Jump to content

Talk:United States/Archive 91

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93→Archive 95

Rosicrucian Fellowship temple in California: does not have national importance (?)

there is no evidence of any national significance in terms of religion or architecture. there are no RS and none at the Wiki article at Mount Ecclesia. The nomination for National Register --commissioned by the Rosicrucians--leaves "national" importance unchecked and checks "state" importance instead, so it does not belong here. see https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/95000390.pdf Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Mount Ecclesia's significance is beyond national limitations, that is, truly international -- Worldwide soon after its inception (1911): "The year 1921 has drawn to a close and the secretary's and treasurer's reports have been handed in, showing that the Rosicrucian Fellowship has great reason for rejoicing. (...) The past year has been one of the most active and successful since the beginning of the work. During that period [1920] the Temple was finished, and all the bills paid. The third edition of the Tables of Houses and a great number of the Ephemerides have had to be reprinted, amounting in all to fifteen thousand copies. These books have been welcomed by all astrological students for their clearness and simplicity, and have aided in spreading the Rosicrucian philosophy. (...) Our patients in the healing department are numbering close to one thousand. The contributions have made it possible even under the strained finances in the world for us to meet our bills and [international] Headquarters is at present out of debt. This is a very favorable indication considering the heavy strain under which we have been working. The students in South America, Australia, Holland, and other countries are very active, and the following books are now in print in foreign language:" ~ Rays from the Rose Cross, March 1922, p. 478-479
Also forget it not that "During the First World War (1914-1918) , Mount Ecclesia offered no summer school, and discontinued the usual programming activities. The soldiers from Camp Kearney, about twenty miles from Headquarters, were given classes and lectures, however, and a number of them became members. During these years, Headquarters had serious financial struggles. Many students in Europe were forced to stop their contributions, book-sales dropped off, and the prices of everything climbed higher." ~ Ger Westenberg. Max Heindel en The Rosicrucian Fellowship (Chapter 10). 2009 STICHTING ZEVEN, The Hague, The Netherlands. (Translation into English language by Elizabeth C. Ray)
Btw, unveiling a bit on "national significance"... "Another month has gone by and still the European war is raging in all its intensity. Thousands and thousands have passed over the border into the invisible realm, and the distress there as well as here is unprecedented in the history of the world. (...) President Wilson of the United States has appointed October 4th as a day of prayer for peace. It is well always to unite with such movements because our trained thoughts will have a considerable effect and strengthen wonderfully the general appeal. This day should be spent by every earnest student in prayer for the deliverance of the world from this awful slaughter. Their thoughts should be particularly directed towards soothing those who are in this world, and in the invisible world also who are distressed at the severance of family ties." ~ Letters to Students, October 1914
FROM THE ROSICRUCIAN VIEWPOINT, CAN WAR BE SAID TO BE RIGHT? WHAT SHOULD BE THE STAND OF THE ROSICRUCIAN STUDENT IN THE PRESENT CONFLICT? (World War I) ANSWER: In the great crises of life we are brought face to face with certain issues and called upon to make decisions of such importance that they often require reversion of ideas and ideals, even of our most cherished principles as hitherto conceived. (...) In the beginning of the conflict France and England, who were the immediate neighbors of the outraged Belgians, made her cause their own and acted in that respect as their brother's keeper. However, being unprepared, they have been unable to bring the struggle to a decisive termination. Therefore it became necessary for America to enter the conflict and turn the balance, so that peace may be restored and safety secured to those who are too weak to protect themselves. (...) seeing that the present struggle which is waged for the purpose of crushing the militarism of Central Europe has taken such a terrible toll of human life with the strength of the allied defenders nearly spent, it is the sacred duty of everyone to aid to the very limit according to his spiritual, mental, moral, or physical capacity, either at the front or behind the lines wherever the judgment of those in charge may require his or her service. Therefore we would urge each and every one of the students of the Rosicrucian Fellowship, of whatever country now defending the cause of humanity against the militarist party of the Central Powers, to support his or her government to the very best of his ability that we may soon see "Peace on earth and among men good will."
But let us realize that there can be no peace worth having until militarism has received such a blow that it will not raise its head again for a long time. Many people hope that this will be the last war, and we ardently wish that we could believe it. People thought the same when Napoleon and his hordes overran Europe a hundred years ago, but time has proved that such hopes were vain. Peace is a matter of education, and impossible of achievement until we have learned to deal charitably, justly, and openly with one another, as nations as well as individuals. As long as we manufacture arms, peace will not become established. It should become our aim and object to do all we can toward the abolition of militarism in all countries and the establishment of the principle of arbitration of difficulties." ~ Letters to Students (worldwide), July, 1918
Still barely scratching the first page of its history... “I saw our headquarters and a procession of people coming from all parts of the world to receive the teaching. I saw them issuing thence to carry balm to afflicted ones near and far. (...) for the world in which we live is based upon the principle of time, but in the high realm of the archetypes all is an eternal NOW.” (Max Heindel, 'Our Work in the World', 1912) :s Thx. Regards ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The official proposal to make it a historical place explicitly stated it has a California but not a national role. No reliable secondary source says it's important in US history--and that is a requirement for Wikipedia. Actually it's the main shrine of a small religious group--one of hundreds that overate in the US. As for "international" -- the quotes are all from Rosicrucian activists and do not claim much of any role for the building. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, no special remark/comment, but only to note that a few 3rd party sources may already be found after some diligent on-line digging:
as an example of international (students): "In June 1948 Klein and Claude Pascal (but not Arman) joined the Rosicrucian Society and worked on bi-weekly lessons sent from California. These were based in the profilic writings of Max Heindel (1865-1919), specifically his Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception: or Mystic Christianity (Ocean Park, CA: Rosicrucian Fellowship, 1911), which Klein read in French translation. (...) Heindel provided the foundation for Klein's aesthetic philosophy through his vision of a psychological alchemy that would free the spirit from its material shell. (...)" ~ Szulakowska, Urszula (2011). Alchemy in Contemporary Art. Ashgate Publishing Limited, England, USA, ISBN 9780754667360
as an example of national/U.S.: "Spec. Coll. copy is from the Henry Miller papers (Collection 110). Ownership note handwritten on free endleaf: "Sacred property of Henry Miller ... who has just discovered that he has been a Rosicrucian all his life ... Paris 3/5/39". Green cloth over boards, with decorations stamped in gilt, black and red. Publishers advertisements: [6] p. at end. Notes and marginalia by Henry Miller" in the/his third edition of the Cosmo, 1911, digitized by MSN at the Internet Archive
Yet, none providing as deep insight when compared to what one earnest to attain to the understanding and knowledge of philosophy may directly acquire, that is, through first-hand knowledge, imho. ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to assume bad faith but it really seems you are pushing POV and not living in reality. LordAtlas (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Out of consideration for your comment, for (I) do understand your reasoning, This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be absurdly WP:UNDUE weight to give this much focus to a religious denomination with so few members, and so little impact on the United States compared to dozens of larger and more representative religious groups, in a broad summary article like this one. Rwenonah (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If the Rosicrucians were so important, then surely a non-Rosicrucian would add them. Your edit history betrays a certain single purpose to your work here. --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Which, please don't take me wrong, does not mean you can't have a singular focus. Far from it - we welcome expertise and information from people who have specific knowledge on things. But when it comes to edit warring and arguing to have a particular mention of your chosen topic put in, that's where things get iffy. --Golbez (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
😌 ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Supreme court no longer has vacancy

In the fifth paragraph in the "Government and politics" section, it says, "However, the court currently has one vacant seat after the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia."

This is no longer true.128.239.213.128 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Since Supreme Court of the United States is updated, I have updated this article also. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Last polity admitted?

Should the last polity admitted be 2012, considering this? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No. LordAtlas (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Reasons why? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a state. Have you even read about it? They left something out but it had no impact on anything. LordAtlas (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You would need a reliable source saying that the omission meant N.D. had never become a state. as Illegitimate Barrister shows, other interpretations are more likely and anyway the territory held by N.D. was already part of the U.S. before it attained statehood. TFD (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not it was proper, it was admitted in 1889. --Golbez (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Image in section Culture

Is the current image of the native American used in the section Culture fitting? The US has plenty of "culture", imho the current image, puts a distorted view on it.--Joobo (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Native Alaskan dancer" image is what you must mean. That was put up without discussion, replacing a photo of some boy scouts carrying flags of different countries that symbolized the international settlement of this country, and before that, IIRC, a picture of a building that symbolized architecture, but not in a particularly American style. IOW, it's been hard to put an image in that section that's been satisfactory for very long, and there's been no recent discussion on what belongs there. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I am taking the current image out. At the moment I cannot imagine one picture that in any way would fit in there without distorting the view. --Joobo (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it okay..

...if I tag this with {{fanpov}}, {{advert}}, and/or {{peacock}}? It's really promotional. KMF (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (a Canadian)

Nope. Hope this helps! --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
This article is really promotional. Have you actually read the non-infobox part? KMF (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The article is rated a good article. Would you be more specific about what you think is promotional? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have! Thanks for asking. --Golbez (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Please point out SPECIFIC places where you feel it is being promotional. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You look like you're responding to Golbez, who is only affirming that he's read more than the infobox. He's not saying that he or the OP has already been more specific about what's promotional. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, finger twitched one too many times and I didn't catch it. I was intending to reply to the original poster. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Constitutional" not necessary or needed in the first sentence of the lead

Many other countries are listed as just "federal republics" in their lead sentences, without the word "constitutional" with a wikilink to the "Constitution" page, despite these countries having constitutions; e.g. Argentina (see the page for Argentina's constitution here), Austria (see the page for Austria's constitution here), Mexico (see the page for Mexico's constitution here), and Nigeria (see the page for Nigeria's constitution here). I propose the word "constitutional" (which is wikilinked and redirects to the "Constitution" page) should be removed from the lead sentence of the United States article. If free will exists, do I have less of it than others (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, republics are by definition constitutional. TFD (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I find the usage, "constitutional republic" instead of "federal republic" to be unfamiliar. Where does it come from?
Aside -- republics have a legislative scheme of representation in its governance, but not necessarily a constitution. The word "constitution" appears nowhere in Republic of Venice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

America = USA?!

I'm sure it must have been debated in these archives before - hotly, I hope - that "America" is redirected here. When most Europeans have talked about "America" over the centuries, they have meant to include Canada, at least, if not the entire Western Hemisphere. Only Canadians think Canada is not part of "America", and they are a teensy-weensy minority.

In any case, I would like to add my formal

Protest to any many which there probably, hopefully, reasonably have been before, against that redirect. I think it's horrifying!

How about an article called "America" detailing all this etymological and geographical cacaphony once and for all? There must be lots of reliable sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There's been tons of debate, actually. And according to the FAQ at the top of the page, "In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas." And speaking of which, the article you want exists - American (word). --Golbez (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! If the redirect would not have been locked for editing I would now have done a typical WP:BOLD and redirected "America" there.

Proposal - change redirect of America from "United States" to American (word) to satisfy any and all opinions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, because as the FAQ states, in the English-speaking world, "America" nearly always refers to this country. --Golbez (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per FAQ as is clearly explained in the talk page archives in English America = USA. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how either of your oppositions are relevant to my proposal - ? - . What you're saying is exactly what the article American (word) so well clarifies. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You want to redirect "America". We don't want to, because "America", in the English-speaking world, refers to the United States. American (word) is linked at the header of the etymology section; perhaps that link could be moved to a hatnote. --Golbez (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. And just fyi: you're commenting to a citizen of the United States who began to speak English in 1950, to read and write it a few years later and has worked as a writer and teacher of English for decades. We write on enWP, I believe, not solely for the English-speaking world but for anyone who can read English. No? In that vein, I still see nothing wrong with my proposal as the clearest and most global way of handling the tricky word "America" on enWP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody cares about your global way. It's not appropriate to inconvenience everyone for the sake of people learning English. Literally the only thing that matters here is that when native speakers of English say "America" they are almost always referring to the USA hence why the redirect is here. If they become confused as to why, they have the means to go look it up for themselves. LordAtlas (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The English Wikipedia uses the common usage of the English language. So, "North American" is redirected to "North America" the continent, not to "United States" the country, even though in Spanish usage, Norte Americano with a direct translation of "North American" is used to designate U.S. citizens, and neither Canandians nor Mexicans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Among English speakers, "America" when used by itself overwhelmingly refers to the United States (and that does include speakers outside the US[1][2][3][4]). ╠╣uw [talk] 11:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind being opposed, but it would be nice if just one of you in opposition would realize that all of you so far have opposed as if I had proposed not to refer "America" to the word's most common usage. I only ask that because that's exactly what I have done, proposed that the word be redirected to an article where the matter us much better clarified to our readers than it is when "America" is referred here. Perhaps I'll see someone opposing because they think it's clearer to our readers to redirect here than to American (word)? That's an opinion that at least would be relevant, though I couldn't disagree more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
But surely America should point to the subject that the term overwhelmingly refers to, and that's the United States. As for making things clear to readers, it's not like information about the usage of the word American is inaccessible to readers now; it's prominently linked at the beginning of the etymology section of the United States article. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The purpose of re-directs is that readers will be re-directed to the article they are looking for. My guess is that the vast majority of readers are looking for this article. It is more convenient for them to see this article than one about the Americas. If they were looking for the Americas article, there is a note at the top that says, "United States of America", "America", "US", "U.S.", "USA", and "U.S.A." redirect here. For the landmass encompassing North and South America, see Americas. For other uses, see America (disambiguation), US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation)." TFD (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Same reasons as given above. A perfect analogy is "Australia" . Australia is a continent with 4 countries. Nevertheless if talking about "Australia" in almost all cases the country called "Commonwealth of Australia" is meant. Surely nobody has a problem with that, so its also no problem here. --Joobo (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: common usage in English is that America = United States. To clarify, that is America as a separate term and not as part of a combined term. English usage also does not generally recognize a single continent of America, rather there are two continents: North America and South America. The usage of America to mean the combination of the two is generally limited to discussing Columbus and usage in multilingual bodies (such as the Organization of American States). Modern, monolingual, native language usage is that America is United States and Americas is the combined continental land mass. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just thought it was worth noting that nothing in WP:TITLE says that article titles should be based specifically on "modern monolingual native language usage" or on how "native speakers of English" behave, just on a preponderance of reliable English-language sources. Presumably, then, the behaviours of non-native speakers of English should be taken into account at least as much as those of native speakers, and those arguing for focusing exclusively on the latter are basically inventing a nonexistent guideline. That said, it seems likely that the current title is correct either way. Rwenonah (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be in the guidelines because that's just how languages work. If you want to know how Spanish works, you don't really care about how a Japanese guy who learned it in school phrases things. --Khajidha (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Wikipedia doesn't operate based on individual user's anecdotal understandings of "how languages work". Rwenonah (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Wikipedia does operate based on how a language is used by the people who use it. LordAtlas (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, I agree; that would include non-native speakers. Rwenonah (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That makes zero sense. Inconveniencing the natives speakers to accommodate non-native speakers. What should happen is you do things as natives do and then you learn something new. If a non-native speaker is confused then they will see their opportunity to improve. Your logic honestly baffles me and I can only assume that you are yet another non-native speaker with a grudge against Americans. LordAtlas (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I think, even among non-native speakers, "America" is more commonly used to refer to the US. Clarity-wise, most non-native speakers that I know consider "North/Central/South America" a better alternative when referring to the continents as they too are aware of the ambiguity surrounding the word. So, it wouldn't really stump a non-native speaker if their search inquiry for "America" led them to this article -- ChamithN (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
As I said in my initial comment, I'm pretty sure that's the case as well (it's been shown in previous discussions that a preponderance of sources uses "America" to refer to the US). My point is simply that we shouldn't be basing titles exclusively on the behaviours of monolingual native English speakers (which, given the populations of different groups of first-language English speakers, would basically mean that typical US usage would prevail for every single article). It's amusing how just pointing out that guidelines don't apply that standard provokes accusations of "grudges against Americans". Rwenonah (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Why would it be unfair to follow the behaviours of native speakers? They use the language most. Many only communicate in that language. Using incorrect English just to compromise or feel more inclusive toward people who've learned English incorrectly is a terrible idea. Learn what you don't know. LordAtlas (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty clear WP:SNOW has more than applied at this point. I'm tempted to make a template like {{faq off}} that just says "Read the FAQ" in either as Vogonic a manner as possible or else borderline-disruptively flamboyant. This is just one of many pages that could use such a template. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove/Change "Ethnic Groups" section from summary.

Case for changing the listed figures

This section is rife with errors. The source cited for this information is a misattribution. It leads to a beliefnet article on religious demographics and does not mention ethnic groups of the United States at all. The true source claims to pull information from the U.S. Census Bureau, but upon referencing the U.S. Census Bureau's table of reported ancestries(the closest source I could find) the numbers don't add up. E.g. ~13% of Americans reported German ancestry, but the source this information was pulled from claims it is 17%. I am not including the actual numbers for each reported group because of the following section.

Case for removing the section entirely

The information currently listed is ancestry and is self-reported. Ancestry is not ethnicity. The United States does not have true ethnic groups the way countries like Afghanistan and the Philippines do. It does not describe ethnic communities the way they exist in some other countries. Right now, this section states that 6.7% of the U.S. population is American which does not make any sense and is very misleading. To be sure, there are historically notable communities such as the German Texans and the Pennsylvania Dutch and it may be worth researching and listing these, but these communities make up a very small portion of the U.S. population and it is still debatable if they are true ethnic groups.

Therefore, I propose that this section be removed. Ethnic groups are typically linguistically and culturally isolated so if anyone can think of something like that in the United States that may be a worthwhile replacement. Bludragn0 (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017 (I just updated the race and religion.)

[Full reproduction of article removed.]

Not done: I couldn't identify the desired changes. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Error in info box

The sum of the religions is over 99% essentially covering the population 100%, implying there are no atheists or negligible irreligion. A flat falsehood rather than a misrepresentation. Probably best source on this will be Pew Religion. Suggest you consult usage in similar countries, i.e. Canada, UK, and Australia. Implying that religion applied to the entire population would be reasonable in the set of countries like Malta, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. but not this set. Lycurgus (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Also grossly contradicts the text in the body of the article. Lycurgus (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you misread a few things? First of all, the source of the religion in the infobox is Pew. Secondly, the second entry - 22.8% - is "irreligious". And a quick glance shows the same numbers used in the body. So I'm not sure what you're seeing here that needs to be fixed? --Golbez (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
ty~, my bad, somehow I looked at that and assumed it was something else, a denomination. Shouldn't have been so ready to see the negative thing. It's a natural mistake given the current order, one I wouldn't have made if irreligion was at the bottom, or otherwise distinguished from a list of religions. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2017

182.188.27.18 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Current text Suggested text
The United States of America /əˈmɛrɪkə/ (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a constitutional federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions. Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is in the ... The United States of America, commonly referred to as the United States, America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal district. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the ...
Declined, no reasoning given for request. --Golbez (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

I removed the term "Constitutional" from the first sentence. The first sentence has a consensus that went through dispute resolution and should only be altered with another strong consensus. While consensus can change, the last discussion that brought up the word usage next to "Federal Republic" seems to indicate there is no need to add the word. "Federal Republic" is sourced.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional discussion;[5] and here [6] and here [7] and here [8].--Mark Miller (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Just double checking but it seems that the change was made on February 9th with no explanation by user XXGfHXx.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Governmental system descriptors

We should probably use a more accurate term that includes the oligarchical nature of the government. Something like "illiberal democracy" or "inverted totalitarian regime" would probably be more accurate, but those are political philosophies rather than actual systems of government. Perhaps "oligarchical representative democracy?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:8065:3D00:6C38:C9E9:BE9F:F5C5 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

We could just call them nazis. Would that work? --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
We would only say that if it were a formal oligarchy. See for example Upper Canada, where the info-box has "oligarchy" as in the government field. All cabinet officers, judges, civil servants and members of the upper house were appointed on the recommendation of a local elite. TFD (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about firearms under Culture?

I feel like the Culture section should make mention of firearms.174.54.203.225 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

the food section should begin as follows:

Please add words almost exactly as follows to the start of the Food section:



As it is, you fail to describe or summarize food in the United States. You simply don't give basic information. it would be like writing about the Catholic faith without mentioning the Vatican. you're omitting the fundamental information everyone knows. For balance you could mention the FDA and nutritional labels (which are very positive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:2481:FC80:BD9F:CBC9:CDF4:C41C (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You're relating things that have more to do with nutrition and health, than with foodstuffs consumed, which is what the Food section currently relates, IIRC (I haven't pulled up the article). You haven't given any sources, and your wording seems definitely non-neutral POV ("masses of clinically obese people are a surprising first sight"). Dhtwiki (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, this screed is very anti-FA (protip: that's not what Fat Acceptance is about), and ... yeah, there's absolutely no going here. --Golbez (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
U.S. average life expectancy is 79, not 69. See WHO, the UN, etc. You mustn't confuse US life expectancy with that of Russia, as the former is first-world and the latter is third. US life expectancy is also higher than in most of eastern Europe, and not that much below Denmark's. The rest of the "quote" is the kind of nutritional activism (which I do sympathize with) that should be toned down for an encyclopedia. One can say the same thing, more soberly, backed up with sources, and in fewer words. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Both the Food and Health sections in the article give information on obesity, plus links to an article or two, I think. Obesity in the United States, which is probably one that is linked to from the article, shows how the level of detail asked for above is treated. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am the OP who started this section. The person who said that my suggestion places too much emphasis on health effects for the food section is correct! You are right that obesity isn't literally "food". It is probably not appropriate for the "food" section. At the same time, if you talk with ANYONE who is not from the United States (from ANY country) and ask "how was the food", the first words out of their mouth will be something like, "oh my God there is so MUCH of it - the portions are absolutely massive." Basically, an objective, neutral description of American food MUST begin and have as its major component the fact that there is so much of it and the food culture's effect on the population. Other countries really don't come close in their food culture. To the people who objected to my specific health analysis, I think you are correct that the "food" section should be basically cultural and not basically be about health or nutrition. So somehow you should reword the section to be very encyclopedic but get across the main defining characteristic of food in the United States: its overabundance and overconsumption. This is also pretty new historically speaking (it wasn't at all true in 1920, say), and it's not clear to me when this happened. There should at east be some kind of indication of this. It is not a good article section if you find out more by going there (to America) than you do by reading its encyclopedia article, because the encyclopedia article leaves out the most important and salient aspect! That means it is not neutral. Please improve it! Thank you. 2A02:AB88:2481:FC80:50C4:ED5D:F7B1:3D6F (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just made some changes to the Health section, more to make the descriptions of obesity more coherent than to shift emphasis or add details. It seemed a pretty strong description of the obesity epidemic to begin with, while maintaining a matter-of-fact, encyclopedic tone. If there are further enhancements that you wish to see, please suggest some specific changes to the present wording. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

America is a continent

...United States of America (/əˈmɛrɪkə/; USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America...

...United States of America (/əˈmɛrɪkə/; USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or USA...

Ugh. Go away. In English, "the Americas" is North America and South America combined. "America" is the United States. Stop with this nonsense. LordAtlas (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

The United States is often incorrectly called 'America'. America is a Continent divided into two sub continents called North America and South America. Canada and Brazil for examples, are other countries in America. Therefore, Canada could also be refereed to as 'Canada of America'. Garry Reay-Laidler (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it can't. No one cares. This is English not Spanish. Go away. I'm pointy AF. LordAtlas (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Republicans should not be described as center-right

Hello. Last fall and winter, I argued on this talk page that we should change the sentence "Within American political culture, the center-right Republican Party is considered 'conservative' and the center-left Democratic Party is considered 'liberal'." (Under "Parties and elections" under "Government and politics".) I argued that we should change "center-right" to "right-wing." The sentence was never changed, and now, I am going to argue the same thing: we should change it to "right-wing."

My biggest reason for this is global warming, which is a well-established scientific fact. In spite of this, nearly all Republican politicians dispute that man-made global warming is real. They are denying the validity of science, and that's a really extreme thing to do. A center-right political party would never dispute well-established science. The Republicans are therefore an extremist party, not a center-right party.

You can also look at lots of other issues. For example, health care has been all over the news recently. The Republicans in Congress came pretty close (they were just a couple of votes shy) to taking away the health insurance of some 22 million people, all while giving tax cuts to the richest Americans. That's pretty extreme. A center-right party would not do such a thing. Or you can look at their tax and regulation policies in general: they have fought to remove many regulations on guns, pollution, banking, etc. even when these regulations are common in most industrialized countries. Again, that's not center-right.

Finally, look at our president, who is a Republican and was nominated by the Republican Party. He behaves like a child. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He lies constantly. His election was aided by the Russians. He is a disgrace to our country. But the Republicans let him take the nomination, and they endorsed him and supported him (some criticized him a little bit, but they still endorsed him and voted for him). If the Republicans were a center-right party, then last summer, they all would have said, "This man is unfit to be president, and we refuse to support him." But they didn't. And that goes to show that they are not a center-right party.

Anyway, I think we should change that sentence by replacing "center-right" with "right-wing." Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate my support for this if the description for the Democratic Party is also changed to centrist or center-right. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would take a long time to find authoritative sources that would tell us that the Republicans are not center-right, and it would take even longer to argue the point well enough to get it passed into this article. I'm a graduate student, and I'm really busy all the time, and I just don't have time. So I nominate someone else to do this research and arguing for me.
Having said that, I think it would be easier to find sources that say that the Republicans were once a center-right party but that they have moved sharply to the right since 1980 than it would be to find unbiased sources that tell us that today's Republicans are "right-wing" (even though they are). So we should go that route. We should state in the article that the Republicans were at one time a center-right party but that they have moved considerably farther to the right in recent decades. (Just that one sentence is enough.)
One source for this is a book called "Restless Giant" by James T. Patterson. (I proposed the same book several months ago.) I would say it's an unbiased book, and it includes criticisms of both parties. He explains how the Republicans operated as a center-right party in the 1970s. But he goes on to discuss how the right wing of the Republican Party rose to national power under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and how the Republicans continued to move to the right under the Congressional Republicans of the 1990s, who resisted the agenda of Bill Clinton, and the election of George W. Bush in 2000. The only problem is: the book ends at 2000. So we would need another source to tell us how the Republicans have moved even further to the right since then. I have too much work to be doing these days, and I'm not going to try to find such a source. But I hope someone else does.
Also, Golbez, I think the Democrats are best described as center-left, because they are internally divided between centrists like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama and liberals like Bernie Sanders. So as an average between the two, I would call them a center-left party.Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
As they are the only parties of any real power in the U.S., is it even worth bothering to distinguish between "left" and "center-left" and "right" and "center-right"? --Khajidha (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Khajidha makes a valid observation. As there are only 2 parties, what do we gain with a difference between left and center-left. Especiall since these labels are subjective and depending on context anyway (e.g. in the European context Democrats would already be labelled center-right (or even right wing)). Arnoutf (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
That's another good point. If this is a "world-wide" spectrum, what's the point? All politics is local. "Left" and "right" are completely dependent on location. --Khajidha (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Over-emphasis of communal living failure

I have edited thusly [9]. Yes, the statement is true, but it is also tautology. Something doesn't fail because it is succeeded by something else! The main problem is its placing gives too much emphasis to this. Yes, a very few communal experiments failed, but this doesn't mean they were doomed to fail. A better understanding of crops soon to be learnt from the indigenous pop'n was going to make a difference. Less emphasis on the company's insistence the men look for gold, to the detriment of their own welfare, would have helped make the settlements sustainable. That the communal flavour of the settlement was imposed by the company on its indentured servants, not one voluntarily entered into, must be a factor. A reading of the 3 pages cited includes a conventional and correct economic explanation of the benefits of private property over communal ownership. But the settlements failed for multiple reasons, not this one alone. The same referenced book tells in the surrounding pages how the abolishment of the private company running the Virginia settlements in favour of a formal colony is what allowed the company imposed system to be replaced by private settlers. So the economic point being made in the sentence I have removed, although it is one with which we should have much sympathy, hides the fact that it was the abolishment of +private+ company property rights in favour of the establishment of a +state+ colony which allowed for the private settlements! Also, this claim in the History section of this main page is not mentioned in the detailed article History_of_the_United_States. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Demographics/Multi-racial

As people began to analyze their DNA for origins, the multi-racial demographics may need to be updated. Some analyzers go to the point of trying to identify archaic origins. For Black, uniquely American, as opposed to African, the legal percentage, often referred to as the one drop rule, however, I understand the actual percentage for legal identification as Black is 3% or 1/32 or one great-great-great grandparent. For some Native American Nations, the requirement is not of actual percentages, but the ability to prove lineage to a living, individual having reported after relocation to Oklahoma around the turn of the century. This data may come from census data. However, in that case, it would be what an individual identifies with in the individual's report of the individual's in the household. The Hispanic category is confusing. It may simply require origins from a Spanish speaking country or culture. I do not where that places Belizeans. I was apprised that in the Puerto Rican there is a concept of light and dark. I do not know how this translates to demographics. However, Caribbean genepools most likely differ vastly from Mexican, which is located on the North American continent. However, for paternity, I don't think one compares a Caribbean to North American Hispanics, which would probably imply Mexican. I have not encountered the concept of separating AmerIndian form Mexican from the Mexicans that I have encountered in the US. I have read some South American countries contain no percentage of AmerIndians. I don't know that I saw Asian, specifically, but with South Asians, I am not sure which category they use. I did ask one person who said she was mixed, so checks Asian. Often there is not a category that one might find fits their needs on a form or questionnaire. In Biology, they teach the origins of all people came out of the fertile crest in Africa. However, it's been discovered that some carry Neanderthal DNA. And, if you DNA looks like a travel guide or a mitration path, you might be very confused as to which box to check. I consider myself to be the sum total of DNA and unique experiences. However, there are also racial/cultural groups with whom I do identify within the experiences of my DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:e944:b500:1416:bc4d:8de8:b591 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems like some kind of essay about how we need to do the races differently... but it all comes from the census bureau, we have no input on that, you should forward your concerns to them. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary History

The third paragraph of this section claims "Due to the dot-com boom, stable monetary policy under Alan Greenspan, and reduced social welfare spending, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001." There is an embedded link in the phrase "reduced social welfare spending" leading to the page "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act." The implication is "Due to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history."

First of all, no sneaky links for the purpose of political argument. Remove the link or edit the sentence so this politically-motivated claim is out in the open for readers. Any mention of this act in this context must explain how and/or why it had a positive impact on the US economy.

Second, the cited works do not support or even mention this point. One of the cited works is a newspaper opinion article and not a peer-reviewed academic source. Therefore it is a claim, not a fact. Furthermore neither source mentions the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" or the effects of any reduction in welfare spending during the 1990s. Therefore this statement is unsourced and must be removed.

Please leave the political arguments out of this article and stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement "The withdrawal caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the successor of al-Qaeda in the region." referring to the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq during 2009-2010, has no source. The cited article "The JRTN Movement and Iraq’s Next Insurgency" does not support this statement. Therefore the statement is unsourced and must be removed.

The cited article from 2011 actually claims "(The Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshabandi Sunni insurgency movement) emerged as the only Iraqi insurgent group to have grown stronger during and since the U.S.-led “surge.” Indeed, U.S. statements on JRTN have arguably added to its credibility and potential for recruiting and fundraising." Further the 2011 article predicts "The withdrawal of most or all U.S. forces could be another stressful transition for JRTN. The movement’s current raison d’être—expelling U.S. forces—could dry up in the coming six months. JRTN is already struggling to maintain the flow of new attack videos due to reduced availability of U.S. targets as bases shut down and convoy traffic declines, and this could stem the movement’s external fundraising."

The article does not support the intended politically-motivated bias of the aforementioned erroneous claim in the United States wikipedia article, the intent of which is to assert that "President Obama's defense policy caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency in Iraq, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." This is an unsupported and unsourced political attack that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Therefore it must be properly sourced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please use the {{edit semi-protected}} template in the same section as your request. This helps us editors know what the request is without blindly removing the template and considering it a test edit. For this reason, I am adding the template into the section for you and leaving it open for any other editor to look into. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. For me, this is WP:TLDR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"America was left the world's only super power after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991." I don't know why that was removed from the article. Because China and Russia are not super powers. Russia is a world power and China is a regional power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lj996 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The start of the 5th paragraph has a similar issue to the mentioned 3rd paragraph. It cites a book "Hidden in Plain Sight: What really caused the world's worst financial crisis" for "Government policy designed to promote affordable housing", which isn't the point made by the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.137.114 (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Map 'territorial acquisitions' in § Independence and expansion (1776–1865) seems incorrect

That map seems misleading in its titling of the large brown area on the right side of the map. Please help solving or discussing that issue on File talk:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png#Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sharing my response here:
All that land north and west of the Ohio River was claimed by several of the original states. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia all had competing claims over it, with Connecticut's and Virginia's being the strongest. From what I can tell, as of the Treaty of Paris there was no land in the country not claimed by a state, the first non-state territories weren't made until the North-West Territory in 1787. See File:United_States_land_claims_and_cessions_1782-1802.png. --Golbez (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice then, that both Golbez (and NYActuary in the discussion on File talk:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png#Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.) agree that those lands north and west of the Ohio River were in 1783 not part of any of those thirteen founding states. Next question: is anyone capable of adjusting such a Wikimedia map? --Corriebertus (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Me: "All that land ... was claimed by several of the original states", "there was no land in the country not claimed by a state"
You: "[You] agree that those lands ... were in 1783 not part of any of those thirteen founding states."
Is this just blatant arguing in bad faith, or do we have a huge comprehension issue? --Golbez (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

41.136.223.139 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You'll need to make a specific request. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed addition of image

@Elinor Rajka: Hello, Elinor. I see that you've begun an edit war over the inclusion of an image in this article. You haven't provided any justification for the addition of a world map to a section already heavily loaded with images from American history. But more to the point, you seem to be disregarding the note appearing at the top of this Talk page -- the one that calls attention to the Arbitration Committee's concern about maintaining proper standards of behavior and editorial process. This includes the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle under which you discuss the matter here prior to re-inserting challenged material. Would you please engage in discussion on this issue and, while this discussion is taking place, would you please remove the challenged image from the article? I look forward to hearing your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No response after a week. Image has been removed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Right-alignment of figures in tables

Two tables in this article, "Population Centers" (Metro Area Population, one column) and "Languages" (Number of Speakers, three columns) do not properly align figures at the rightmost "ones" digit, whereas all other tables do so. As this is WP style, I've tried to adjust the entries -- to no avail. This is minor, I guess, but the current off-alignment does look unprofessional. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017

2601:144:200:F284:4467:6C33:2DD4:487 (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This requires a complete and specific description of the request....but mostly just an actual request.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request, nothing to do. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"History: Indigenous populations" section way too short

Is this because of a past consensus, or just that no one has ever bothered to expand the section? Either way, it's ridiculously short and I'm going to expand it to a similar length as the other "History" subsections. CJK09 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any consensus on the size of the section but I can do a quick check.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear that there has been any consensus over the size or addition of content in some while for this section.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
But you should be prepared that someone might raise an objection if something is controversial, seems to go off topic, may be too broad a scope for the article as well as many other technical reasons such as article size etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
CJK09, I should also mention that as a new editor your edits will probably be looked at closely by editors as this is one of Wikipedia's most viewed articles and it took a good deal of work to get it rated GA. There has been a lot of edit warring and content disputes on the article as well as other related articles and is currently under a discretionary sanctions warning; "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." so Caution is recommended. Happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Colon Abuse

This article uses colon (;) extensively (208 times). It was not meant to be used this much. Well respected magazines and newspapers hardly ever use it! 193.242.214.225 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that usage of colons is highly dependent upon the style of language used (level of formality, level of education assumed in target audience, purpose of writing, etc), the symbol you have typed there is actually a semicolon. --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Mega-diverse Countries

A mega diverse country criteria is based on its wildlife, not climate or geography Mason.Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree this mason guy is editing to belittle usa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As you mention me by name, Georgepodros -- I'm actually more patriotic than most. By the way, your post above related to Turkey during the Ottoman Empire has absolutely no relevance here. Please stick to the subject at hand. Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A mega diverse country is based on biological diversity, not geographical or climate, and it should be stated as such. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 3:31, 09 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many images?

There are far a lot of graphs and images. Text is sandwiched in between templates and other images and is excessively heavy in the Demographics section.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Demographics section could be helped by re-aligning the historical population table to the right side. That would take care of the text sandwiching at the cost of about an inch of white space before the major population centers. I've already got it set up, to preview. I'll just go ahead and save the edit. We can discuss further (re)moving or reformatting of the images. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved from the article for discussion;
Race/Ethnicity (2015 ACS estimates)[1]
By race:[1]
White 77.1%
Black 13.3%
Asian 5.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native 1.2%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2%
Multiracial 2.6%
By ethnicity:[1]
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 17.6%
Non-Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 82.4%
Non-Hispanic whites 62.8%

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c "ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, (V2015)". www.census.gov. Retrieved October 15, 2016.
Keep, but make narrower than 310px, as there's too much blank space and it's wider than the other graphics there. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved from article for discussion;
Largest ancestry groups by county (2000), led by German Americans
U.S. population density in 2005
I support just losing these images. One is POV and the other outdated and not supported by a reference.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd keep the first one, because it's a compelling graphic when viewed in high resolution, though somewhat confusing and misleading (my county is classed as Chinese but that must be a slight plurality in this diverse town). I'd remove the second, regarding population densities, just because there are too many images in that section. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This image lacks a source to verify that it is what it depicts. The original upload pages the image is linked to no longer exists.
U.S. troops approaching Omaha Beach in 1944

--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Iconic photograph (but it doesn't have to be the representative photo in that section). I couldn't find alternate page at Naval History and Heritage Command site (the source that's lacking, I believe), but a snapshot of the old page is archived here. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Let me see if the information on that page can be used to find a reliable book source and I'll add it back! Thanks again.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No source and not sure if needed;
U.S. territorial acquisitions–portions of each territory were granted statehood since the 18th century.

--Mark Miller (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would keep this, unless a better graphic can be found. I think it's instructive to synoptically correlate major acquisitions of territory with the states that were formed therefrom. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Would anyone object if I began switching the article over to short citations while I am checking sources and cleaning up references, since we already have a fully fleshed out bibliography?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

United States Land Area

I do not see the reason in adding Land Area, it should just be total area. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 3:34, 09 September 2017 (UTC)

Why?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Effects on and interaction removal of Death of Captain Cook image

Images suggested
The Mayflower, which transported Pilgrims to the New World. During the first winter at Plymouth, about half of the Pilgrims died.[1]
Squanto known for having been an early liaison between the native populations in Southern New England and the Mayflower settlers, who made their settlement at the site of Squanto's former summer village.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:928B:5C00:DC86:6738:4DB2:64F7 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Jennie Augusta Brownscombe, The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth, 1914, Pilgrim Hall Museum, Plymouth, Massachusetts
John Gadsby Chapman, The Baptism of Pocahontas (1840). A copy is on display in the Rotunda of the US Capitol.
The Indian Removal Act resulted in the transplantation of several Native American tribes and the Trail of Tears.

References

  1. ^ Mintz, Steven. "Death in Early America". Digital History. Archived from the original on December 30, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

"Death of Captain Cook" by Johann Zoffany (1795)

Can someone remove this image and replace with one of this instead.

Or add an image to give a valence like the trail of tears or one that talks about the American Indian Genocide or the big numbers of Indians that past because of effects on and interaction. 2602:304:CFF8:5A30:D9B3:7840:BCDE:B633 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want the image replaced?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The section is about effects on and interaction with.... Cook interacted with native peoples of several locations now associated with the United States and was perhaps the most notable navigator/explorers in history. His death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section....and that's aside from your just not liking the other image and giving no reasoning as to why it should be removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The main problem with the image is that it shows behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone on the front page of the article which ultimately lead to someones passing. It would be better place in the History of the United States article. By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments. We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA). Like Thanksgiving winch after all is a major holiday in the United States by presidential proclamation. Not trying to white wash history; only trying to give a more rounded and ecliptic view of what it is to be an american. In other words violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence. Most people only pay a small among of time in articles and see the images most of the time with out reading the full article, attaching meaning. I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits. Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party. In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way. As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:E501:230F:4093:5F0C (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The reasoning given for the removal is simply your personal reaction/opinion and has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The image depicts a historic event which is a part of American history. The fact that it depicts an act of violence that ended in the life of the man is not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever.
"By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments" If you have followed me here from the Alt-left article to become a problem you might want to rethink what you are attempting.
"We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA)." This isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view.
"violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence." I have no idea what this means.
"I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits." I have no idea what is you just don't like but clearly you just don't like something.
"Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party" No, just...no.
"In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way" Oh really? There were many witnesses including the ship's surgeon, First Lt. King and a person who history would rememeber as Captain Bligh. There were also Native Hawaiian witnesses that gave detailed accounts that match the western accounts. This was written about a great deal. We know the name of the actual person who stabbed Cook, the man that held him and the many facts that in most situations in history are nowhere near as well recorded.
"As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant" Original research...and perhaps you simply do not understand but...African Americans are not indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Misuse of article talk page. All caps ramble with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The reasoning given for the removal is simply your personal reaction/opinion and has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The image depicts a historic event which is a part of American history. The fact that it depicts an act of violence that ended in the life of the man is not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever.

not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. Pointing out to be having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people. The argument holds absolute weight your reasoning is simply your personal reaction/opinion and we would not have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Ceasar this is an article on the United States.

"By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments" If you have followed me here from the Alt-left article to become a problem you might want to rethink what you are attempting. "We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA)." This isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view.

I agree this isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view. To be objective. I did not followed you here from the Alt-left article to become a problem. I'm not attempting anything but making the article the best it can be. Before this talk with you I did not know you exited.

"violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence." I have no idea what this means.

It means you are not being objective and think this is a propaganda page. Because in retrospect, that seems to describe..ya know...you.

"I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits." I have no idea what is you just don't like but clearly you just don't like something.

Don't like that it shows Natives as not wanting to interact with Europeans. When we have a holiday to give tanks

"Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party" No, just...no.

I have no idea why you think another image to be included is a bad idea. What is it you just don't like? but clearly you just don't like something?

"In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way" Oh really? There were many witnesses including the ship's surgeon, First Lt. King and a person who history would rememeber as Captain Bligh. There were also Native Hawaiian witnesses that gave detailed accounts that match the western accounts. This was written about a great deal. We know the name of the actual person who stabbed Cook, the man that held him and the many facts that in most situations in history are nowhere near as well recorded.

One of the reasons we know so much about captain cook and the reason he show up in so many history textbooks is because we have tons of records about him, but they're almost all European records. Even the Hawaiion recoros we have about cook have been heavily influenced by later contact with Europeans.

"As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant" Original research...and perhaps you simply do not understand but...African Americans are not indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's the point. African Americans are not indigenous people of the Americans. Pointing out that not everything is black or white.

Captain cook sailor and eventually a British Naval officer, who saw action in the seven year war. Best know for his three voyages of exploration and scientic discovery that took place in the Pacific Ocean. Part of the middle wave of European colonization. The one that took place after Europeans settled in the Americas, but before they set their sights on Africa.

having discussed the life of captain cook, lets turn to the most controversial thing he ever did. Die.

So Cook landed in Hawaii at Kealakekua bay in early 1779 and explored the island. While he was ashore he was greeted by an important person, probably a chief. In early February, he left. But the ship had trouble and was forced to return to the bay for repairs. During this second visit, he had difficulty with the Hawaiians, who'd previously had been pretty hospitable. And there was a fracas, in which captain cook was killed by at least one Hawaiian. We know this from journals kept by various crewman, but the historical controversy arises from the details and interpretation of his death. Why, in short, was cook killed? The traditional view is that cook was killed for some religious reason, although what isn't always clear. One of the most fleshed out versions of this story comes from the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, in his book "Eslands of History" So in the Hawaiian religious system ku the God of war and Human sacrifice, rules for eight or nine months out of the year. The other months are reserved for the Fertility God, Lono. the season long festival for Lono is call "Mukaniki" and during this the Hawalion king, who is associated with Ku, is ritually defeated. During the Makuhiki, an image of Lono tours the island, gets worshipped, and collects taxes. And at the end of the Makahiki period, Lono is ritually defeated and returned to his native Tahiti.

The thinking goes that because cook arrived in the middle of the Makahiki, the Hawaiians perceived him as Lono. So cook took part in the rituals and sacrifices that were made as part of the Makuhiki and in Sahilins view, Cook was killed as ritual murder to mark the end of Makahiki. For Ku to return, the festival to end, and the normal political order to be restored, Lono had to be defeated and presumably killed! For Sahlins, Cooks's death fits perfectly with the ritual structure of Hawaiian culture.

Opposing view from Gunanath Obeyeskere for looking a lot more like European myth than like Hawaiian ritual. First off, Obeyesekera argues that Cook himself would not easily be confused with Lono. In fact if he were lake for a God, it would probably be Ku, the war God, what with all the cannons and muskets. Also there's the fact that the name Cook sounds more like Ku than Lono. Also, arguing that native Hawaiians would see a European and think him a God has all kinds of troubling implications. One of them being that native Hawaiians aren't terribly smart. Last Lono is associted with fertility and the Hawaiians would have associated the Europeans with the exact opposite of fertility because they introduced gonorrhea to Hawaii. Plus noting in Howaiian religion has any of their gods being ritually killed. Part of their mythology can be seen as sanctioning a ritual killing of the king, but not of a god and also it's a long way from ritual killing to actual killing.

The truth is probably a lot less spectacular which is that cook was probably killed during a malee in which a bunch of Hawaions were also killed. Before his death, Cook had attempted to take a Hawaiian king hostage in response to Hawaiians taking a bunch of stuff from Cook's boats. This was common practice for Cook. He had done the same thing in Tahiti and other Polynesion Island after islanders had taken European goods. Which happened everywhere Cook went in the Pacific. Great sailor terrible anthropologist. Although to be fair, anthropology handn't be invented. So why the tension? Probably because the Europeans dismontled a Hawaiian ritual space, some sources call it a temple, and used it for firewood. Cook attempted to pay for it, but his low-ball offer of two hatchets, was refused. This being a Hawaiian explanation. Of course it's also possible that Hawaiians were just upset that cook had attempted to kidnap their king. Most accounts from the time portrays a chaotic scene in shich cook himself fired at least two shots, probably killing at least one islander. And one thing that seem pretty clear is Cook death does not look premeditated and it sure doesn't look like a ritual.

But even so, the idea that Hawaiians saw cook as a God has ended up in a good many accounts of this demise. Why? well one explanation is that it fits with other stories of explorers. Like the Tainos thought Columbus was a god and the Aztecs supposedly thought Cortes was a god. And this just makes Cook one in a long line of Europeans who were thought to be gods by people who Europeans felt were savages.

Sure Cook never had much formal schooling but his voyages were all about increasing knowledge and scientific exploration. And having him die at the hands of a people who were so obviously mistaken in thinking him a god makes an argument for the superiority over the intellectualism of the Enlightenmen versus the so called "Primitive Religion" of the colonies.2605:E000:928B:5C00:CCAC:F4D:4328:7929 (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll just say this, the United States has been established to be the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii. Cook was the first westerner in Alaska and Hawaii and the first to make contact with the indigenous peoples of these lands. I believe there is due weight for the mention and the image.
The editor may simply be new to Wikipedia and does not understand that objections to the article must be made within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and historical content must reflect academic consensus. Please be warned that continued misuse of the talk page, from what appears to be a random IP user, could simply keep the article locked longer. I can tell you for sure you have absolute not convinced me to remove a thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Misuse of article talk page. All caps ramble with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To be clear. No one is telling to remove image because of the person or because Cook has no intrinsic value to the United States history. This view still has its adherents. What is being talk about is our standards of assert ability regarding depiction. I think the view that is coming in more and more is that one cannot make a total separation between wha'ts true and what our standards of assertability are. That the way in which the-what I called using the Kantian picture the "mind-dependece of truth" comes in-is the fact that what's true and what's false is in part a function of what our standards of truth and falsity are. And because even within one scientific theory, you often have different accounts can be given of so-called facts. One could say "boy-scout A fired his stater's pistal before boy-scout B," the other could say "no, boy-scout B fired his starter's pistol before boy-scout A" And if the distance is sufficiently large so that a light singnal can't travel from on to the other without exceeding the speed of light, then it may be both descriptions are correct, both are admissible. I wanna say one shouldn't push that too far because we don't wanna give up our standards of intelligibility altogether. I think another image of Cook is sufficient to make the "point." Lastly because Miller may not compliantly understand withing framework of what a talk page is. I'm moving on. Keep the article locked. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:DC86:6738:4DB2:64F7 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Spanish as a National Language of the United States?

Spanish language distribution in the United States by county

English is the de-facto main language in the United States. However, it could be argued that Spanish, in addition to English, has a status of a national language (i. e. language that has some connection with people and the territory they occupy). Primarily Spanish-speaking territories include scattered areas in the Southwestern United States, Miami, and Puerto Rico.



Switzerland has four national languages: German, French, Italian and Romansh.[1] Romansh, while being a national language, is only spoken by 0.6% of the population of Switzerland. In comparison, Spanish is the native language of 13% of the population of the United States.

No; Switzerland has four official languages, so there's no valid comparison there. There may be a valid comparison with another country, but not that one. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
There were many languages spoken by people in acquired territories which retained some recognition, and that is mentioned. But none of them are "national languages." TFD (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no national language other than English. National languages go well beyond pockets of immigrants or historical enclaves who speak Spanish or French or Tagalog or Chinese. All four are taught as foreign languages or "world languages" in American schools. Not one of the 50 U.S. states has made Spanish an official language, yet 32 states have made English official. (By state law, New Mexico publishes a Spanish translation of all legislation.) Spanish is spoken by millions of people, yes, but most speak fluent English as well. Every U.S. college/university outside Puerto Rico operates and instructs in English only, while Puerto Rican universities offer most courses in Spanish and a fair number in English. Only English qualifies as a U.S. national language. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Remdem115: cultural prominence removal

I saw that you were the last to edit this page.

May I inquire on why you removed the "cultural prominence." description of America? Are you implying that we have lost our cultural edge in the world? If so, then please explain your reasoning behind it. I would appreciate that. Thanks! NocturnalDef (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

How is the United States not listed as a police state?

It meets all the criteria for being listed as such. Multiple sources, multiple statistics, a general consensus. Even debate.com has 94% saying that the USA is a police state.

I'm an American by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8DC7:3700:15EC:7100:5DC5:20E (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not listed as one because reliable sources don't say that it is. To change that you'd need to find reliable, legitimate sources (not just Internet polls) to back the assertion. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Multiple sources... that you of course have not supplied so we can vet them. Wow, even debate.com! Wow. Because according to debate.com, I can find good deals on a personal injury lawyer - it's a squatted web address, mate. Pro comment, American. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The assets forfeiture in favor of police might qualify, but I am not an expert. To me it looks more like a surveillance state than a police state. From what I have read in recent years, there is ever expanding wall to wall surveillance after it came into the open through Snowden and the NSA in 2013. The map with foreign military presence is outdated. Obama brought the Marines to Darwin, Australia, in 2010; since 2013 we pay for them. Then Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in October 2013 in Sydney, thet he signed up to remunerate the Marines, so Australia should be in blue there. 2001:8003:A921:6300:D4FB:1CA2:5C1D:1D1B (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A police state is an Authoritarian nation where a government uses excessive force to control its populace body. Since America is neither Authoritarian, nor a dictatorship, i don't think it's logical to label the country as a police state. Some police units in the country do break with sanctioned procedures but that is not itself without consequence. The Constitution protects the rights of all citizens, regardless if an unruly officer acts on his/her own authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef (talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can some one add a vaudeville link under Literature, philosophy, and the arts and theater 2605:E000:928B:5C00:704A:8C59:61E:FAF4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Alaska is in the northwest quadrant of North America

The word "corner" should be changed to "quadrant" in the first paragraph of this article. First past the post (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why? --Golbez (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I assume the editor's objection is that the continent isn't regular enough to truly have corners. However, there's only one place that could be considered the northwest corner, while quadrant would encompass at least six states and provinces, depending on where you draw the lines. I suggest the current wording should remain. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
My thinking, as well. "Corner" is more precise and less confusing than "quadrant", which applies more to geometric constucts than to geography (what other geographic features are thought of in terms of quadrants? I can't think of any offhand). Dhtwiki (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "quadrant" is too mathematical and precise for Alaska, a state off the mainland in a separate visual "panel." The current wording is less objectionable. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I prefer words that everyone understands, in this case corner. A quadrant is a corner of a rectangle. TFD (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

City/Metro list in opening section

It seems like listing the largest 13 metro areas is an odd choice of numbers, and using 4.5 million as a cutoff for listing also seems odd. Why not top 10? Why not a rounder number like 5 million? However, my edit is more specific: user Mason.Jones added San Bernardino to Riverside with the comment "This metro is "Riverside-San Bernardino," per official designation, US Census. Both cities are of same relative size and weight." First, the official designation is "Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario," so if you're going to claim "official"-ness, you need to get your facts straight. Second, every metro on this list has more than one city in their "official" title, so if you're going to do it here, you need to be consistent. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, and so on. Third, the relative size of the cities are the same ratio as Dallas and Fort Worth, so again, for consistency, why wasn't Fort Worth added? Whatever the number of places listed, in an introductory, overview-type section like this, simpler is better. One city listed for each metro. I've removed San Bernardino. If anyone has any discussion or thoughts, I'm happy to hear them. Dtcomposer (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

In the other examples you cite, the second city or cities are far smaller than the main city. And that's the point: there really is a main city. One could easily make the case that the Texas metro is "Dallas," not "Dallas–Ft. Worth," even though Ft. Worth is rather large. Not so Riverside–San Bernardino. These 2 core cities are coequal and there is no main city, whereas Ft. Worth, Ontario, and Naperville are anything but coequal. Second, not only is Riverside little known even in the United States, just several years ago San Bernardino was slightly more populous and was listed first (recent population estimates indicate that now Riverside is just slightly larger). Calling this metro "Riverside" is going to absurd heights to hold fast to some "first-city-only" rule. It's unnecessary and, I would argue, wrongheaded. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to skip the Riverside vs San Bernardino argument for a moment and find out why the cutoff is 4.5 million. --Golbez (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a history there, too: Originally the paragraph mentioned "metropolitan areas of around 5 million or more" so that it included Boston (4.8 million) and San Francisco (4.6 million), both of them premier American cities when you consider the larger CSA (Greater Boston and the Bay Area, respectively). Some others quibbled with "around 5 million" and wished to make it more precise while still excluding lesser U.S. metros like Phoenix. So here we are. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that labeling Phoenix as "lesser" is classifying things subjectively. I think I was responsible for Riverside-etc. being added, when someone added Phoenix. While confirming the latter addition, I found that Riverside fit the >4.5 million criterion, which surprised me; but I didn't think to try to exclude it. We can set a different population cutoff to, say, shorten what will otherwise probably be an ever lengthening list; but we shouldn't do it on the basis of what sounds to me like prejudicial reasoning (although I like the idea of San Francisco being considered "premier"). Dhtwiki (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The list must be controlled by sources, not editor opinions, or it will bloat to uselessness. An obvious round-number population is easily sourced, as is top 10 by population. If we want a list that includes the top "premier" cities like SF, then we need RSs to define that (number of tourists, most internationally known, or some such). If we can't agree on a criteria, we'd best just remove the list. --A D Monroe III(talk) 00:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
We could lose the list, which is out of sync with a similar list further down, and just say that New York is the largest city by population. However, that would leave too little text for a separate paragraph. So, the little bit that would remain should be put into the first paragraph, say, before the sentence that starts Forty-eight states and the federal district are.... Dhtwiki (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Horible link Mashup. ...can't tell what is what....lead not the place for a list.--Moxy (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

USA no longer formost economic and cultural power anymore?

Can someone please explain why this was so prematurely edited? Why were those descriptions removed? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Prematurely would suggest it was too early to remove but, it was not properly sourced and I cannot verify those claims as fact, as written.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

First off mark, where is your particular source that suggests the US has concurrently lost it's hegemonic influence/leadership; politically, economically and culturally? Second if you need a source that provides the contrary of your assessment, I have several; according to the "Monocle" soft power survey of 2017, the USA as a 'foreign power' still held the top spot for political, economic and cultural influence over the world. Other media, index sources such as "The independent" and "Knight Frank_ also claim that the US influence ranks first.

Thirdly, the USD is still the world's reserve currency regardless that we rank second in PPP. So how would we have thus lost economic leadership if every country on Earth still relies on the US dollar for trade/export and not the Yaun? And no, our debt is not a factor yet because we can still print money.

Lastly, how is it relevant to state that London is the leading global city over NY when they only slightly edge on influence in SOME rankings when others still rank NY at the top... then claim that your reasoning to remove the latter of American dominance from the USA article is due to either incredibly or non-importance when describing any particular nation? That seems a tad one-sided and biased if you put two and two together, Implying that the hidden intention isn't anything personal -- not self reassuring ones passionate hast for America's decline, and a multipolar world? Can you deduce two sides of an argument?

Thanks. NocturnalDef (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, America is handsdown' still the largest exporter of Media, music, fashion and cultural solidarity... so again I ask; how can you deduce that American soft power and cultural lead is no longer relevant as factual? What are YOUR sources or are you only speculating what should be factually read? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark+ It seems suddenly irregular that you won't respond to my argument after I took the liberty to provide you with the evidence which you so apparently required, and yet, didn't waste any time in walking all over remdom115...seemingly because it required little effort.

Make no mistake though; I am not remdom115. I am actually very astute when it comes to discussion on the concurrent political realm and status quo. I have an education. I can provide you details, all the elements that you require. So again I ask you, why continue to prematurely presume what I can already prove -- facts which are oblivious to you and information you provided as canon without properly qouting its source? Can you prove me otherwise? If not, then I would like access to properly edit this article. NocturnalDef (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation, article 4". Retrieved 2009-04-30.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_91&oldid=1137286188"