Talk:United States/Archive 90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85 ← Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 → Archive 95

Population estimates - dueling datasets

As is often the case in statistics, we've got a couple dueling Census Bureau data sets for population going on here. One is the American Community Survey set, here, and the other is from the Population Estimates, here and here. The ACS page notes that while it does produce population data, the data from Population Estimates is considered the official population data. We should probably adhere to one or the other for consistency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I would support the data from ACS just because it doesn't lump in multiracial hispanics (some other race) in with the white category as does the census estimates. Even though the census itself counts multiracial, but only when they're non-hispanics. It would give a clearer picture of the US demographic makeup. BelAirRuse (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Taking a look at the data in more detail, I think the ACS numbers are more detailed, and would support using them. We should have separate listings for "Some other race" and "Multiracial," however, because they aren't the same thing and there's no reason to lump them together. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I lumped them toghether only because according the the definition, it was aimed at hispanic mestizos and mulattoes. Basically it's another separate multiracial category for hispanics. Copy paste from Race and ethnicity in the USA page:

In the 2000 census, the non-standard category of "Other" was especially intended to capture responses such as Mestizo and Mulatto, two large multiracial groups in most of the countries of origin of Hispanic and Latino Americans. However, many other responses are captured by the category.

In 2008 15.0 million people, nearly 5% of the total U.S. population, were estimated to be "some other race", with 95% of them being Hispanic or Latino.

Due to this category's non-standard status, statistics from government agencies other than the Census Bureau (for example: the Centers for Disease Control's data on vital statistics, or the FBI's crime statistics), but also the Bureau's own official Population Estimates, omit the "some other race" category and include most of the people in this group in the white population, thus including the vast majority (about 90%) of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the white population. For an example of this, see The World Factbook, published by the Central Intelligence Agency.'BelAirRuse (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What is your source for this "definition"? The wording you claim does not appear in Wikipedia, and "mulatto" and "mestizo" are both deprecated terms in general. The article you refer to states, in pertinent part, Some other race: respondents may write how they identify themselves, if different from the preceding categories (e. g. Roma or Aborigine). However, 95% of the people who report in this category are Hispanic Mestizos.[3][9][14] This is not a standard OMB race category.[3] Responses have included mixed-race terms such as Métis, Creole, and Mulatto, which are generally considered to be categories of multi-racial ancestry (see below),[15] but, write-in entries reported in the 2000 census also included nationalities (as opposed to ethnicities), such as South African, Belizean, or Puerto Rican, as well as other terms for mixed-race groups like Wesort, Melungeon, mixed, interracial, and others. By contrast, Two or more races, widely known as multiracial: those who check off and/or write in more than one race. There is no option labelled "two or more races" or "multiracial" on census and other forms; people who report more than one of the foregoing six options are classified as people of "two or more races" in subsequent processing. Any respondent may identify with any number, up to all six, of the racial categories. These are two separate data categories for two separate categories of responses and it's inappropriate to lump them together. They aren't the same and our article should not make them appear as if they are.
How other data sources treat them isn't at issue here — the ACS data you wanted to use lists them separately, and combining them is not an accurate use of the data. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
As for why we separate out Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites — it's because Hispanic is not a race, it's an ethnicity, as extensively explained by the sources. Hispanics are included in the tabulation of whites when categorizing by race, and therefore making clear the separation for ethnicity is key to reducing confusion. All Census demographic reports specifically note the numbers of Hispanics vs. non-Hispanic whites when reporting race and ethnicity data. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Settlements Section Includes Christopher Columbus

This Sentence at the beginning of the Settlements Section does not seem right to me. "After Spain sent Columbus on his first voyage to the New World in 1492, other explorers followed. The Spanish set up small settlements in New Mexico and Florida." First Columbus never set foot on what is today the United States. So why mention him? This article is about the United States, not the European exploration of all the Americas. It also sounds like after what Columbus did in 1492 it allowed other Spanish explorers to settle in New Mexico and Florida. Or in other words Columbus found New Mexico and Florida, if maybe even just a little part of either. Which has never been proven. Second it mentions other explorers, but not by name. Should it not just state: The earliest known European settlers were Spanish explorers Juan Ponce de León and Francisco Vázquez de Coronado? Or something like that? I only feel obligated to mention this because I was looking up the European settlement history of the United States and found this first sentence confusing. I had to Google 'Spanish explorer Florida' and 'Spanish explorer New Mexico', to find the relevant information. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.34.52 (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

United states lead

  • The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country composed of {{USnum}} states,
to--North america--
  • The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country in North America composed of {{USnum}} states, Saadkhan12345 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
but why? The very next sentence says it's mostly in North America, and there's also that "mostly" aspect, as not all of the U.S. is in North America. Even by the strictest definition, it's partly in Oceania. --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Page rename

I think that the current page, United States, should become a redirect to this page, which will be the main page for the United States country. The reason is because the full name of the country is the United States of America, not just the United States. So, I think it should be moved back. 72.69.187.111 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Go to the top of this talk page, click the "Frequently Asked Questions" section, and read question 2, please. --Golbez (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
And also read the archives in which all sides of the issue have been exhaustively ventilated. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, neither North Korea, United Kingdom, or Vietnam have their official names as article titles so we are not in the habit of using full names as article titles.--70.27.229.181 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

GNU-Linux is not an American Software Company.

It is neither a company nor American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.205.172 (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2016


president: berack obama 2601:2C2:0:2ED8:B9F7:A174:B3DE:E1EE (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. It is not clear what you would like to have changed. Gap9551 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

Mohitnehatyagi (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016


change the president to donald trump

DroxOverdoes (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Obama is President until noon on January 20, 2017 - over 2 months away - Arjayay (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

donald trump from president elect > president pence from vice elect > vice president etc

 Not done Obama is President until noon on January 20, 2017 - Arjayay (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

President

Shouldn't Barack Obama still be listed as President? Trump is the President-Elect right now. Probuscus (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe listing both would be a good idea. 71.11.113.213 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
No, we should list only Obama until January 20, 2017. Then we'll list Trump. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hell, technically Trump isn't even president-elect yet. --Golbez (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

President-elect Trump in infobox?

As Trump has now become President elect, should he be added into the infobox after President Obama? I know it was done in 2008 after Obama was elected but i was seeing that some people will add him into the infobox as president-elect and then removed. So should he be added into the infobox or is there a rule not allowing this?

I am not seeing that as having been done as a maintained addition following the 2009 election. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't be listing the president-elect & vice president-elect in the infobox. Would be better to wait & replace Obama/Biden with Trump/Pence in January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Should not be included. It is not an official position, and there are four offices in the infobox, so it could become unwieldy. TFD (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. despite earlier precedent. Agree with GoodDay and TFD. Too transient for an encyclopedia entry, and redundant at the president-elect's inauguration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups doesn't add up to 100%

That thing. Why that thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.157.246 (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It does add up to 100% Whitetiger401 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Geographical description of the U.S. in lede

I have changed the description of the location of the U.S. in lede, attempting to clarify.

  • using shorter sentences
  • explicitly using 'contiguous' to draw the distinction for Alaska being geographically separated from the contiguous U.S.
  • placing Alaska in "the far northwestern corner of North America" rather than in the "northwestern quadrant", a much less descriptive term
  • describing Alaska as "between Canada to the east and the Bering Straits" rather than as between Canada and Russia since
    • Russia is in a separate continent
    • there is no common land border between Russia and the U.S.
    • the Bering Straits are the delimiter for the continents, the countries, and Alaska

At any rate, when a geographically descriptive paragraph is changed piecemeal the results can be a muddle. The lede of an article should be a clear , concise summary of the content. I suggest any further attempts to clarify this paragraph be done as a rewrite of the entire paragraph. — Neonorange (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Latinos/ hispanics

The amount of latinos in America Siria carrillo (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That is covered in the Demographics section, and in more detail in the articles Demography of the United States (Hispanic or Latino origin section) and Hispanic and Latino Americans. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Siria carrillo: Are you looking for Demography of the United States#Hispanic or Latino origin, perhaps? This isn't really the appropriate forum to ask. Dustin (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Links checked. #1–2, 4–6, 8–10 work, even though #2 marked as dead. #3, 7, 11–12 fail, even though none marked as dead. 12 links are involved, even though bot counts only 11 as "modified". Dhtwiki (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

There is a missing period after the "S" in the second abbreviation of "United States" in the final paragraph of the "Political divisions" section under "Government and politics." JNW1998 (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! --Golbez (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Mediation update Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States

Over the course of six months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lede sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox. The mediation has been successful and the participants reached consensus on the issues and have a proposed a new lede sentence for the article which is to be accompanied by a note. It has been agreed by the participants and the mediator that the proposed lede and accompanying note would be presented to article editors and members of the WP community as a Request for comment. It was agreed from the outset that the statement in the lede sentence of the article would have a footnote to explain the inclusion of U.S. territories, the consensus was to use the geographical sense of the United States for a general readership in an international context. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes below and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States. (To review tables, click "show" in column 1)

Mediation sources deliberation The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed internationally, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law, proclamation and international reports.

The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A), Presidential Proclamation of national jurisdiction [19], US State Department Common Core report to United Nations Human Rights Committee [20]

United States: Type of Government Edit

Would it make sense to change the US government system from "Federal presidential constitutional republic" to "Two-party Federal presidential constitutional republic"? The US is already listed as an example of one kind of two-party system on the "Two-party system" page, and in that context, the US two-party system represents, and I quote, "an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to one of the only two major parties, and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. In such arrangements, two-party systems are thought to result from various factors like winner takes all election rules. In such systems, while chances for third party candidates winning election to major national office are remote, it is possible for groups within the larger parties, or in opposition to one or both of them, to exert influence on the two major parties." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.113.16 (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The first description is in the infobox, and that particular grouping of words doesn't appear exactly that way in the rest of the article, so it's not particularly well justified, although I'm not arguing with the rightness of it. The problem with adding "two-party" is it makes an already windy description windier and the fact of there being two parties seems to arise more from individual states' voting rules rather than the US constitution itself. Also, third parties and third-party presidential candidates have played an important part in our politics, witness Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, to name just some recent presidential contenders. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
It is only a two party system in a certain sense. There are in fact numerous political parties and independent candidates in the U.S., it is just that they have limited success. It is not like China, where one party is mandated by law. It is better to leave out ambiguous information in the lead. TFD (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
What I would change is the absurd wording "constitutional republic" to simply "republic". --B.Lameira (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

In the infobox, I'd like to add (list) adjacent "President", "Vice President", and "Speaker of the House", each linking to the respective office's list pages. (This excludes the Chief Justice as the list is on its page) This would mirror, for one example, Luxembourg infobox where the Grand Duke and Prime Minister are accompanied by (list). This is mainly for consistency but also takes one step out of reaching those lists if one were to arrive at the US page first. GardenCosmos (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Such linkage is rare as far as I can tell, and would not make this article consistent with nation articles such as Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Russia, China, and India. I'll leave open whether to make the suggested edit. Others might have different opinions they wish to express. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 Not done – Since no one else has weighed in, I'll go ahead and resolve this as not being done. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that America has been called a Hyperpower?

Whether or not America might fit someone's personal definition of a hyperpower (although it usually does based on the normal condition of being a sole superpower), should it be mentioned either that it is a hyperpower by those standards, or at least that it has been called a hyperpower? I think it would obviously be notable, and it has been called such by notable figures (such as the former sec. of state of France while he was in office). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Mention by a French Secretary of State does not make it important enough to include. You would have to show that it had the same level of usage as the superpower. TFD (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Concur with TFD. The overwhelmingly dominant term in political science and diplomacy is "superpower." You would need to present a lot of reliable sources to the contrary (which I strongly doubt exist) to change anyone's mind on this issue. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Coolcaesar and The Four Deuces: Based on the definition of an unopposed superpower, it definitely fits. Some others consider Russia to be a superpower, however Putin himself labeled America as the lone superpower. Along with the definition of dominating every sphere, such as economics (more), and military,and in most other areas. And I believe America's political dominance is obvious. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Do you have multiple reliable sources labeling the U.S. a hyperpower? Otherwise, your assertions are merely original research in violation of WP:NOR. Which means they're staying out of this encyclopedia because under NOR, Wikipedia is never a first publisher of original research. That policy is a core foundation of the project and is nonnegotiable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Coolcaesar: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and a long list of books by scholars all label America as such.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iazyges (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
All we can say based on what you said above, literally, is "9 scholars have used the term 'hyperpower' to refer to the United States." Which is hardly a statement worth making. You need more than to prove that people use the term; you have to indicate that such a usage means something. "Superpower" is deeply entrenched in language and politics, so we'd need something that says the same is remotely true of the term "hyperpower." If you want us to say *more* than 9 individuals in a world of 7 billion have used it, then you'll need sourcing saying so. Like, a news article on the new terminology or paradigm. That's what third party sourcing is about. I can easily find dozens of articles calling the U.S. a corporate oligarchy, but we don't even entertain the notion of adding that. Hell, I can whip up a few articles calling the U.S. a hamster, but without reputable sources reporting that, it's nothing, no matter how famous I might be. --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Fully concur with Golbez. User:Iazyges appears to be advocating a French neologism in violation of Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I ran some searches for the term "hyperpower" right now. It looks like User:Iazyges is missing the sarcasm with which the term "hyperpower" is used in most serious English-language sources, when they prefix it with an explanation that it's a French term. (The point being that only a former power eclipsed by a true great power would need to use such bombastic terminology when the term "superpower" is perfectly sufficient.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Having lived in France for 3 years, I recall that Hubert Védrine coined the term hyperpuissance in 1999 in France, which has debated American "cultural hegemony" since the 1920s after the arrival of jazz and American films. Around 1999–2000, French commentators were intrigued by this coinage, but it is far less cited in the post–9/11, post–Iraq War era. While the U.S. might remain the most powerful country in the world, the concept of a hyperpower is dated and, I believe, a (thoroughly) Franco-centric term. It is inappropriate for this article, and I oppose its inclusion. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Referring to America's form of government as a "plutocracy"

Asserting that the United States' government is controlled by oligarchs by definitively calling it a plutocracy instantly draws parallels to nation states shrouded in corruption, such as the Russian Federation. This is an incredibly bold and highly subjective statement, and it has no place in a website that deals only with indisputable facts, especially in such a highly frequented entry. Fluffybagel (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

True, and it was the work of a vandal and has now been fixed. Rwenonah (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Change description of Republicans from "center-right" to "right-wing"

This has been brought up before, but the current state of the article describes the Republicans as a center-right, and that just isn't true. Under "Government and politics," under "Parties and elections," it says, "Within American political culture, the center-right Republican Party is considered 'conservative' and the center-left Democratic Party is considered 'liberal'." So they said that the Republicans are a center-right party. But that is not true. The modern-day Republican Party is NOT center-right. They're a bunch of evil, far-right extremists. Just as one salient example of this, every respected Republican leader denies the existence of man-made global warming, which is an indisputable scientific fact. So clearly, they are a far-right party and not a center-right party. I propose changing "center-right" to "right-wing" in that sentence. I understand that Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality, but Wikipedia is also supposed to provide THE TRUTH, and saying that the Republicans are a center-right party is simply not true.Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not call Republicans "evil" and then expect any proposal you make to be taken seriously. Please find WP:RS (reliable sources) to support any changes you want made. Rwenonah (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
And if we're changing the GOP to right-wing, we could do the proper thing and change the Democrats to center-right. --Golbez (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
While I partly agree with your assessments of Republicans, calling them "evil" is a sign you are too emotional about the topic. As for far-right, our current definition of the term involves 1) a focus on tradition, 2) opposition to modernism, egalitarianism, liberalism, and socialism, 3) support for social hierarchy and social conservatism, 4) featuring the ideologies of extreme nationalism, chauvinism, xenophobia, racism, and reactionary views. Do the Republicans fit the definition? Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
There's been considerable discussion on using those labels, and that rationale should be consulted. I myself favored not trying to label the parties as such, but bowed to what seemed to be a sparsely supported but definite consensus by active and insistent editors. It seems fantastic to me to, especially now, label the Republicans as "right-wing", if we are to use appeal to political spectra of the American public as guidance, since the Republicans have just won outright a national election that will soon put them in control of all elective branches of the national government. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I am too busy right now, but in late December, I'll have a bit of free time, and then, I will look up some reliable sources and then make the change Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Please don't try to make the change on your own, without discussing it here, or you will probably be reverted. As I noted above, there has already been considerable discussion on the present wording. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Here's a proposed compromise: just eliminate both of those adjectives. So it will say, "Within American political culture, the Republican Party is considered 'conservative' and the Democratic Party is considered 'liberal.'" And that's actually true. That's how the two parties are viewed in America. So will you guys let me make that change? Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
As I recall, the inclusion of the "center..." descriptors was in part to make clear what "conservative" and "liberal", terms that are apt to have different meanings in different countries, do not. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, here's a new proposed compromise: "On the political spectrum, the Republican Party is farther to the right than the Democratic Party, and within American political culture, the Republicans are considered 'conservative,' while the Democrats are considered 'liberal.'" I really think we need to change that sentence, because Wikipedia is supposed to provide the truth, and it is false to call the Republicans "center-right." Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
For fun, I'll argue: Why specify the Republicans are "farther to the right?" Why not say the Democrats are "farther to the left?" (also, there was no response to my earlier remark that if the GOP isn't center-right, then the Democrats aren't center-left.) --Golbez (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I would say that the Democrats are best described as centrists, although there are some Democrats, like Elizabeth Warren, who would better be described as center-left. The reason I phrased it in that way is that the Democrats are centrists, and most of the Republicans are on the extreme right wing, and I thought the best way to express that without sounding too partisan and biased would be to just say that the Republicans are farther to the right than the Democrats. If I had said that the Democrats are farther to the left than the Republicans, that would have made the Republicans look like moderates, which they are not, and the Democrats look like leftists, which most of them really aren't. But it doesn't matter. You guys did not like that proposed sentence anyway. I will read those archives and then try to come up with something else. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
What you wrote doesn't make sense unless you meant to say "...than the Democratic Party is to the left...", which is just a slight shift in emphasis and which you've so far not supported with reliable, published sources, a summary of which is really what Wikipedia provides, not necessarily the truth. But you should take a look at the archives 86 and 88, especially the former, which is entirely taken up with deciding the form of the sentence you are so ready to change. You should be awestruck at the amount of time taken up deciding and understand the hurdle you would likely have to clear in order to gain consensus for a further change. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll read those archives, and then I'll get back to you sometime in the next few days. I still want to change that sentence. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it: I thoroughly read both of those archives. That was quite a lot of reading. Yes, I am awestruck at the hurdle I have to overcome. But nevertheless, I am still determined to change that sentence. Here is a new proposal for how to write that paragraph:

Between World War II and 1980, the Republican Party was largely a center-right party, and the Democratic Party was largely a center-left party. However, beginning in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency, the Republican Party began to move considerably farther to the right, exemplified by Reagan’s policies of repealing regulations on businesses, tax cuts for the wealthy, cancellations of social welfare, and a strong national defense. Since Reagan's presidency, the party has moved even farther to the right and includes elements of the far right and populist right wing. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party largely repositioned itself as a centrist party during the 1990s and 2000s, although in recent years, there has been a revival of more leftist forces within the party. However, in spite of all these changes, the perceptions of the parties within American political culture have mostly remained the same: the Republican Party is considered “conservative” and the Democratic Party is considered “liberal.” The states of the Northeast and West Coast and some of the Great Lakes states, known as "blue states", are relatively liberal. The "red states" of the South and parts of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains are relatively conservative.

Sources:

1. "Restless Giant" by James T. Patterson, 2005

2. "American Government: The Essentials" by John J. DiIulio, Jr. and James Q. Wilson, 2006

3. "The Whole GOP Goes Rogue" by E. J. Dionne, January 2016

4. "Doubling Down on W" by Paul Krugman, December 2015

And there are many other sources I could have used.

The first two of those sources explain how the Republicans moved farther to the right under Reagan, and also during the 1990s and early 2000s. The last two sources (even though they are opinion pieces, I know) explain how the Republicans have gone off the deep end in the last five years or so, and especially during this most recent election.

If you don't like everything in that paragraph, that's okay. It doesn't have to be just like that. There are many ways that we could change the paragraph. But I insist on changing the paragraph in SOME way, because it is unacceptable to call the Republicans a center-right party. They are clearly a far-right party. Just consider the following:

1. All the respected Republican leaders deny the existence of man-made global warming, which is an indisputable, scientifically-proven fact. (And in my opinion, it is also the biggest problem in the world.) 2. A good number of them also question the existence of evolution, which is ALSO an indisputable fact. 3. Using the debunked trickle-down theory, they continue to advocate for fewer regulations on banks and businesses and for more tax cuts for the rich, even though income inequality is already out of control (see a recent article on FiveThirtyEight about how 80 people now own as much as the poorer half of the world). 4. They want to cancel the health insurance of about 23 million people by repealing the Affordable Care Act. Many of these people will die if their health insurance is cancelled. 5. Most of them advocate war and criticize all efforts for peace, such as the Iran nuclear deal. 6. In 2016, they nominated and elected for President a man who has no self-control, who is extremely obnoxious and petty, who knows next to nothing about politics, who has never before held any political post, who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, who said that we need to be "unpredictable" with nuclear weapons, who said that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, who entered into politics by promoting a debunked, racist conspiracy theory, who said he wants to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS, who claimed that Barack Obama is the founder of ISIS, who insinuated that his opponent should be assassinated, who was caught on tape bragging about committing sexual assault, who once started a fraudulent university, who said that the election should be cancelled in order to grant him victory, who stated without evidence that the election was rigged against him, who changes his positions constantly, who promoted populism despite being a greedy billionaire ... and on and on and on. He is just about the worst person that we possibly could have elected. And the Republican leaders endorsed him and did nothing to stop him from winning.

Maybe you disagree with what I said about numbers 3, 4, and 5. But when it comes to numbers 1 and 2, I think we can all agree that a political party that denies the validity of well-established science is an extremist party and is nowhere near the center. Center-right parties do NOT dispute the validity of science.

Also, for number 6, when you look at how Donald Trump behaves in public and all the ridiculous things that he's said, I think any reasonable person would conclude that the political party that nominated and elected him is a radical party, not a center-right party.

This is going to sound a little sanctimonious, but I think we are morally obligated to change that sentence in some way, to get rid of the "center-right" label. Wikipedia should remain neutral ... but there comes a time when they have to just state the facts as they are, even when half of the country will dispute those facts. The Republicans are a dangerous, destructive, extremist party, and now that they have control of the presidency and both houses of Congress and probably the Supreme Court, they are going to cause devastation to the economy, the environment, and international relations. During this frightening time in world history, it is very important that the media tells the public the truth about what is going on. Yes, they should remain neutral. Yes, they should only say what has been verified by reliable sources. But they also need to tell THE TRUTH. Wikipedia is an important source of information for many people, including me. I think I heard it was the sixth most visited website in the world. That means we are obligated to tell the truth as it really is. And the truth is that the Republican Party - a party that denies the validity of well-established science - is a far-right extremist party and not a center-right party.

There are many ways that we could change that sentence, and I would be open to most of them. But we HAVE to get rid of the "center-right" label. They are NOT a center-right party.

Please get back to me about how we could change this sentence. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Three things:

1. If no one answers me in the next 24 hours, then I will make my proposed change to the article.

2. I thought of another argument for why the Republicans are a radical far-right party, not a center-right party: they refused to even hold hearings on Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. The Constitution says that they have to at least CONSIDER the guy, but they refused to do it. The vast majority of Supreme Court nominees in U. S. history have been approved within a couple of months. Furthermore, Garland is a totally reasonable, moderate judge, and there's no reason why they shouldn't just approve him. He actually has a reputation for being a centrist. But the Senate Republicans refused to even consider him. Instead, they are waiting until Trump is inaugurated, and they'll let him nominate a conservative judge, who they will then approve. By doing this, they have undermined the legitimacy of the Constitution and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. It's outrageous! Clearly, they are a far-right party, not a center-right party.

3. I'll concede that of the four sources I provided, the third and fourth don't meet Wikipedia's standards, because they are opinion articles. So I am proposing three other sources to replace them. The first is "50 Shockingly Extreme Right-Wing Proposals in the 2016 Republican Party Platform," by Steven Rosenfeld on AlterNet. The title is an opinion, and AlterNet is a progressive website, but the article itself is all just direct quotes from the Republican Party's 2016 platform, so it's an objective source of information. The second is a news article from The Washington Post from November 2, 2016. It's called "KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president," by Peter Holley. This is how I can back up my claim that the modern Republican Party contains elements of the far-right. I think we can all agree that the KKK is far-right. The third is a news article from The Philadelphia Inquirer from July 26, 2015. It's called "Trump delivers heated rhetoric in Iowa," by Andrew Seidman. The first sentence of the article describes Trump's campaign as "populist," which is how I can back up my claim that the Republican Party contains elements of the populist right wing. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I personally think right-wing is more accurate than center-right (those two sources date to 1998 and 2008, and the current political status has changed considerably since then), but I'd strongly avoid the word "radical" in any situation. Such edits are likely to be immediately reverted, and with good reason. Even "right-wing" has not been permitted by multiple discussions. Dustin (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I never used the word "radical" in the paragraph that I proposed. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Your history is selective. Until at least the mid-sixties, Democrats supported the Cold War, the Vietnam War, overthrowing third world governments, apartheid, loyalty oaths, school prayer, capital punishment, and segregation, and opposed abortion and equal rights for women and LGBT. TFD (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, if you would like, I can change "Between World War II and 1980" to "In the 1960s and 1970s." But economically speaking, the Democrats have been a center-left party from the 1930s onwards (although they largely re-established themselves as a centrist party in the 1990s).
(By the way, LGBT rights is kind of an unusual issue. In a short amount of time, the Democratic Party and the majority of the American people changed their position on the issue, but without changing the Democrats' place on the political spectrum. Before about 2008 or so, the only politicians who supported gay marriage were people like Bernie Sanders. But by about 2013, the entire Democratic Party, along with a majority of the American public, had switched their position and were now supporting gay marriage. But that did not affect where the Democratic Party lies on the political spectrum. The Democrats were a centrist to center-left party in 2008, and in 2013, they were STILL a centrist to center-left party. So if the Democratic Party was anti-gay-marriage before about 2008, that doesn't change the fact that they were a centrist to center-left party. But whatever. This is just a digression. Let's stick to the point.)
So anyway, will you let me make my proposed change to the article? Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is your proposed change at this point? At one point you proposed a much expanded history of the Republican party (as you see it), which would by its length be unsuitable here. You haven't supplied any quotes from the sources you cite. You also haven't addressed how your sources are more representative than those given in previous discussions. What you've supplied is for the most part your own opinion of the party, which of course doesn't belong here. Give people a chance to report back from the holidays, before starting to make changes. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
My proposed change was that paragraph that I proposed to replace the current paragraph. It starts with "Between World War II and 1980" and ends with "relatively conservative." I don't think it's too long, but if YOU think it's too long, then we could try my original suggestion and just replace "center-right" to "right-wing." I have amassed plenty of sources to make either one of those changes. You are correct that I haven't quoted any of my sources. If you give me some time, I will get back to you with quotes, probably from "Restless Giant" and that government textbook. I really will. Unlike Donald Trump, I actually keep my promises. But it might not be for awhile, because I'm busy with a lot of other things to do.
You ask how my sources are more representative than the current sources. Well, there are currently two sources. One of them looks like it's a government textbook, and the other is written from the perspective of two Australian guys, and it seems to be slightly tinted with their own personal analysis (which is okay). Now, I have proposed a total of seven sources so far, although I conceded that two of them are opinion articles (by Paul Krugman and E. J. Dionne). But one of the other five is a government textbook. Another one is a history book called "Restless Giant," which is a very well-respected book and is mostly a book of facts, not opinions. "Restless Giant" is no LESS reliable than that Australian book. Thus, my proposed sources are just as representative than what we currently have. Meanwhile, of the other three sources (the three that I proposed on Tuesday), two of them are news articles, and the third is a set of direct quotes from the Republican Party's official 2016 platform. And those three sources were just meant to back up my assertion that the modern Republican Party contains elements of the far-right and populist right wing. So those sources seem pretty good to me.
Also, I have promoted my own personal opinions on this talk page, but the actual change that I proposed - that paragraph, I mean - was not my opinion. It was a set of facts. I said that the Republican Party was once a center-right party, that they moved to the right under Reagan, and that they've moved even farther to the right since then. Those are facts, not opinions, and I have reliable sources to back them up. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You keep mentioning Restless Giant. The full title of the book is Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore (2005). Based on online sources, it specifically covers the period from the Watergate scandal and the resignation of Richard Nixon (1974) to the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case (2000) and the "election" of George W. Bush (2001). I don't think you can use the book to make sweeping statements about political history from World War II onwards. It does not cover the entire period. Dimadick (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And when you use sources, you need to provide page nos. TFD (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Dimadick, I should use some other books too to cover the 50s and 60s. The reason I cited "Restless Giant" is that it talks about how the Republicans moved to the right under Reagan, and about how Bill Clinton was a centrist. But yes, I should cite some other books, too, so I can involve the whole period from 1945 to 1980. And yes, TFD, I should provide page numbers.
I haven't fully read "Restless Giant," but I have read portions of it, and I know what it's about. But in order for me to find the right quotes and find other good quotes from other sources, I would have to do some reading, and I just don't have time to do that right now. But I know I have not much to do the week of January 30th. I'll plan to do a bit of reading and researching then, and then I'll give you guys specific quotes to prove my points.
I have a feeling that this argument is going to go on for awhile, but I am going to keep trying. I really think we need to change that sentence. The Republicans are a destructive, extremist party, not a center-right party, and if Wikipedia says that they're a center-right party, then we need to change that. There are many different ways that we could change it, but we've got to change it somehow. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sticking to 5 main categories in "Ethnic groups" infocard section?

So I just feel like the main categories should be "White", "Black, "Other/Multiracial", "Asian", and "Native", maybe pacific islanders as well, but I don't feel the need to add hispanic/latino categories, as the list currently adds up to 180% with percentages of the ethic groups, which doesn't make sense. I tried to edit it myself, but it was reverted and I was accused of being sock puppet (Wow). Hopefully a consensus can be formed so the this particular section of the infobox won't continually be tampered with? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Update I think I will just differentiate between ethnicity and racial groups instead, and separate them into 2 mini-lists. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Want to add list of global sport events/sports that USA have participated in globally, Rugby union and league, Football (soccer - fifa world cups) etc.. Getmefoodbb (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There's already a mention of World Cups, and the rugby teams aren't exactly well known or terribly successful, and are better handled in the Sports in the United States article. Also, this isn't an edit request, it's merely a discussion. --Golbez (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

Eric.green11 (talk) 11:08, 9 January 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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

|leader_title1 = [[President of the United States|President]] |leader_name1 = {{nowrap|[[Donald Trump]]}}

to 

|leader_title1 = [[President of the United States|President]] |leader_name1 = {{nowrap|[[Barack Obama]]}}

Eric.green11 (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

TheChiefBear (talk) 17:06, 10 January 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. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Description of United States geographic location and extent

It's time, I think, to reach some consensus on how to describe geographical location and extent of the United States. This description is in the lede—it should be a concise and accurate summary. Reaching a concensus will help prevent constant revisiting of this single sentence. This isn't a question of winning—just how best to serve readers coming to this article for information delivered in an easily understood style. — Neonorange (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The "single sentence", and contentious bit, involves the description of Alaska's location, and only one editor seems to think that sentence needed changing, or any of the first paragraph's geographical description as it has been for some time. The current geographical description in the first lead paragraph reads:
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 northwest extremity of North America, bordered by Canada to the east and facing Russia to the west across the Bering Strait. The state of Hawaii is an archipelago located in the mid-Pacific. The U.S. territories are scattered about the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. Nine time zones are covered.
What part of that needs changing now? I think it can stand, or go back to the version of 10 January (I think) before this section became contentious. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with the version you think can stand (the one quoted in green above. And with the version of Jan. 10 you mention. And the edits I made on November 21, 2016. I just thought opening a tp discussion could save us all some time, especially with the seeming promise of more revisions to come (per Cynulliad3's edit summary).
"The state of Alaska is in the northwest extremity of North America, bordered by Canada to the east and facing Russia to the west across the Bering Strait." seems to cover all the basics in an efficient manner, locating the state in the context of North America and Asia (Russia). In my opinion, the current version works, and further changes should be discussed here first. No reason to keep churning—it's butter. — Neonorange (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Must we continue to indulge anonymous editors who repeatedly make petty, awkward changes? The editor in question uses multiple usernames and labels every one of his/her 50+ daily edits "M" for minor -- and these are often substantive changes. A good number are ungrammatical and introduce belabored syntax that makes me doubt this is a native speaker of English. In this specific lede sentence, the repeated reverts are simply counterproductive. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That, I think, is covered by
Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse.
at WP:Sock puppetry — Neonorange (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I see speculation concerning possible sockpuppetry on Cynulliad3's talk page but no one has launched an investigation, and these recent edits don't remind me of anyone else here. Cynulliad3's contribution page shows many edits that are marked current (i.e. not being quickly reverted). Looking at some of them, I see (s)he's been reverted at the Alaska article for inserting language similar to what's been placed here, but many of the other edits seem to be helpful and certainly well-intentioned.
On another note, I want to change:
The state of Hawaii is an archipelago located in the mid-Pacific.
to read "...archipelago in the mid-Pacific Ocean." The addition of "location" was made by Cynulliad3 recently, but not this last time; and it is unnecessarily wordy. "mid-Pacific Ocean" not only is clearer as to what is meant but simplifies the wiki-linking of that term, which is now piped. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, the speculation has been borne out: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação. For this article, why dob't we just look at the entire lede, and pick the version that would have emerged without intervention by Motivação/Cynulliad3. I think there will be rapid agreement on a version that will now remain stable. — Neonorange (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Your suggestion for Hawaii is good—seems already to have been done. This sentence needs to be edited because of the missing article and the odd presence of 'via': The state of Alaska is in northwest quadrant North America, bordered by land to the east with Canada and by water to the west via the Bering Strait with Russia. I'd rather see this replacement: The state of Alaska occupies the northwest corner of North America, bordered by land on the east with Canada and across the Bering Strait to the west with Russia. But I mainly want consensus for a stable lede, and my hesitation on 'extremity' is just on connotation grounds; I suppose that could fit 'occupies' also—it is, however somewhat more concise. Time to end the churn and move on. If you will make the changes you think best, I'll agree. — Neonorange (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I used "extremity" because its use at the state article gave it legitimacy, but "corner" is fine. Here's what I'll change it to, now that Cynulliad3 has been blocked, assuming others are in agreement:
The state of Alaska is in the northwest corner of North America, bordered by Canada to the east and across the Bering Strait from Russia to the west. The state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific Ocean.
That is even more succinct than what I had before. "by land" I think unnecessary and "to the west with Russia" confusing. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

The president of united states is donald trump now . 103.252.25.13 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. --Golbez (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

2001:7D0:8B23:AF80:B4AB:4852:742C:C0B5 (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Donald Trump is president of the United States and Mike Pence vice-president of the United States not Barack and Joe
Not yet they need to swear an oath first. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

EditorWIKI (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC) United States (U.S.A) has a highly security and protection.
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. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

lgbt

Will soeone update the Gallup poll to the latest 2016 data [30] in the deography part. 88.104.34.255 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@88.104.34.255:  Done. I did update the poll, however could you possibly pull a little more information from that poll fore me to post in the article? Thanks, I'm, a little strapped for time ;). RES2773 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The title should be "United States of America".

It's not just "United States". Please fix the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.109.24 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also not just Russia, or just Germany, or just India, or just....... I hope you get the point. VERY few countries have their wiki pages at their full, formal names. Wikipedia articles use the common name. --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
What other countries are currently and commonly called "The United States of (name)"...? Mexico is officially Estados Unidos Mexicanos, which translates more accurately as to "United Mexican States" than "United States of Mexico." Aside from that, I'm not seeing any other countries that could be confused for the USA. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Democracy Index

The lead includes a lengthy section bragging about how the United States supposedly "ranks highly in several measures of socioeconomic performance, including average wage, human development, per capita GDP, and productivity per person" and so on and so forth. It seems like a grave omission to exclude how the US ranks on the world's most important index of democracy, where it has, for the first time ever this year, been downgraded to a flawed democracy. This should be reinstated. --Tataral (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I updated its ranking in the Government and politics section, but that information would probably be better suited for Elections in the United States and especially Politics of the United States#Concerns about oligarchy and a diminishing democracy, as those have a more specific scope that would include a detailed depiction of a subjective index from the EIU. Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

United States in a slump

Just for now, the reputation of USA being crushed by Saudi Arabia on its income KaplanAL (talk) 01:14, January 29 2017 (ET) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2017

As per the Princeton study located at the below link, please change Goverment type from Federal presidential constitutional republic to Oligarcy and link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

[1] [2] Cschock01 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: No. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
No. One study does not change the definition of a country. Pro for thinking you're the first chap to think of this, though. --Golbez (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The United States is a fascist dictatorship. 67.10.89.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017

America is not a dictatorship 74.62.227.139 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The vandalism has been cleaned up. —C.Fred (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Typo in the "Science and technology" section.

"This in turn led to the establishment of many new technology companies and regions around the county such as Silicon Valley in California."

Should probably be:

This in turn led to the establishment of many new technology companies and regions around the country such as Silicon Valley in California.

CarlosTheMagician (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I Broke My Promise

Hello. I was involved in that debate in November and December about changing the sentence that says, "Within American political culture, the center-right Republican Party is considered 'conservative' and the center-left Democratic Party is considered 'liberal.'" (See "Parties and Elections" under "Government and Politics.") I was arguing that it should be changed, because the Republicans have moved to the right and have become a far-right party. I promised that I would get back to the debate this week. I didn't. Sorry. I am a graduate student. My grades last semester were pretty lousy, and my teachers are telling me that I need to work harder. So I definitely don't have time for Wikipedia debates. This semester ends at the end of May. Maybe I'll return to this debate then.

But I hope that in the meantime, someone else takes up the debate. The Republicans are a far-right party, not a center-right party. I mean, come on, they deny the existence of man-made global warming. I'm a grad student studying atmospheric and oceanic sciences, and I can assure you that global warming is real and that it is indeed caused by humans. So the Republicans are denying indisputable science, which is really unacceptable. They are not a center-right party. Center-right parties don't deny science. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No single person gets to determine what is exactly is far-right, especially if one issue is being used as evidence. For example, a party that favours a government-owned pension system and a fairly sizeable welfare state would be considered left-wing by many. Their opinion, however, does not matter. In the current zeitgeist of the United States, that party is considered centre-right. Its policies fall within the nation's Overton Window, meaning that they are not viewed as extremist. Zach Vega (talk to me) 14:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Official language of states

In footnote a in the Info box, please change "English is the official language of 32 states" to "English is the official language of 28 states" to match the current status of the source provided at Official language of the United States. (i.e. [31]). -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That is an outdated list from English First (with "copyright 2011" clearly shown at the bottom of the source, which should provide an ample clue that it's anything but "current status"). In 2016, West Virginia became the 32nd state to adopt English as an official language, and a source article from the other main US monitoring organization, US English, corroborates this; it was added to the article "United States." The "Official language of the United States" WP article is the one needing a more current status. It hasn't been touched in quite a while. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Already answered EvergreenFir (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic groups (infobox)

Good job with this to whom it may concern. Thumbs up icon Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we add this bit about the US's age?

As of July 4, 2016, the United States of America is 240 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredBored (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a good idea, as that would require yearly updating. In my experience it is better to avoid such maintenance requirements. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
A person may calculate from whatever starting date he wishes. What does the "age" of a country mean? How old is Germany? How old is China? For the USA, is its birth marked by the arrival of Europeans or the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent? 71.113.129.218 (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

post-war period

The phrase "post-war period" needs to be hyperlinked to its definition or replaced with specific years. There is no context to tell what war. The USA is always at war. This page references several wars. 71.113.129.218 (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We have the article post-war, which specifically defines it as post-World War II. The period started in 1945, and its chronological endpoint is unclear. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The only such phrase is in the "Cinema" section. That could be confusing without other context. I think that it could stand to be linked, to Aftermath of World War II, which is the redirect for "post-World War II". I've just gone ahead and placed the link. Revert if it's premature (and in that case, the phrasing should be changed). Dhtwiki (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Image under climate

What is the purpose of this image?:

Sun setting over the Mojave desert, California

It should be replaced with a climate map or a climate regions map or topographic or physical features map.Phmoreno (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a pretty picture, if nothing else, and it was a replacement for another picture that was felt to be less representative. I've looked at some available climate charts, and they seem to be either too complex and unreadable (Köppen classification chart) or not general enough for this article (rainfall, record temp., etc.). We already have one geographical image, and I don't think we need to duplicate that. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see what deemed this a better replacement over the previous one. To me, it looks like they serve the exact same purpose: being "pretty pictures" as Dhtwiki said above. Sure, the current one might be prettier, but per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE images shouldn't be primarily used for decorative purposes. And, given the current size of the article, I don't think we should be bloating it further with "pretty images". I suggest leaving only the satellite image up until we have a "truly better" replacement. -- ChamithN (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Sunsets are pretty big in popular culture for people who live in the Mojave, the previous one is the better image. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

I would like to have the responsibility to edit and add facts to are countrys history Lasliala000 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What are some of the edits you would like to make? What are some of the facts you would like to add? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 28 February 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. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Area

"Whether the United States or China is larger has been disputed." Like, what?????

Even if you don't count Taiwan, China is bigger. The figures in reference are from the CIA, counting coastal and territorial waters for the US - but NOT for China. This cannot seriously be a debate. You might aswell count the Oceans, and the Middle East, and Canada and... the South China Sea for China? BTW, my dick is 108cm (length of leg included). Wikipedia, what the heck... EnTerbury (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Protip: Don't insult the people you're trying to convince. There might be a good discussion to be had here, but you went out of your way to sour it. [also, my condolences on your micropenis] --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow. If you read that again, I did not insult anybody, so you out of the blue being offended by that, I must assume you are the one with a problem down below?
All I did was making a stupid example applying the same flawed logic we should actually be dealing with here, so that everybody can understand the issue, including you. There was no insult intended at all, if you thought somehow I was referring to your size specifically, I can assure to you, I wasn't. Neither did I refer to the Donald. I didn't even take the time to measure the length of my leg. So instead of arguing my point, you start to insult me with no ground whatsoever. And then my so-called "insult" somehow also diminishes the need for discussion? So here's my protip: Don't make yourself sound like a retard. Yes, that's an insult. EnTerbury (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You come in out of nowhere (having never interacted on this talk page) and tell people who have debated this for years that it can't possibly be a serious debate and that you have all the answers, then go through to thoroughly mock the consensus that we have; perhaps you'll someday figure out why that's a very poor way to try to make a point. Was I too sensitive? Maybe. (also, "I must assume you are the one with a problem down below" are you accusing me of sockpuppetry?) --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The discrepancy is detailed at List of sovereign states and dependencies by area#cite note-3rd-largest-14. I myself do not care which and I do not think Wikipedia should arbitrate it. If there is no consensus among sources, then Wikipedia should simple report that there is no consensus among sources. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand how this is a matter of arbitration. Your bottomline, as I understand, is that there is no common consensus. This, however, is related to the figures including coastal and territorial waters, which are not counted for any other country in the same list. So the argument essentially is, every country is listed by this standard, but we're not sure about these two countries with another standard applied, let's agree to a tie maybe? We may have another list with a tie, but not here. So please, specify your viewpoint, tell me where I'm wrong, and if you don't care and I don't hear argument against my case I will go ahead and correct the page. All I want is Wikipedia to state the truth. EnTerbury (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Under those policies, when there is no consensus among sources, Wikipedia simply reports that and leaves it at that. Also, review WP:CIVILITY. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Slightly unrelated, but the lead part of the article ('fourth largest by total area and fourth largest by land area') doesn't match the text in the geography section ('third or fourth by total area and third largest by land area'). Personally not entirely sure which is right. It seems Canada is behind the us in land area according to the body but not the lead. And the lead also doesn't seem to account for the us-vs-China uncertainty detailed here. AgnosticAphid talk 08:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I think, for the sake of consistency, the lead should be changed to reflect what's in the geography section (third or fourth largest). As for the "us-vs-China uncertainty", a footnote is already cited in the lead, which I believe clarifies what needs to be clarified. -- ChamithN (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I changed the lead from fourth largest by total area and fourth largest by land area to third- or fourth-largest by total area and third largest by land area, which is what the body says and also what the chart in the linked list indicates (I think?). I also slightly redid the punctuation. AgnosticAphid talk 18:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating the Corruption Perceptions Index of USA

The updated 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index of USA is 18 but it is listed as 17 under Government and politics first paragraph.

thank you. 05/03/2017 [1] ShashankJosyula (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016

 Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Update the Corruption Perceptions Index of USA

The Corruption Perceptions Index standing is still at 17. it needs to be 18. The change made by Richard-of-Earth (talk) (in the above section) seems to be just of the reference which now points correctly to 2016 report. But the content still shows the wrong value. Please update as it is 2 years old.

ShashankJosyula (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC) 05/03/2017

 Done: Looks like Richard-of-Earth forgot to update the value, though (s)he did update the refs. -- ChamithN (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Doh!!! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

United States redirected from "America"

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

  • Why does "America" redirect to "United States"? America is a continent, and is not the name of any country. If you only accept North and South America as in the 2-continents view, it is still illogical to have "America" redirect to a specific country, as America would mean "North" and "South" encompassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Mosquito 13 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • See question #9 of the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Also, there should be several discussions in the talk page archives on this question. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I very strongly agree that "America" should redirect to "America (disambiguation)." The redirect as it is is very confusing and is also very ethnocentric. As an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to use nonbiased language. See "Georgia" as a similar example. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This issue has already been extensively debated many times and the consensus has always been in favor of the status quo. When English speakers say America in the singular, they are nearly always referring to the United States. Please review Wikipedia:Article titles.
I have opposed the situation with Georgia for many years. That article title without disambiguation should refer to the well-known state that has hosted the Summer Olympics and is home to the world's busiest airport and the world's most famous beverage company, among many distinctions. When English speakers say or write Georgia, they are rarely referring to a impoverished former state of the Soviet Union in the Caucasus region. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
strongly disagree--the status quo works fine. Wikipedia uses common names. We can distinguish "America," "Americas" "North America" and "Latin America, for example. Only the first of these is commonly used for USA, and has since 1776. As for "bias" there may be an anti-American bias at work here. (note that "anti-American" is always used to mean "anti-USA") In addition the proposal is biased against the United States of Brazil (Estados Unidos do Brasil). Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
"United States of Brazil"? There's a "Federative Republic of Brazil." Do you mean the one in the past? That's not the best argument, since a lot of past countries can have similar names (looking at you, the no-fewer-than seven "United Kingdom" articles we have that don't involve the British Isles). Maybe you're thinking of the United Mexican States (Estados Unidos Mexicanos), sometimes erroneously described by supporters of moving this article as "United States of Mexico"? Also, er ... no one brought up "United States" except as pertains to this article, no one was suggesting renaming it, so I'm even more confused where your Brazil comparison comes from. :P --Golbez (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Wiki needs a historical perspective. It's a standard 20c term--eg this White House press release: April 4, 1962 THE MEETINGS of the President of the United States of Brazil and the President of the United States of America during the past two days have been marked by a spirit of frankness, cordiality, and mutual understanding. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of redirects is "to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read." The vast majority of readers typing in "America" are looking for this article. We provide a hatnote when they arrive at this article that allows them to click on the link for Americas or to go to the America (disambiguation) page. I see know reason why readers should be sent to a disambiguation page before arriving at this article. TFD (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
How likely is it that someone will type "America" to get to this article?? Do they actually expect this to be the article's actual title and only learn by surprise that the article is at United States?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Probably most English speaking readers would find no suprise in America redirecting to here as to most english speakers they are the same thing. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, how likely is it that someone will expect America to be this article's actual title?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely as most english speakers know they are the same thing as soon as they read the article they would be happy they were in right place and carry on reading. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I mean before finding the article. I'm sure that if they knew the article was at United States, they would type United States, right?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope because naturally they would use the shorter common name. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"United States" is the shorter common name; the longer common name is "United States of America". Georgia guy (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
And "America" is an even shorter common name for the place the Americans live. You clearly for some reason dont believe that America is sometimes commonly used rather than the United States so I am not sure what value this discussion is having as previous discussion and consensus has supported the redirect, I dont see any evidence of a change being likely. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Even shorter?? Count the number of syllables of "United States" and count those in "America". Both have 4 syllables. Georgia guy (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Time to close this now I think. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contemporary History section is out-of-hand

It needs to be reduced per WP:Summary, and it is at present compared to the rest of the history section, suffering from RECENTISM, and too much WEIGHT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing the official website in infobox

Most country articles don't seem to include the official website of the government, since the website is more pertinent to the article about the country's government. I think it ought to be removed. In fact, on Template:Infobox country, it says: "For geopolitical entities: do not use government website (e.g. usa.gov) for countries (e.g. United States)." ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 21:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"America" redirecting to "United States"

English-language Wikipedia is not for citizens of the USA exclusively or even for all native English speakers - it is for all users of the English language for which it should be neutral to all. The use of the word "America" to mean the United States of America is controversial outside of the USA, especially in Europe and the other American countries beside the USA/Canada. The most neutral and clear solution is to redirect "America" to "America(disambiguation)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArniDagur (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

See the above discussion United States redirected from "America" . Dhtwiki (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
it's not controversial among English-speakers. People in Mexico and Brazil, for example, do not call themselves "Americans." Those in the USA have called themselves "Americans" for 250 years. Rjensen (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no rule that re-directs should be neutral. They should however re-direct to the article the person typing "America" into the English Wikipedia is most likely to be looking for. TFD (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This Wikipedia is first and foremost for native English speakers. This proposed neutrality would effectively forcing others to use English in a way that is not common to them. English speakers almost always mean the USA when they say America. There is no bias. What America means in another language has no bearing on English. I wish some people could learn to understand that. LordAtlas (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed on both points. The US is clearly the primary topic for the term "America" in the English-speaking word. — Jon C.ॐ 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
America the Beautiful & God Bless America, just for examples. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Putting my hat back into this debate, see the previous discussion for my thoughts earlier. The Organization of American States is at least one common usage showing a clear need for the disambiguation of America. I think this conflicting usage of the word is most difficult for USA immigrants and descendents of immigrants from Latin American nations. Myself, I am second-generation Colombian American, with biracial ancestry from both North America and South America, so that if I tell people that I am "American," I feel a need to disambiguate between the multiple relevant usages of the word. As a global encyclopedia of all human knowledge, we should always disambiguate titles beginning with their broadest or largest sense. So that even if most people use New York to refer to the city and not the USA state or the USA county, we should still disambiguate beginning with the USA state. Likewise, "state" in US American English near-universally refers to USA states (e.g. Georgia), and not sovereign states (e.g. Georgia), but we should disambiguate first from the international sense, and not the regional (USA) sense. Note in particular the (correct) Wikipedia disambiguation pages for Georgia and American. "America" should follow the same disambiguation as "American." Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    • And yet ... "Colombian American". You just used that term, without clarification, presumably because it's an article here and it's absolutely not ambiguous that the "American" phrase refers to the United States. --Golbez (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I believe that people who live in the US and come from Colombia call themselves "Colombian American". The issue is whether many people who have never been to the USA also call themselves "Colombian American". Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • "Colombian US American" and "Colombian American" are synonymous because all Colombians are Americans (since Colombia is in America), so there is no need to differentiate for non-American Colombians (no such thing). The distinction is between "Colombian," "Colombian Mexican," "Colombian (US) American," "Colombian Canadian," etc. Someone who immigrates from Colombia to Brazil is still an American, but not a Colombian American (since this is a special redundant usage that is an elision of Colombian US American). Immigrants from outside of America however do require additional distinctions. E.g. a "European American" can be European Colombian, European US American, European Canadian, European Brazilian, etc. This is why we need disambiguation pages to differentiate between the different usages which can vary by context. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Just another example: "African American" is commonly used in academia to refer to anyone of African descent who lives anywhere in the Americas, not just the USA. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
        • To me the above our great examples of how the term without a qualifying word has a distinct meaning. Redirect note?--Moxy (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I think this statement is false--no evidence whatever is provided: African American" is commonly used in academia to refer to anyone of African descent who lives anywhere in the Americas. For example in Brazil & Cuba we have "Afro-Brazilian" and "Afro-Cuban" Here are some RS: 1) Wilbur C. Rich - 2007 - ‎"Abdias do Nascimento is a key figure for understanding relations between Blacks in Brazil and the United States. Nascimento lived part of his exile in the United States, where he met with a broad spectrum of the African American community" 2) Monica Hirst - 2005 "African American scholars and NGOs have increased their interest regarding the development of Afro-Brazilian movements in Brazil." 3) Frank Andre Guridy - 2010 "Cuba's popularity as a North American tourist site accelerated Afro-Cuban and African American encounters. By the late 1940s and early 1950s...." Rjensen (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Agree with Rjensen ...i.e,.Black Canadians =M. Honoré France; María del Carmen Rodríguez; Geoffrey G. Hett (2012). Diversity, Culture and Counselling: A Canadian Perspective, 2e. University of Victoria. pp. 204–. ISBN 978-1-55059-441-6.--Moxy (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Really? Gonna need a citation on that because I've never heard it, though being in the U.S. obviously what I hear is specific. But our article African American makes no mention of anywhere but the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
          • I tried pulling up some citations myself after writing that. I have seen it used in the broad sense several times in works on African American Studies, but it might not be as common as I thought. The point here though is not to determine what the most common usage is, but to present that these terms have a variety of usages and need to be disambiguated. We need to redirect to a disambiguation page to explain the different usages of the term, and not to what might be the most common usage. "American" and "Georgia" are good examples of terms that go to disambiguation pages despite common usage in US American English. There is no reason why "America" should not be disambiguated the same as "American" is. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Normally when this comes up we just show people the link American (word).--Moxy (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nicole Sharp, the point here is to determine what the most common usage is, because readers who type in "America" want to be re-directed to the correct page. I question too whether most non-English speakers are usually referring to the Americas when they say America. Kafka called his novel Amerika. TFD (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Why exactly do non-native speakers get to dictate to English speakers? You are literally trying to interfere with how English is used. If a non-native speaker ends up at the wrong place, they get to learn something new. LordAtlas (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

wikivote

Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS not on voting--regentspark (comment) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We can probably debate the issue until the cows come home, but I think that perhaps the best way to resolve this is democratically with a wikivote. Enter {{agree}} if you think that "America" should redirect to "America (disambiguation)" or enter {{disagree}} if you think that "America" should redirect to "United States." Feel free to add any additional comments or citations with your vote. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_90&oldid=1093595955"