting date range and early history etc. This page is already too full and confusing, hard and difficult to navigate, challenging to use and to find specific information. Zarpboer (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
See History of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I did, thank you. that page is important to the history of the US itself and is already so full, Maybe either 'early history of peoples of..' or index page with sections and links to the already existing detailed pages, where they exist and just the section for those that do not yet exist. This probably needs much more thought/discussion in order to formulate a proper suggestion or to figure out whether it is workable and an actual improvement or not? Maybe someone already knows :) Zarpboer (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Center-right/center-left

"Within American political culture, the Republican Party is considered center-right or conservative and the Democratic Party is considered center-left or liberal." I'd say that was more of an outsider's description, within the US they are just seen as right/conservative and left/liberal. --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Language

Should I remove this part?

"Samoan and Chamorro are recognized by American Samoa and Guam, respectively.Carolinian and Chamorro are recognized by the Northern Mariana Islands"
  • I've been looking for verifiable sources for months and ended up with nothing,I think we should remove these words because they are tagged with "citation needed" tags.--ChamithN (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Add "Zoroastrians" to the section in religion in America.

In the section listing other religions, you also add Zoroastrians, as they do have a presence especially in California. http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr1.htm. Refer to the part about "membership". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.249.35 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_63&oldid=1137286051"