![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi, I intend to add a human rights section (guantanamo, racism, fundamental rights etc.) to this article. Should that be placed under "Government, elections, and politics" or "Crime and law enforcement"? In my opinion first one is appropriate as it has to do with the policy of the State. 122.176.58.109 ( talk) 08:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is not for spam |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello! This is a very important source of information for understanding of American democracy, politics and also for understanding of the role of licenses of the Creative Commons in this context. I ask you also make the serious remark to German colleagues, which make the rollback, ignoring the argumentation. They must to correct the mistake. They conceal thought the U.S. President, his ideas and kindness. License of the Creative Commons used by thousands of projects across the globe. Respect of President to these licenses will increase their credibility, but the Germans want ignore this fact. This is not correct. I ask you to place this important hyperlink in this article! -- Patriot of USA ( talk) 13:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
|
On the Wikipedia article about Norway it's possible to listen to the Norwegian National anthem by clicking play on the article, why hasn't that been added on the article about the United States? Niceley September 7 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
In the second quote (in which is also a link) of the third sentence in the "Independence and Expansion" section of the article, the phrase "unalienable rights" is used; I believe the correct one though, is "inalienable rights."
Hi, I intend to add a human rights section (guantanamo, racism, fundamental rights etc.) to this article. Should that be placed under "Government, elections, and politics" or "Crime and law enforcement"? In my opinion first one is appropriate as it has to do with the policy of the State. 122.176.58.109 ( talk) 08:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)|}} A) I have seen human rights and corruption in the main country articles after government and politics or Foreigh relations with an own title. See Burma or Libya. B) In Nigeria human rights is a subtitle of the societal issues. C) I added human rights in Singapore as subtutle onder government and politics [1]. See : Talk:Human rights in Singapore#Difficult to find this info Talk:Singapore#Human rights. This was not approved, but there may be other reasons including the actual elections.
The last paragraph of the introduction, a historical paraphrase of the United States' military activities, barely cites the Cold War as a major concept and period in the country's history, while the article for the Soviet Union resumes it's foreign policy by describing it's political opposition to the Western Bloc. Even thought citing the period in the introduction is arguably more essential to the article about the USSR, as it has led to the state's dissolution, the Cold War was responsible for (among other direct consequences) the crucial cultural differentiation between the Western and Communist "Worlds", perhaps the most defining direct effect of American culture in world culture in the century, the very significant and broad involvement of the United States in Asiatic civil wars through the second half of the decade (Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan) and the nuclear arms race which was the central issue in global geopolitical concerns until the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc.
Arguably, those facts and circumstances, which are very extensively described and documented in Wikipedia, are arguably more important to a brief and succinct description of the United States than, for example, the extensive description of it's territorial acquisitions in the 19th century in the same paragraph (most already appropriately described in the first paragraph), and their inclusion in it would resolve the issue of disparity between the articles for the USA and USSR which currently, in direct comparison, might well give a very unwanted impression of North American ethnocentrism and political anachronism to English Wikipedia.
I suggest a revision of the last paragraph of the Introduction section. I'd write it as
There ist nothing about employment in this article, one of the most import questions in today-USA. Just some lines about income. Isn't this funny? -- 13Peewit ( talk) 16:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
0.7% Homeless? Apologies; I forgot I was at Wiki, where we are pro-NATO,U.S but anti-everything not NATO, Amerikan, or of Amerikans allies. How you can possibly say Amerika's economy is better than Norway's in terms of debt and homelessness is beyond me. There's a difference between improving the article, and enhancing a false view of the U.S. Funny that you include China as one of Amerika's allies, being that they have been fear-mongering China for the last six months. Perhaps we should go with sources outside the U.S Whitehouse..? I mean come on.. They stopped being a reliable source for these types of things years ago when they began lying admittedly, issuing false information and such. Atleast acquire decent sources.-- Suffery ( talk) 11:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The GDP per capital of the USA is only around $33,000 according to the national GDP reported journal. The GDP per capital of USA stayed the same for the last 20 years.
24.99.188.141 ( talk) 20:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
What do people think of incorporating a suitable image of the Statue of Liberty into the article? I believe it is important as being the leading icon of the United States, along with the flag. This isn't a patriotic issue but rather one of completeness and WP:UNDUE in terms of extant pictures of an apple pie, two current politicians, a religious institution, a ranch-style home, a writer, and an athlete, while excluding this symbol of far weightier gravitas. Help would certainly be appreciated in finding such a picture. Castncoot ( talk) 03:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Terrific, I think we've developed a pretty good consensus here - I'll proceed to remove the apple pie picture and substitute it with an image I obtained from the Statue of Liberty in popular culture article. I think that's a good starting point, and as always, people are free to make constructive modifications. Castncoot ( talk) 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why isn't there a Gini category which says that United States' Gini is high, beside the Gini number? It seems like the only two countries missing this are the US and UK. Guess that would make them look bad, but it is unappropriate for an encyclopedia to hide facts, no matter the reason.
77.105.50.171 ( talk) 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I marking that as ✗ Not done since there is no consent. If you gain any consent, then place replace again the parameter to no. mabdul 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Found that there is wrong information up about gini "Gini (2007) 45.0[1] (39th)." 39th place is wrong if you follow the link provided by "39th" you will find that it is on place 94th (if sorting by "CIA Gini as a percentage"). Siim44 ( talk) 13:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siim44 ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me? or doesn't the lead of the article mention US territories? As such think it implies that all of them drive on the right too. CaribDigita ( talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose that:
Be changed to:
The unemployment rate in the economic indicators box needs to be updated from the September 2011 (9.1%) figures to the current, October 2011 figures (9.0%). The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows it here [2] Kildruf ( talk) 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd question the US having a strong-hold over over the .gov domain name ( source). InTheRevolution2 ( talk) 00:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
DCGeist, thank you for directing the data also in the main article Demographics of the United States. [3] I fixed this. In my opinion the population of the country is such a main issue that the short text and table would deserve a place also in the main article of the United States. Based on my fixing the main problem, it would in my opinion be fair on your side to have some flexibility as well. How do you think? Watti Renew ( talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Watti Renew ( talk) 16:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Population in the United States [1] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year | Million | ||
1971 | 207.7 | ||
1980 | 227.7 | ||
1990 | 250.2 | ||
2000 | 282.4 | ||
2004 | 293.3 | ||
2008 | 304.5 |
Summary: 1) Watti Renew: The population of the country is such a main issue that the short text and table would deserve a place. The population growth is one of the key problems of the world future, supported by 3 expert citations. According to WP:NPOV …all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. 2) DCGeist: too long article, many associated topical articles that are much more suitable, very small number of readers have interest, article includes allready population growth rate 1% and by 2000-2010, the Hispanic population increased 43% and others 4.9%. 3) Golbez: only a large table with random years is.rejected, It's also just plain nonsensical to use NPOV as a reason. 4) Chipmunkdavis: the information people will be searching for when coming to this page is information about the present day country While a sentence or two summarising historical and possibly future growth may be useful, a table is a bit Undue.
REPLY: I find thretening less polite. According to Blocking policy responding with excessive force can discourage users from editing. WP:NPOV Wikipedia does not hide important facts. WP:NPOV, is a widely accepted standard. You made good argumets that can be used for the development. DCGeist, Readers should have interest in the population growth and Wiki does not hide importat facts. Long Ok, lets have less history in the article. More relevant articles. YES I agree. This is a Both/And -question not Either/Or -question Energy in the United States, Climate change in the United States, Corruption in the United States and Human rights in the United States deserve also a place in the article. Human rights in the United States was supported in the discussion reacently., Let’s include theese in the article. Golbez, Let’s do a smaller table. Chipmunkdavis: a small table offer useful fact of the development in a glance. Year 1990 is commonly used reference year in respect to climate change calculation. If needed, I sugget to table 1971, 1990 and 2008 since this data is available and shows the change in our generation. 1900 is too far in the history. Details may be highly relevant and interesting but details are not a sufficient argument to hide the overall picture of the population growth in the United States during this generation 1970-2008. Watti Renew ( talk) 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Though a clear consensus developed against several of your proposed changes and you were able to develop no consensus in favor of any of your proposed changes, I see you went ahead and made them anyway. I believe they detract from the quality of the article, and I have reverted them. If you edit war to restore them, you will be blocked—it's happened on this page before.
Your proposed changes to the Demographics section have clearly been rejected—with, yes, multiple reasons given—and we will not indulge you on that matter further. If you wish to see if you can build a consensus in support of any other of your proposed changes (just as Castncoot did below for the addition of a Statue of Liberty image), start a new thread to specifically address one or more of them.— DCGeist ( talk) 17:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I will edit my proposals on page: User:Watti Renew/Sandbox/United States Demographics. It has own discussion page, if you like. I will introduce the outcome here. Watti Renew ( talk) 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Population of the 10 largest US cities and municipal areas (1000) [2] | |||
---|---|---|---|
City | Region | ||
New York | 8,362 (1) | 18,897 (1) | |
Los Angeles | 3,832 (2) | 12,829 (2) | |
Chicago | 2,851 (3) | 9,461 (3) | |
Houston | 2,261 (4) | 5,947 (7) | |
Dallas | 1,300 (5) | 6,372 (4) | |
Philadelphia | 1,547 (6) | 5,965 (6) | |
Washington, D.C. | 602 (x) | 5,582 (5) | |
Miami | 399 (x) | 5,565 (8) | |
Atlanta | 420 (x) | 5,268 (9) | |
Boston | 618 (x) | 4,552 (10) | |
Phoenix | 1,594 (7) | 4,193 (x) | |
San Antonio | 1,374 (8) | 2,143 (x) | |
San Diego | 1,306 (9) | 3,095 (x) | |
San Jose | 965 (10) | 1,837 (x) | |
(order no), x = not in top 10 Source: 2010 U.S. Census |
I made Template:Population of the largest cities of the United States(2,183 bytes) to substitute Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States (4,112 bytes). In my opinion this change deserves place, since it takes less space andd has more data. How do you like? Watti Renew ( talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the WP:LENGTH, WP:REF it is not needed to write the www-link twice. Is there some reason to keep these? This concerns several en wiki pages but here with over 200 references, the space lost is more. In my opinion, the ref list would be easier to read without dobble links Also I prefer to write the references without the template in the ref form. For example, in this article 141 alphabets would be in shorter 79 alphabets as following:
I suggest the following addition in a new form, since 1) I find numbers more accurate data than describtive pictures. 2) One of the main reasons for the population growth is poverty. In my opinion, underminding the population growth problem serves the interests of those who want to undermind the reasons of the population growth. WP:NPOV Wikipedia does not hide the facts for any political reasons. 2) This is core data in the article since the US is the third populous country and at moment its population continues growing 3) Since the US population growth is based also in legal and illegal immigration, it shows that this problem can not really be solved only by focusing the domestic population, but needs to be considered worldwide. In my opinion, this is very urgent for the sake of the natural resourses and climate change. As Lester R. Brown wrote Improvement of the family planning is the main problem and the most urgent problem of the world. The benefit is huge and costs are minimal. There is no other place to go. There is only one planet. The following proposal takes 400 kb less space than earlier:
Population in the United States (Millions):
Watti Renew ( talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one that was struck by the picture of the suburban home as odd? I think a picture of a suburb would be more fitting. Also, for the major city template I suggest adding at least 2 more pictures of the next 2 largest cities as many other countries have...thanks
Dillan.Murray ( talk) 07:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that most pictures already on the article do not need replacing, I was just suggesting addition of more. Look here for a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.114.52 ([[User talk: Dillan.Murray ( talk) 20:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)|talk]]) 06:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The first European settlement in a country colonized mainly by Europeans it's a very important information that needs to be added to this article. It's widely documented that Saint Augustine was founded in 1565 by Spanish explorer and admiral Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, the town it's the oldest continuously occupied European-established city and port in the continental United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frran ( talk • contribs)
There are many sources that the vikings regularly made visits (and maybe even had settlements?) in northern America. The Vikings had a colony/settlement in Greenland between ca 1000-1400. There is no information at all about this in the article. It is known that the vikings traded with the native american people. There have been nordic coins found in native american settlements and arrow heads made by native americans found in nordic countries. I think this should be mentioned somewhere, since it probably is the first meeting between Europeans and native american people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.37.89 ( talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the Government to Oligarchy, the United States is no longer a formal Democracy as shown in the OWS Protests. 108.65.200.67 ( talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Error --- Under religion it has a statement that starts with 'According to a 2007 survey' and the link says it is a 2001 survey. Mylittlezach ( talk) 04:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Mylittlezach ( talk) 04:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, when you click on the subset under religion that says 'Religion in the United States', the numbers do not jive with the ones on this page. Mylittlezach ( talk) 04:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I had thought that that was still debateable. If so, stating it as fact is irresponsible. I know consensus, in the end, accounts for nothing, but was wondering if we could get one just for the hell of it... Jersey John ( talk) 06:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
In the section on the U.S. economy, a sentence or two should be added about the financialization of the U.S. economy and the whole shift from keynesan full-employment to economic neo-liberalism, a.k.a. the Washington Consensus. the resulting crash of 2008, and the debate that has been going on for three years now over the role of finance. This debate has roiled the economics profession, and there are some particularly harsh critiques of the failure of most economists to foresee the crash -- and not all of them are marxist critiques. See, for example, the work of Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, Dean Baker, Thomas Palley, Frank Partnoy, Nomi Prins, Nouriel Roubini, and Yves Smith. This issue is one of the most important - and most intractable - that has preoccipied political debate for three years now, and the failure of political elites to find a solution has led to both right and left discontent in the streets. -- Tony Wikrent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.246.134 ( talk) 14:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I have two suggestions. The first sentence for the article about the United States is misleading. It suggests that the federal constitutional republic is comprised equally by fifty states and a federal district. This is insulting to the United States citizens who do not live in a state or district. To have the sentence discussing territories relegated to the end of the paragraph is worse, it shows their lands and homes as insignificant. I suggest to take out the last sentence, and to rewrite the first sentence to state:
"The United States of America (also called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states, a federal capital district and several territories in the Pacific ocean and the Caribbean sea. "
(There are millions of U.S. citizens who live in the U.S. but not in a state!! Ex. Puerto Rico, Guam....)
And for the section about politics I think the basic allotment of voting rights among U.S. citizens residing in the United States is not explicit. In fact, it should be the first sentence for the voting section. It is a basic constitutional requirement that it is not enough to be a citizen to vote for the President, but one must also reside in a state or D.C. Therefore, there are about 4 million or so American citizens who are not allowed to vote for the President. Or to send voting representative or senators to Congress.
Thus I propose this sentence:
"Only U.S. citizens who live in one of the fifty states may vote for the President, or to send voting representatives and senators to the federal Congress. The U.S. citizens who live in the federal district may vote for the President, but they may not send voting representatives and senators to the federal Congress. The U.S. citizens who live in one of the territories are constitutionally forbidden from voting for the President or to send voting representative and senators to the federal Congress." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahoe530 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Can something be included in the human rights section about the federal government's stance on drugs and the treatment of users/distributors? Distributors are punished as seriously as some violent crimes. Users are generally forced to hide from the police-state that has been established to remove these people from society and contain them all within some form of monitoring (probation, prison, random screenings, job-related drug tests, etc.) Additionally, the private business sector is encouraged not hire someone who uses or has used drugs. Is this considered a federal fascism, or does the government have to execute these people for it to be considered fascist?
Why is it "United States" and not "United States of America"? Maybe it is self explanatory in the US, but in other countries the America part is often used, too. So I assume this is the consequence of non-intentional US-centrism. 80.98.146.68 ( talk) 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know how exactly my small edits of the United States article were "poor, undiscussed, and unreferenced"... what is your rationale?
I don't want to start an edit war, so please allow me to revert my edits back, as I contend there is nothing wrong with them. If you want me to source my info on US pop density, I will, but everything else is completely fine. Cadiomals ( talk) 02:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
One Randy Kryn recently reverted a change I made almost three weeks ago to restore the name of James Bevel to the following sentence: "A growing civil rights movement, symbolized and led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and James Bevel used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination." I believe it is obvious that Bevel has no business appearing alongside Parks and King in this context, and I have reverted Kryn's edit.
A look at the history seems to indicate that Bevel has only ever appeared in this article because one person has pushed for his inclusion: Randy Kryn. A look at the article on Bevel reveals that virtually all the claims for his significance rest on two articles written by...Randy Kryn. I have examined several general-interest histories of the civil rights movement, both in my own library and via Google Books, and I have not found a single one that accords Bevel prominence, either symbolic or practical, anywhere close to Parks or King. This is not to say that Bevel did not play an important role in the CRM. It seems he did, but so did many other people. Kryn, and apparently Kryn alone, believes he somehow stands head and shoulders above all those other people to merit mention alongside Parks and King in what must be a very, very tight summary passage. One point of reference--not determinative, but certainly noteworthy--is Oxford University Press's Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present, published just two years ago. A simple word string search shows Rosa Parks on 44 pages, Roy Wilkins on 40, Stokely Carmichael on 38, Bayard Rustin on 30, John Lewis on 25, James Farmer on 24, Andrew Young on 23, Medgar Evers on 20, Whitney Young on 17...and James Bevel on 3.
Kryn is certainly entitled to his personal opinion, but again, none of the sort of high-quality sources on which we rely accord Bevel anything like the status Kryn wishes to grant him--far from it--so his name should remain out. DocKino ( talk) 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Under "Contemporary era", the article states simply that "Major health care and financial system reforms were enacted in 2010." I think having just that sentence implies that the reforms were universally considered positive ones. I feel that the article should go into somewhat further detail about these enactments, and mention the controversy they have generated. Thoughts? Philpill691 ( talk) 20:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Texas Medical Center Aerial.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC) |
I'd like to briefly mention—as many articles of other countries do—the United States' High Development Index in the introduction, as an addendum to the economy paragraph. Any reasons not to—anyone?-- AndresTM ( talk) 22:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"Why did you make a change (a) without discussion and (b) without comment that (c) lowers the visual quality of the article?"
All right, then:
Flag of the United States (Pantone).svg -> Flag of the United States.svg
because it is an updated version of the flag (and it's the same file used for the Flag of the United States page), and
USA orthographic.svg -> United States (orthographic projection).svg
because as cleaner as the first map is, the lack of the Great Lakes (as if the area was all land) makes the map misleading. Raistuumum ( talk) 03:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the US of A a name some people call it? Tommy2215 ( talk) 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Very few people use "US of A" and mostly joke about it due to hearing from the movie Borat. Whatever we have now is fine and no more.-- Maydin37622 ( talk) 05:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The U.S. is de facto a secular country. We are culturally a Christian nation due to ~80% (249 million) Americans identified as Christians as of 2011, of which the U.S. has the world's largest Christian population. Our federal/state holidays are both secular and Christians (Good Friday/Christmas Day). All of our presidents and some of our founding fathers were Christians. All of this should be mentioned in the article.-- Maydin37622 ( talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it should definitely be mentioned that 249 million Americans live in the United States which is rougly 80% of the population. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. How could government be 100% secular when "God" is on our currency and motto, and Christian high holidays as public holidays, and presidents swear on bible?!
The article should mention the importance of French language in the United States. French is after Spanish language the most taught and widely used language. French language is spoken as an official language by our neighbor in north. French language is also available in many products and certain other things. -- Maydin37622 ( talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Why the demonym in the infobox says "american" since America is a whole continent including more countries? That's a bit racist. 201.207.106.214 ( talk) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The context here is "as used in wikipedia." So . . . . . . . ..... ?
I once saw a Canadian documentary about what it means to be a Canadian, and it turned out that Canadians had little in common except (and I quote) "We are not Americans." They were pretty clear what the term means.
Carptrash (
talk)
06:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What about 'merican. I don't think that has any confusion.
I don't think it is racist whatsoever. Calling somebody who lives in Canada a Canadian isn't racist, is it? Though, yes, there are both of the Americas, North and South, it is typical for one who is referring to people of the United States to say "Americans." Other countries have their own demonyms, and they use them, instead of referring to themselves as Americans because they live in the Americas. Canadians and Mexicans are Canadians and Mexicans, and though they could be called Americans as well, they are not. Simple as that. If it really matters, which I don't think that it does, then you should see the person who decided that people in the USA would be called Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevorm ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff substituted a vastly expanded race and ethnicity table for the existing one in the Demographics section. DocKino reverted on the following grounds: "That massive level of detail is inappropriate for this summary overview article. You need to make your case in Talk and see if there's any support for altering the well-established table."
While SDS's proposed table offers worthwhile information—it essentially duplicates a table we feature in the topical article Demographics of the United States—I concur with DocKino's assessment that it drills down to a level of detail that isn't suitable for this general country-level article. Related considerations are the very large size of this article—which compels us to always be looking to restrain growth—and the existing density of media (in which I include tables) in the specific section in question—which argues against making the section even more media-heavy. I believe the article is better off with the status quo and without this new table. Comments from all are invited.— DCGeist ( talk) 11:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The left table with percentage only is enough. We do not need to get in more details, which it seems very confusing. I would like to update the list of languages spoken/understood as of 2010. -- Maydin37622 ( talk) 16:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Race/Ethnicity (2010) [3] | |
---|---|
White | 72.4% |
Black/African American | 12.6% |
Asian | 4.8% |
American Indian and Alaska Native | 0.9% |
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander | 0.2% |
Other | 6.2% |
Two or more races | 2.9% |
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) | 16.3% |
Race / Ethnicity | Number | Percentage of U.S. population [4] |
---|---|---|
Not Hispanic or Latino | 258,267,944 | 83.7 % |
White | 196,817,552 | 63.7 % |
Black or African American | 37,685,848 | 12.2 % |
Asian | 14,465,124 | 4.7 % |
Two or more races | 5,966,481 | 1.9 % |
American Indian or Alaska Native | 2,247,098 | 0.7 % |
Some other race | 604,265 | 0.2 % |
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander | 481,576 | 0.2 % |
Hispanic or Latino | 50,477,594 | 16.3 % |
White | 26,735,713 | 8.7 % |
Some other race | 18,503,103 | 6.0 % |
Two or more races | 3,042,592 | 1.0 % |
Black or African American | 1,243,471 | 0.4 % |
American Indian or Alaska Native | 685,150 | 0.2 % |
Asian | 209,128 | 0.1 % |
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander | 58,437 | 0.0 % |
Total | 308,745,538 | 100.0% |
Excellent tables. I prefer the left one more, because we do not need to get in details of actual numbers. Percentage is enough.
Somedifferentstuff has tagged this section as POV and we are told to come here; I assume this is the section referred to, but the consensus appears pretty strong to keep the more basic table. I strongly urge SDS to elaborate on why the tag exists quickly, or it will be removed. -- Golbez ( talk) 22:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
While I prefer the table on the right, for its precision, I do not necessarily find the table on the left "misleading". The interested reader will have to delve a little more for accuracy, mostly as pertains to the issue of "white" versus Hispanic. All that being said, while I prefer the table on the right, I do not feel so strongly that I would carry on a protracted debate. Boneyard90 ( talk) 00:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I included a source comment next to the article title synonyms to attempt to warn off the continued linking of the article titles to other articles, e.g. the (POV) linking of America over to the article for Americas, referring to WP:CONTEXTLINK.
Also included the definite article the in the bolded article synonym "the States" (as opposed to "States") as the definite article is necessary semantically for this informal term to refer to the United States.
Both were reverted as "plainly misguided". The only guidance I had was the MOS, so I invite comment on the matters. – RVJ ( talk) 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Cloudblazer wishes to add the following to the lead section:
However, the recent financial crisis of 2008-09 has, as a Pew Research article put it, "...has turned the spotlight to America’s declining economic prowess. Once the fearsome colossus, many now see the financially-strapped U.S. as a great power in decline." [5] A recent CIA report [6] [7] that was published before the financial crisis suggested that United States dominance on the world stage could come to a close as soon as 2020; indicative that United States power is in a steep decline. [8] [9] [10]
I reverted the addition. The lead section is meant to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" ( WP:LEAD); the addition of this material in this case clearly undermines that aim, rather than enhances it. The addition was also made in evident ignorance of the frequently voiced concerns about the article's length. As a more general point, this is a Good Article, and any sort of major addition to or alteration of the lead should only take place after clear discussion and achievement of consensus. DocKino ( talk) 05:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me quote something to you. "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." From the what should be in a lead section. I do believe the Financial crisis is somewhat covered in another part of the article, so it follows the guidelines. The statements are well sourced and documented; I fail to understand your problem with it. I don't consider it "crystal ball gazing" either. I mean the United States is heading the way of the British empire albeit much quicker then the former did. many military conflicts The US has made can uncannily be compared to similar actions the British empire took in the waning years of its supremacy. I believe the US will remain a dominant player on the world stage for the foreseeable future, but this notion/fantasy that we are still a superpower is unsettling. The power that has for a long time centered in the west is moving to other countries, China, India, Brazil. These are the superpowers of the future. I have not met anyone else in my field who would deny that power shift. Who are the largest creditor nations in the world? Japan, China, Asian Countries. The largest(massive) debtor nation? United States at a whopping 15+trillion. Study some history lads, what empire in history do you know has maintained the height of its power after its economy collapsed and its main body of government entered huge debts? That's why the Roman Empire collapsed. It could no longer afford to maintain its massive empire so its tax revenue fell crushing the economy of mainland Rome which for over a thousand years had relied on that income and large cheap imports from its colonies. I don't think the US is going to collapse, but it should be included that its massive power is fading. It is no longer the "leading culture, economic, political force" in the world. Its government is in the process of coming to terms with this reality. Give me your facts boys(or girls) that its not true the US super/hyper power is not fading. FACTS. or if your predictable argument is going to be it doesn't belong in the lead section(refer to my first statements) please tell me where it should go. Cloudblazer ( talk) 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The USA is still the worlds sole superpower. The most powerful nation on earth by by far. There are several ways to show this.
- The US economy is by far the largest in the world. It is 3 times larger than China. - The USA still has the worlds largest manufacturing idustry. 20% of the world’s manufacturing output is from the USA. - The USA spends more on the military than the next 17 nations COMBINED. - The US Navy is larger than the next 13 navies COMBINED. - The US Navy has 11 supercarriers. - The US military has by far the best technollogy in the world. - The USA has 8,500 nuclear weapons. - There are 828 cars per 1,000 people. The highest in the world(Monaco isn't a country).
Who knows how long US supremacy will last. The USA and China will be the two superpowers in the 20th century. Moonshot926 ( talk) 17:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
it has no need to be the single superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.108.54 ( talk) 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no link to Politics of the United States at the beginning of the section "Government, elections, and politics" -- 194.100.207.130 ( talk) 16:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that basketball while invented in the states was done so by a Canadian and the completely, America born label, as suggested in this article, is misleading.
Taken from the NBA's website:
The roots of basketball are firmly embedded in Canada. In 1891 the game was invented by Dr. James Naismith, a Canadian who hailed from Almonte, Ontario. Having been given the task of creating a new indoor sports activity while conducting a physical education class at the international YMCA training school in Springfield, Massachusetts, Naismith designed what we now call basketball. The original game involved 13 rules and a peach basket hung ten feet above the floor. Even though it took place in the United States, at least ten of the players who participated in the first-ever game were university students from Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.93.106 ( talk) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the sports section Basketball is labeled as an American invention. However, it should be noted that basketball while invented in the states was done so by a Canadian and the completely, America born label, as suggested in this article, is misleading.
Taken from the NBA's website:
The roots of basketball are firmly embedded in Canada. In 1891 the game was invented by Dr. James Naismith, a Canadian who hailed from Almonte, Ontario. Having been given the task of creating a new indoor sports activity while conducting a physical education class at the international YMCA training school in Springfield, Massachusetts, Naismith designed what we now call basketball. The original game involved 13 rules and a peach basket hung ten feet above the floor. Even though it took place in the United States, at least ten of the players who participated in the first-ever game were university students from Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.93.106 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 142.90.93.106 ( talk) 23:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Already done
Celestra (
talk)
06:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The United States is a Representative Democratic Republic. The United States is not a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. To be a Constitutional Republic, the people would derive their rights from the Constitution. We do not. The Constitution of the United States was created to protect and codify the unalienable rights of the people. To be a Presidential republic, the power would be required to be mainly in the Executive branch when, in fact, in the U.S. the Legislative branch is the most powerful. To be a Federal Republic, the power would rest solely in a Federal government, while in the U.S. the Federal Government is co-equal to that of the States, some of which are already independent republics. This is poli-sci 101. I would be happy to provide cites for this, but any first year poli-sci text book will bear me out.
Thank you for all that you do and for your great work here on Wikipedia!!! Regards.
Rdmaclean ( talk) 08:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_States/archive4
I started by adding some references.
Any thoughts?
-- Iankap99 ( talk) 07:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
EU has largest Gdp in the world,stronger currency too. EU owns the largest conventional military in the world and a nuclear stockpile able to cancel Earth.So where is this souperpower named usa? Eu compared is an empire.In Wiki enn all Us apeople are in and Cia Propaganda that support wiki doesn't tell reality. Usa today in EU are considered 2nd world...superpower hehehehe You are strongly complexed vs EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.24.174 ( talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very high volume article that is close to FA, please be as thorough as possible.
Thanks, Iankap99 ( talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Kumioko First I want to say thanks for submitting this. I agree its very important both to the project and because its extremely high hit amount. Although it is currently an A class article, IMO it needs quite a bit of work and probably isn't A class quality but its all fixable and this is a good start. Here are some of my observations so far and I will read through in more detail in the next couple days. I hope you don't mind but as I read through I am going to fix some obvious small things.
Missed this peer review, but if I could add some quick comments, Kumioko above noted the article was too long, and the article needed restructuring. It needs restructuring definitely, but I think it'd be much better to look to combining sections rather than splitting, as with the current Foreign relations and military section. It's easy to present them together, as there is overlap, which comes naturally with the United State's superpower status. Obviously not all foreign relations of the US are military, but if it's split than things will need to be repeated in two sections, not the most efficient use of space. CMD ( talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Aren't territories part of the U.S.? The people who live in U.S. territories are U.S. citizens by birth, so how are they not part of the U.S.? Rklawton ( talk) 17:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Additional source: 18 USC § 2340 - DEFINITIONS:
"(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States."
[15]
Rklawton (
talk)
18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
You cite the Factbook, but what about the fact that it does not include the territories' population and area in the country's? The territories are also listed there as "dependent areas". They are dependent on the U.S., not part of it. There is a difference between incorporated territories like Arizona Territory and Palmyra Atoll, and unincorporated territories like the Virgin Islands and the Philippines. Man and Jersey and Gibraltar are not part of the UK, and Puerto Rico and Guam are not part of the U.S. That the U.S. code supplies a definition for the United States is presumably because most of the laws made in Washington apply to the territories, but obviously not all, nor do all constitutional provisions automatically apply like they would for an incorporated territory. It's easier to specify the laws that do not apply to the territories than the ones that do.
Finally, quoting from Political status of Puerto Rico: "... according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases [Puerto Rico] is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."" -- Golbez ( talk) 21:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikih101 recently made some provisional changes to the Transportation section. While a couple were useful, several made improper use of the presented sources and introduced poor grammar. Here's a summary of the ones that have been reverted or substantially altered:
Does the blatant anti-American left leaning tone to this article (lifted from Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States) need be mentioned? I often wonder, why is there no mention of Canadians or Mexicans displacing natives under their articles? Were those countries not settled by the same europeans? Wiki has enervated itself with such nonsensical political posturing. It's a joke now.-- MarioSmario ( talk) 17:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but they mention it was taking place in the United States, too. Why not mention Canada and Mexico (and Australian and New Zealand) in the United States article? Why must Canada's crimes against humanity be somehow lessened by the reference the same thing occurred in the US? Keep trying, comrade.-- MarioSmario ( talk) 22:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Folks who characterize Howard Zinn as " blatant anti-American" and then toss around "comrades" lose credibility with me quickly. As do those who dribble. Well, except some. Carptrash ( talk) 16:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The article reads:
Of Americans twenty-five and older, 84.6% graduated from high school, 52.6% attended some college, 27.2% earned a bachelor's degree, and 9.6% earned graduate degrees
but the data is from 2003.
It must be updated: here is a link to 2011 data: [16]
Skydeepblue ( talk) 09:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just reading the article and I came across this sentence in the Cold War section:
"Resisting leftist land and income redistribution projects around the world, the United States often supported authoritarian governments."
I get the second part of the sentence but what in the world is the first part about? There's no explanation, links, or sources. What projects? Whose? In what way were they resisted? It's just a generally unhelpful sentence. Can anyone fill it out or provide a link to a more explanatory page? Or a book? Something? 70.90.87.73 ( talk) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
War went from 1775-1783, not 1781. Battles near my house in Charleston, SC occured in late 1782. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.168.60 ( talk) 20:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Last year it appears that someone proposed adding Puerto Rico to the green area of the map on this page (it appears in gray). looks like there was a consensus but no one had the technical know how to make the changes. Anyone want to change it (or oppose the change?) MonteMiz ( talk) 03:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
These pages are not made for domestic use mainly, they know what USA is. The expression united states are a non clear expression and the complete name must be used, United states of America. There are a large number of united states around the world. The problem is that in the case of USA there is no other name that are recognised for the country, like Germany, France, Italy or India, the word America means for most people a continent of south and north America. There are indeed a lot of sloppy or highly domestic expressions and could be refered to in links and in the beginning of the article, in also known as statements. If governments or the congress is supporting local expressions by law, it makes no difference, it is still domestic expressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.54.220 ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
[ [17]] {{Quotation|
I think USA and its support for regimes in south america and Middle east as well as Africa need to be discussed in the foreign relations section Ruffruder0 ( talk) 09:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the demographic section it is stated that "Fertility is also a factor; the average Hispanic woman gives birth to 3.0 children in her lifetime, compared to 2.2 for non-Hispanic black women and 1.8 for non-Hispanic white women (below the replacement rate of 2.1)." this was the case a few years ago,but as of 2010 the fertility rates for all racial groups have seen declines. For hispanics especially the rate has dropped from 3.0 children per women to 2.3 per woman.Furthermore from the year of 2009-2010 hispanics have seen a 0.2 reduction in total fertility.
The statement that "fertility is also a factor" may be true,but the statistics that are cited are not.
As of 2010 the fertility rates of the United States by race:
Whole United States: 1,932.0
Non-Hispanic white: 1,791.0
Non-Hispanic black: 1,971.5
American Indian or Alaska Native: 1,404.0
Asian or Pacific Islander: 1,689.5
Hispanic: 2,352.5
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf
Helloagain56 (
talk)
21:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll just note this here since pages this major attract rollbacks and edit-warring. Yes, U.S. with the two periods is quite common, especially among older writers and sources. However, both uses have become standard and the only real factor to consider is consistency. If we're writing US and not U.S.A. and GDP and not G.D.P., we should use US rather than U.S.
I personally feel the page looks less cluttered now, but have no preference for whether we go the all-period route or the no-period one. Just let's pick one and use it throughout. Thank y'kindly. — LlywelynII 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be lacking. Subsequent recounts verify that Bush won Florida regardless (based on Gore's preferred recount approach), but the current wording makes it sound as though the Supreme Court handed him the election rather than ruled on a matter of election law. Similarly, the second Iraq war did in fact have UN resolutions in their support (however questionably attained) and calling the COTW "so-called" is snarkier and POVier than simply calling it "a coalition" even if you don't want to give them their own name for themselves. The health care reforms haven't been enacted and won't be until 2014. &c.
I'll throw up my suggestions, but even if they're removed, this is something we should work on improving rather than allow the article to be used as propaganda for team Red or team Blue. — LlywelynII 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph:
"Indigenous peoples descended from forebears who migrated from Asia have inhabited what is now the mainland United States for many thousands of years. This Native American population was greatly reduced by disease and warfare after European contact. The United States was founded by thirteen British colonies located along the Atlantic seaboard. On July 4, 1776, they issued the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed their right to self-determination and their establishment of a cooperative union. The rebellious states defeated the British Empire in the American Revolution, the first successful colonial war of independence.[8] The current United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787; its ratification the following year made the states part of a single republic with a stronger central government. The Bill of Rights, comprising ten constitutional amendments guaranteeing many fundamental civil rights and freedoms, was ratified in 1791."
Should read: "Indigenous peoples, descended from forebears who migrated from Asia, have inhabited what is now the mainland United States for many thousands of years. This Native American population was greatly reduced by disease and warfare after European contact. The British established thirteen colonies located along the Atlantic seaboard. On July 4, 1776, a convention of the British colonies issued the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed their right to self-governance and their establishment of a cooperative federation. The rebellious colonies defeated the British Empire in the American Revolution, the first successful colonial war of independence.[8] The current United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787; its ratification the following year made the states part of a federal republic with a permanent central government. The Bill of Rights, comprising ten constitutional amendments guaranteeing many fundamental civil rights and freedoms, was ratified in 1791." 129.133.127.112 ( talk) 01:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Based on a few artilces:
Evidence grows N. America's first colonizers were European http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news168.htm
The traditional view of American prehistory was that Clovis people travelled by land from Asia.
This version was so accepted that few archaeologists even bothered to look for artefacts from periods before 10,000BC. But when Jim Adavasio continued to dig below the Clovis layer at his dig near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he found blades and blade cores dating back to 16,000BC. His findings were dismissed as erroneous; too astonishing to be credible. The Clovis consensus had too many reputations behind it to evaporate easily. Some archaeologists who backed Adavasio's conclusions with other similar data were accused of making radiocarbon dating errors or even of planting finds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml
Of course there are others. Maybe deleted out the Asian part, or modify it? Trentc ( talk) 17:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Geography section, the current line, "the United States is third in size behind Russia and China, just ahead of Canada" should read "the United States is third in size behind Russia and CANADA, just ahead of CHINA" Thanks!
63.95.36.13 ( talk) 21:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
De facto the "American English" is most spoken(not English, read all). And if You really want to write, the Spanish should be also listed there. Why? Firstly - the Spanish is also used by most of the govt. agencies and it is really way of contacting them. To add this, the USA was made by immigrants, and current spoken English is basically one of the many. Even it won with other by just some minimal advance. Of course currently the most govt. use it is. But if You want to show the national(not official, which is not listed anywhere as official) You should include at least other(for short list only Spanish, for longer - others). Probably the most wrong things, when people say "In USA we speak English" is that they don't known about immigration, and because of problems with legal battles the millions are not listed. Secondly most English works are made by "more knowledge" USA citizens, but average USA born don't speak English well, even if he is not "Spanglish". Just look at USA - based forums, talk with (most people) low paid workers, and see that this look more like "Simple English", with local accents/words that in ever other part of word may be considered for e.g. like the Welsh in UK, or Irish. Don't saying of course about lot of (especially older people) communities which speak only their born/parents language like Italian, Irish, Poles, Russians, French and many others.
If You want to compare - just go to US states, especially deep/south, poor homes. You will see that more English speaking people(even as second language) You will find in some non native English countries.
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Mdann52 (
talk)
10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)In the final paragraph of the introduction to the article, there exists the following sentence: "The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union left the United States as the sole superpower".
The grammar is incorrect. A possible corrected version would be "The ending of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union had left the United States as the sole superpower".
The original sentence had ambiguous tense, which leaves doubt as to whether the sentence intends to claim that the US is still the world's sole superpower, or that it was left as the sole superpower at the conclusion of the cold war. I believe that if the sentence intends to claim that the US is still a superpower, then it should be noted that it is a highly disputed claim. Alternately, if the sentence merely intends to state that the US was the sole superpower at the end of the cold war, then my correction to the sentence will make this view clear.
In either case, the original sentence needs editing to make the verb tense correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.159.41 ( talk) 12:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted DCGeist for two reasons. Fistly, per WP:ALT, text in images should accurately describe the picture. Secondly, the sentence he deleted was sourced. Pass a Method talk 19:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This section is for editors to air any concerns with recent edits in lede and Etymology, without resorting to summary reverts without explanation. All edits were rolled back by one editor. The edits included these changes:
I don't know what the one editor's issue was, so I cannot address it. – RVJ ( talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It still claims Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, yet John Boehner has been for quite some time. Somebody want to fix that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.151.199 ( talk) 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Under ' World War I, Great Depression, and World War II ' in paragraph 2, the sentence reading "The United States, having developed the first nuclear weapons, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war." makes it sound as if the atomic bombs were used due to their development.
While the motivation can be contested behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in order to maintain a more neutral (and less nonsensical) stance the sentence should probably be modified. Removing the commas aids in that, but risks making it more of a run-on.
Another option for neutrality would be "The United States had recently developed the first nuclear weapons, and in August, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war."
The other option is editing to reflect a more accurate point of view. Harry Truman made the final decision to drop the bomb, quoted as saying it was done to "end the war". [15]
The argument could then be made to edit the sentence to read, "The United States had recently developed the first nuclear weapons, and in August, President Harry Truman authorized the use of them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war."
Medevila ( talk) 05:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I know this is a long entry but I lumped these together to show the larger pattern, and could have added a lot more. The “Health” section in particular reads like an agenda driven, one sided hit job on the state of healthcare in the US. Since some have complained the article is too long it might be better just to delete some or all of the offending the lines (especially the first two Health segments I list), but if they remain then additions are required. You can’t just post a bunch of left wing talking points and refuse to tolerate any counterpoints if you want Wikipedia to retain any credibility. I’m open minded and willing to listen to rational counter proposals, including alternatives or rewrites of the additions I suggest. I can envision various compromises, but these points need to be addressed.
Some concerns in Health and elsewhere:
The World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system in 2000 as first in responsiveness, but 37th in overall performance.
The footnote is an opinion piece advocating for a single payer health care system, but it correctly cites the 2000 WHO rankings. The problem is that WHO itself is a policy advocacy outfit that also favors a much larger government role in healthcare, explicitly praising the “Nordic” model as a template for other nations to follow ( http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr29/en/index.html). The 2000 report itself devotes an entire chapter to the notion that the government is ultimately responsible for a population’s healthcare.
Its “rankings” are from a subjectively constructed index slanted by ideology that heavily weights factors like “Financial Fairness” and “inequality” rather than actual healthcare quality, despite often being falsely reported as the latter in the media, and simply described as “performance” in this article. To the extent results are ostensibly counted, it’s through factors like life expectancy, where the slight differences among first world nations are largely determined by genetics, racial differences, car accidents, crime, culture, stress, and lifestyle choices (like obesity) rather than the healthcare system per se. Lest there be any doubt about the politics involved, the first report author listed is Philip Musgrove, who also argued that the US should adopt a European style healthcare system in a Health Affairs article, at one point asking, “Where should the blame be placed in the chaos that we jokingly refer to as the U.S. health care system?” http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/6/1664.full?sid=1e6b2b9c-1b92-4ef9-972c-8a9dd6ef15d8
In short, who cares about the WHO rankings? They’re meaningless. Anyone can construct an index that results in the “rankings” they want, and in this case it blatantly transcends healthcare quality (to the extent it even notices it) to include ideological concerns. You might as well post Al Gore or Obama’s opinion. The WHO “rankings” were popularized as a left wing talking point by Michael Moore’s propaganda flick Sicko, but it’s become rarer to see them cited in intelligent circles in recent years.
To ensure the alternative view is heard, here’s a proposed counterpoint to follow the sentence (references unformatted for visibility):
"Those rankings have been criticized by (among others) the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, for ideological bias, heavily weighting subjective factors like “financial fairness”, grading on a controversial curve that punishes high end spending, high margins of error in sampling, and measuring results with vague metrics such as life expectancy that are strongly influenced by factors other than the healthcare system (genetics, diet, stress, crime, accidents, life style choices, etc.). http://www.cato.org/publications/briefing-paper/whos-fooling-who-world-health-organizations-problematic-ranking-health-care-systems"
A 2009 study estimated that lack of insurance is associated with nearly 45,000 deaths a year.
Though billed as a “Harvard” study, it was conducted and released by members of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a lobbying group dedicated to pushing for a single payer system. A guy often shown in the picture at the top (it rotates with each visit)... http://www.pnhp.org/ is “co-founder” David Himmelstein. He was cited in the CNN article footnoting the “study” (though CNN neglected to mention PNHP, Reuters and some other outlets did). Study co-author and fellow PNHP founding member Steffie Woolhandler authored a public letter addressed to Obama demanding a single payer system. http://www.pnhp.org/obama/letter.php A third author, Andrew P. Wilper, has repeatedly spoken out to attack the for-profit healthcare system and has co-authored multiple studies with the two PNHP co-founders. Here’s one example: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/harvard_study_finds_.php
The “45k” study has been torn apart by critics for many reasons, including the facts that it didn’t look at a single cause of death, it took a snapshot of insurance status years before death without ever following up or even checking insurance status at the time of death (most uninsured regain coverage within a year), and because it didn’t reflect the major causes of being uninsured in real life (rich, didn’t need it, young and healthy, too poor, eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled, illegal alien, etc.). The heavily extrapolated “45,000” number is fiction (we don’t know whether those who died were insured or not) and they don’t come close to establishing causality. Obviously they failed to consider possible negative consequences to the US healthcare system in terms of quality, innovation, or availability if the reforms they want are passed. The study is garbage, and was released for headline impact as the 2009 healthcare debate was heating up.
A proposed addition:
The study was released by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a group dedicated to lobbying for a single payer healthcare system, and at least two of its authors are co-founders. Conservatives have criticized the study for (among other things) failing to look at a single cause of death and for taking a snapshot of insurance status years before death without checking to see if that status ever changed, important given that being uninsured is frequently temporary. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/09/21/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death/
The infant mortality rate of 6.06 per thousand places the United States 176th out of 222 countries, higher than all of Western Europe
The CIA source linked to (possibly updated) puts the US rate at 5.98 and 173rd, but the prose should make clear that the ranking is from worst to best, or reverse it to place the US "47th lowest out of 222 countries." (or "50th" if updated).
When juxtaposed with the healthcare system comments that follow, the implication is that the relatively high mortality rate is due to deficiencies in US healthcare, especially given the explicit comparison with ”Western Europe”. The reality is that the US premature baby survival rate is better than Europe’s (indicating high quality healthcare), but that the US has a much higher premature birth incidence, which is responsible for the skewed mortality rate. The high incidence rate is heavily impacted by racial differences (which those comparing the US with Europe in general should always keep in mind) and a much higher teen pregnancy rate. So, as with life expectancy earlier, the infant mortality differences speak more to lifestyle choices, genetics, and subcultural factors than healthcare. It can also be impacted by differences in the ways nations count infant mortality. This stuff deserves a mention.
A proposed addition:
According to the CDC, the relatively high US infant mortality rate is mostly due to a higher incidence of premature births, though premature babies survive at a significantly higher rate in the US than in Europe. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm Teenage pregnancy is a major cause of pre-term births, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/10/36 and the US has a substantially higher teenage pregnancy rate than other western nations. http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/AboutTeenPreg.htm Infant mortality rates can be distorted by differences in the ways nations report infant mortality http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy_2.htm http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html and skewed by racial differences. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/PretermBirth.htm
At the very least the first sentence should be added and the existing sentence should be updated.
To add further balance and show the US does have a first rate healthcare system, here’s another proposal referencing a study that’s actually scientific and focuses on survival rates, a better indication of healthcare system quality than vague demographic stats are:
A 2007 study by European doctors found the five year cancer survival rate was significantly higher in the US than in all 21 European nations studied, 66.3% versus the European mean of 47.3% for men and 62.9% versus 52.8% for women. http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/gsilverm/cancer%20survival2.pdf http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html
Total U.S. military spending in 2010, almost $700 billion, was 43% of global military spending and greater than the next fourteen largest national military expenditures combined. At 4.8% of GDP, the rate was the second-highest among the top fifteen military spenders, after Saudi Arabia.[73]
My problem is with the second sentence. Who cares about spending as a percentage of GDP of only the “top fifteen” spenders in absolute terms? It’s a convoluted and cherry-picked way to treat the issue, and is sourced by SIPRI, an anti-US military Swedish think tank/policy advocacy group. I deleted nothing, but posted this addition giving the latest CIA numbers for global percentage of GDP rankings (not just the top 15), and adding the even more relevant apples to apples historical information that US defense spending has largely declined over the last several decades as a percentage of GDP and the federal budget, but my contribution was reversed twice:
Globally the US ranks 23rd in defense spending as a percentage of GDP according to the most recent CIA World Factbook data, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html# and has seen military spending dramatically decline both as a percentage of GDP and federal spending over the past several decades. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/defending-defense-setting-the-record-straight-on-us-military-spending-requirements
The first reverser only claimed Heritage isn’t reliable (as though SIPRI is any less agenda driven), but the claim being supported is undeniably true. I could add a link to the historical tables from Obama’s OMB or any number of other government sources to confirm it, though the Heritage page conveniently gathers the (sourced) data together and adds easy to read charts, and I refuse to concede that conservative think tanks somehow aren’t legitimate sources when left wing think tanks are considered such (SIPRI’s numbers have been criticized http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/48/4/547.abstract. , though neither source I posted contradicts them as they make different points). I could also change it to cite specific numbers over time, though that might result in a longer contribution.
The second reverser's reasoning wasn’t clear, as he/she edited different sections at once. The CIA page ranking the US 23rd uses material that’s several years old, but I don’t know of any more recent global rankings, and there are numerous older sources sprinkled throughout this article (including the aforementioned subjective WHO rankings from 2000). SIPRI has more up to date figures on separate pages for each country, but I haven’t seen them gather them into a comprehensive list and I’m not sure they do every nation. Up to date rankings would still obviously have the US much lower than 2nd in military spending as a percentage of GDP, so even a slightly dated list provides valuable context to the contrived SIPRI list, blunting its apparently intended psychological impact.
BTW, the whole notion of judging the appropriateness of military spending through such international dollar to dollar comparisons (SIPRI’s motive) is infantile to begin with, as this Washington Post fact check piece lays out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-and-the-defense-budget-a-factoid-that-falls-short/2012/01/11/gIQADl2qrP_blog.html
So just deleting the existing segment instead might be a good way to save article space.
Though it has been abolished in most Western nations, capital punishment is sanctioned in the United States for certain federal and military crimes, and in thirty-four states.
“Though” indicates the US should be expected to go along with the rest of the west (which here means most of Europe and the British commonwealth; funny how on GDP the US gets compared to the entire EU but on stuff like capital punishment and healthcare suddenly each European nation gets a distinct, equal vote and America looks marginalized), and seems like advocacy.
I’d just delete the opening clause, but if the comparison must remain, I propose changing it to the more neutral:
"Unlike most Western nations, capital punishment is sanctioned in…”.
Which also has the advantage of being shorter. BTW, where are the comparisons with “most Western nations” on topics like loser pay tort laws, k-12 school choice, and territorial tax systems? Rhetorical question, but something to ponder when considering the problem of subtle bias. VictorD7 ( talk) 10:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi, I intend to add a human rights section (guantanamo, racism, fundamental rights etc.) to this article. Should that be placed under "Government, elections, and politics" or "Crime and law enforcement"? In my opinion first one is appropriate as it has to do with the policy of the State. 122.176.58.109 ( talk) 08:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is not for spam |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello! This is a very important source of information for understanding of American democracy, politics and also for understanding of the role of licenses of the Creative Commons in this context. I ask you also make the serious remark to German colleagues, which make the rollback, ignoring the argumentation. They must to correct the mistake. They conceal thought the U.S. President, his ideas and kindness. License of the Creative Commons used by thousands of projects across the globe. Respect of President to these licenses will increase their credibility, but the Germans want ignore this fact. This is not correct. I ask you to place this important hyperlink in this article! -- Patriot of USA ( talk) 13:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
|
On the Wikipedia article about Norway it's possible to listen to the Norwegian National anthem by clicking play on the article, why hasn't that been added on the article about the United States? Niceley September 7 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
In the second quote (in which is also a link) of the third sentence in the "Independence and Expansion" section of the article, the phrase "unalienable rights" is used; I believe the correct one though, is "inalienable rights."
Hi, I intend to add a human rights section (guantanamo, racism, fundamental rights etc.) to this article. Should that be placed under "Government, elections, and politics" or "Crime and law enforcement"? In my opinion first one is appropriate as it has to do with the policy of the State. 122.176.58.109 ( talk) 08:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)|}} A) I have seen human rights and corruption in the main country articles after government and politics or Foreigh relations with an own title. See Burma or Libya. B) In Nigeria human rights is a subtitle of the societal issues. C) I added human rights in Singapore as subtutle onder government and politics [1]. See : Talk:Human rights in Singapore#Difficult to find this info Talk:Singapore#Human rights. This was not approved, but there may be other reasons including the actual elections.
The last paragraph of the introduction, a historical paraphrase of the United States' military activities, barely cites the Cold War as a major concept and period in the country's history, while the article for the Soviet Union resumes it's foreign policy by describing it's political opposition to the Western Bloc. Even thought citing the period in the introduction is arguably more essential to the article about the USSR, as it has led to the state's dissolution, the Cold War was responsible for (among other direct consequences) the crucial cultural differentiation between the Western and Communist "Worlds", perhaps the most defining direct effect of American culture in world culture in the century, the very significant and broad involvement of the United States in Asiatic civil wars through the second half of the decade (Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan) and the nuclear arms race which was the central issue in global geopolitical concerns until the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc.
Arguably, those facts and circumstances, which are very extensively described and documented in Wikipedia, are arguably more important to a brief and succinct description of the United States than, for example, the extensive description of it's territorial acquisitions in the 19th century in the same paragraph (most already appropriately described in the first paragraph), and their inclusion in it would resolve the issue of disparity between the articles for the USA and USSR which currently, in direct comparison, might well give a very unwanted impression of North American ethnocentrism and political anachronism to English Wikipedia.
I suggest a revision of the last paragraph of the Introduction section. I'd write it as
There ist nothing about employment in this article, one of the most import questions in today-USA. Just some lines about income. Isn't this funny? -- 13Peewit ( talk) 16:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
0.7% Homeless? Apologies; I forgot I was at Wiki, where we are pro-NATO,U.S but anti-everything not NATO, Amerikan, or of Amerikans allies. How you can possibly say Amerika's economy is better than Norway's in terms of debt and homelessness is beyond me. There's a difference between improving the article, and enhancing a false view of the U.S. Funny that you include China as one of Amerika's allies, being that they have been fear-mongering China for the last six months. Perhaps we should go with sources outside the U.S Whitehouse..? I mean come on.. They stopped being a reliable source for these types of things years ago when they began lying admittedly, issuing false information and such. Atleast acquire decent sources.-- Suffery ( talk) 11:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The GDP per capital of the USA is only around $33,000 according to the national GDP reported journal. The GDP per capital of USA stayed the same for the last 20 years.
24.99.188.141 ( talk) 20:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
What do people think of incorporating a suitable image of the Statue of Liberty into the article? I believe it is important as being the leading icon of the United States, along with the flag. This isn't a patriotic issue but rather one of completeness and WP:UNDUE in terms of extant pictures of an apple pie, two current politicians, a religious institution, a ranch-style home, a writer, and an athlete, while excluding this symbol of far weightier gravitas. Help would certainly be appreciated in finding such a picture. Castncoot ( talk) 03:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Terrific, I think we've developed a pretty good consensus here - I'll proceed to remove the apple pie picture and substitute it with an image I obtained from the Statue of Liberty in popular culture article. I think that's a good starting point, and as always, people are free to make constructive modifications. Castncoot ( talk) 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why isn't there a Gini category which says that United States' Gini is high, beside the Gini number? It seems like the only two countries missing this are the US and UK. Guess that would make them look bad, but it is unappropriate for an encyclopedia to hide facts, no matter the reason.
77.105.50.171 ( talk) 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I marking that as ✗ Not done since there is no consent. If you gain any consent, then place replace again the parameter to no. mabdul 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Found that there is wrong information up about gini "Gini (2007) 45.0[1] (39th)." 39th place is wrong if you follow the link provided by "39th" you will find that it is on place 94th (if sorting by "CIA Gini as a percentage"). Siim44 ( talk) 13:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siim44 ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me? or doesn't the lead of the article mention US territories? As such think it implies that all of them drive on the right too. CaribDigita ( talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose that:
Be changed to:
The unemployment rate in the economic indicators box needs to be updated from the September 2011 (9.1%) figures to the current, October 2011 figures (9.0%). The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows it here [2] Kildruf ( talk) 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd question the US having a strong-hold over over the .gov domain name ( source). InTheRevolution2 ( talk) 00:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
DCGeist, thank you for directing the data also in the main article Demographics of the United States. [3] I fixed this. In my opinion the population of the country is such a main issue that the short text and table would deserve a place also in the main article of the United States. Based on my fixing the main problem, it would in my opinion be fair on your side to have some flexibility as well. How do you think? Watti Renew ( talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Watti Renew ( talk) 16:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Population in the United States [1] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year | Million | ||
1971 | 207.7 | ||
1980 | 227.7 | ||
1990 | 250.2 | ||
2000 | 282.4 | ||
2004 | 293.3 | ||
2008 | 304.5 |
Summary: 1) Watti Renew: The population of the country is such a main issue that the short text and table would deserve a place. The population growth is one of the key problems of the world future, supported by 3 expert citations. According to WP:NPOV …all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. 2) DCGeist: too long article, many associated topical articles that are much more suitable, very small number of readers have interest, article includes allready population growth rate 1% and by 2000-2010, the Hispanic population increased 43% and others 4.9%. 3) Golbez: only a large table with random years is.rejected, It's also just plain nonsensical to use NPOV as a reason. 4) Chipmunkdavis: the information people will be searching for when coming to this page is information about the present day country While a sentence or two summarising historical and possibly future growth may be useful, a table is a bit Undue.
REPLY: I find thretening less polite. According to Blocking policy responding with excessive force can discourage users from editing. WP:NPOV Wikipedia does not hide important facts. WP:NPOV, is a widely accepted standard. You made good argumets that can be used for the development. DCGeist, Readers should have interest in the population growth and Wiki does not hide importat facts. Long Ok, lets have less history in the article. More relevant articles. YES I agree. This is a Both/And -question not Either/Or -question Energy in the United States, Climate change in the United States, Corruption in the United States and Human rights in the United States deserve also a place in the article. Human rights in the United States was supported in the discussion reacently., Let’s include theese in the article. Golbez, Let’s do a smaller table. Chipmunkdavis: a small table offer useful fact of the development in a glance. Year 1990 is commonly used reference year in respect to climate change calculation. If needed, I sugget to table 1971, 1990 and 2008 since this data is available and shows the change in our generation. 1900 is too far in the history. Details may be highly relevant and interesting but details are not a sufficient argument to hide the overall picture of the population growth in the United States during this generation 1970-2008. Watti Renew ( talk) 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Though a clear consensus developed against several of your proposed changes and you were able to develop no consensus in favor of any of your proposed changes, I see you went ahead and made them anyway. I believe they detract from the quality of the article, and I have reverted them. If you edit war to restore them, you will be blocked—it's happened on this page before.
Your proposed changes to the Demographics section have clearly been rejected—with, yes, multiple reasons given—and we will not indulge you on that matter further. If you wish to see if you can build a consensus in support of any other of your proposed changes (just as Castncoot did below for the addition of a Statue of Liberty image), start a new thread to specifically address one or more of them.— DCGeist ( talk) 17:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I will edit my proposals on page: User:Watti Renew/Sandbox/United States Demographics. It has own discussion page, if you like. I will introduce the outcome here. Watti Renew ( talk) 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Population of the 10 largest US cities and municipal areas (1000) [2] | |||
---|---|---|---|
City | Region | ||
New York | 8,362 (1) | 18,897 (1) | |
Los Angeles | 3,832 (2) | 12,829 (2) | |
Chicago | 2,851 (3) | 9,461 (3) | |
Houston | 2,261 (4) | 5,947 (7) | |
Dallas | 1,300 (5) | 6,372 (4) | |
Philadelphia | 1,547 (6) | 5,965 (6) | |
Washington, D.C. | 602 (x) | 5,582 (5) | |
Miami | 399 (x) | 5,565 (8) | |
Atlanta | 420 (x) | 5,268 (9) | |
Boston | 618 (x) | 4,552 (10) | |
Phoenix | 1,594 (7) | 4,193 (x) | |
San Antonio | 1,374 (8) | 2,143 (x) | |
San Diego | 1,306 (9) | 3,095 (x) | |
San Jose | 965 (10) | 1,837 (x) | |
(order no), x = not in top 10 Source: 2010 U.S. Census |
I made Template:Population of the largest cities of the United States(2,183 bytes) to substitute Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States (4,112 bytes). In my opinion this change deserves place, since it takes less space andd has more data. How do you like? Watti Renew ( talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the WP:LENGTH, WP:REF it is not needed to write the www-link twice. Is there some reason to keep these? This concerns several en wiki pages but here with over 200 references, the space lost is more. In my opinion, the ref list would be easier to read without dobble links Also I prefer to write the references without the template in the ref form. For example, in this article 141 alphabets would be in shorter 79 alphabets as following:
I suggest the following addition in a new form, since 1) I find numbers more accurate data than describtive pictures. 2) One of the main reasons for the population growth is poverty. In my opinion, underminding the population growth problem serves the interests of those who want to undermind the reasons of the population growth. WP:NPOV Wikipedia does not hide the facts for any political reasons. 2) This is core data in the article since the US is the third populous country and at moment its population continues growing 3) Since the US population growth is based also in legal and illegal immigration, it shows that this problem can not really be solved only by focusing the domestic population, but needs to be considered worldwide. In my opinion, this is very urgent for the sake of the natural resourses and climate change. As Lester R. Brown wrote Improvement of the family planning is the main problem and the most urgent problem of the world. The benefit is huge and costs are minimal. There is no other place to go. There is only one planet. The following proposal takes 400 kb less space than earlier:
Population in the United States (Millions):
Watti Renew ( talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one that was struck by the picture of the suburban home as odd? I think a picture of a suburb would be more fitting. Also, for the major city template I suggest adding at least 2 more pictures of the next 2 largest cities as many other countries have...thanks
Dillan.Murray ( talk) 07:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that most pictures already on the article do not need replacing, I was just suggesting addition of more. Look here for a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.114.52 ([[User talk: Dillan.Murray ( talk) 20:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)|talk]]) 06:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The first European settlement in a country colonized mainly by Europeans it's a very important information that needs to be added to this article. It's widely documented that Saint Augustine was founded in 1565 by Spanish explorer and admiral Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, the town it's the oldest continuously occupied European-established city and port in the continental United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frran ( talk • contribs)
There are many sources that the vikings regularly made visits (and maybe even had settlements?) in northern America. The Vikings had a colony/settlement in Greenland between ca 1000-1400. There is no information at all about this in the article. It is known that the vikings traded with the native american people. There have been nordic coins found in native american settlements and arrow heads made by native americans found in nordic countries. I think this should be mentioned somewhere, since it probably is the first meeting between Europeans and native american people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.37.89 ( talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the Government to Oligarchy, the United States is no longer a formal Democracy as shown in the OWS Protests. 108.65.200.67 ( talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Error --- Under religion it has a statement that starts with 'According to a 2007 survey' and the link says it is a 2001 survey. Mylittlezach ( talk) 04:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Mylittlezach ( talk) 04:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, when you click on the subset under religion that says 'Religion in the United States', the numbers do not jive with the ones on this page. Mylittlezach ( talk) 04:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I had thought that that was still debateable. If so, stating it as fact is irresponsible. I know consensus, in the end, accounts for nothing, but was wondering if we could get one just for the hell of it... Jersey John ( talk) 06:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
In the section on the U.S. economy, a sentence or two should be added about the financialization of the U.S. economy and the whole shift from keynesan full-employment to economic neo-liberalism, a.k.a. the Washington Consensus. the resulting crash of 2008, and the debate that has been going on for three years now over the role of finance. This debate has roiled the economics profession, and there are some particularly harsh critiques of the failure of most economists to foresee the crash -- and not all of them are marxist critiques. See, for example, the work of Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, Dean Baker, Thomas Palley, Frank Partnoy, Nomi Prins, Nouriel Roubini, and Yves Smith. This issue is one of the most important - and most intractable - that has preoccipied political debate for three years now, and the failure of political elites to find a solution has led to both right and left discontent in the streets. -- Tony Wikrent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.246.134 ( talk) 14:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I have two suggestions. The first sentence for the article about the United States is misleading. It suggests that the federal constitutional republic is comprised equally by fifty states and a federal district. This is insulting to the United States citizens who do not live in a state or district. To have the sentence discussing territories relegated to the end of the paragraph is worse, it shows their lands and homes as insignificant. I suggest to take out the last sentence, and to rewrite the first sentence to state:
"The United States of America (also called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states, a federal capital district and several territories in the Pacific ocean and the Caribbean sea. "
(There are millions of U.S. citizens who live in the U.S. but not in a state!! Ex. Puerto Rico, Guam....)
And for the section about politics I think the basic allotment of voting rights among U.S. citizens residing in the United States is not explicit. In fact, it should be the first sentence for the voting section. It is a basic constitutional requirement that it is not enough to be a citizen to vote for the President, but one must also reside in a state or D.C. Therefore, there are about 4 million or so American citizens who are not allowed to vote for the President. Or to send voting representative or senators to Congress.
Thus I propose this sentence:
"Only U.S. citizens who live in one of the fifty states may vote for the President, or to send voting representatives and senators to the federal Congress. The U.S. citizens who live in the federal district may vote for the President, but they may not send voting representatives and senators to the federal Congress. The U.S. citizens who live in one of the territories are constitutionally forbidden from voting for the President or to send voting representative and senators to the federal Congress." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahoe530 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Can something be included in the human rights section about the federal government's stance on drugs and the treatment of users/distributors? Distributors are punished as seriously as some violent crimes. Users are generally forced to hide from the police-state that has been established to remove these people from society and contain them all within some form of monitoring (probation, prison, random screenings, job-related drug tests, etc.) Additionally, the private business sector is encouraged not hire someone who uses or has used drugs. Is this considered a federal fascism, or does the government have to execute these people for it to be considered fascist?
Why is it "United States" and not "United States of America"? Maybe it is self explanatory in the US, but in other countries the America part is often used, too. So I assume this is the consequence of non-intentional US-centrism. 80.98.146.68 ( talk) 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know how exactly my small edits of the United States article were "poor, undiscussed, and unreferenced"... what is your rationale?
I don't want to start an edit war, so please allow me to revert my edits back, as I contend there is nothing wrong with them. If you want me to source my info on US pop density, I will, but everything else is completely fine. Cadiomals ( talk) 02:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
One Randy Kryn recently reverted a change I made almost three weeks ago to restore the name of James Bevel to the following sentence: "A growing civil rights movement, symbolized and led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and James Bevel used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination." I believe it is obvious that Bevel has no business appearing alongside Parks and King in this context, and I have reverted Kryn's edit.
A look at the history seems to indicate that Bevel has only ever appeared in this article because one person has pushed for his inclusion: Randy Kryn. A look at the article on Bevel reveals that virtually all the claims for his significance rest on two articles written by...Randy Kryn. I have examined several general-interest histories of the civil rights movement, both in my own library and via Google Books, and I have not found a single one that accords Bevel prominence, either symbolic or practical, anywhere close to Parks or King. This is not to say that Bevel did not play an important role in the CRM. It seems he did, but so did many other people. Kryn, and apparently Kryn alone, believes he somehow stands head and shoulders above all those other people to merit mention alongside Parks and King in what must be a very, very tight summary passage. One point of reference--not determinative, but certainly noteworthy--is Oxford University Press's Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present, published just two years ago. A simple word string search shows Rosa Parks on 44 pages, Roy Wilkins on 40, Stokely Carmichael on 38, Bayard Rustin on 30, John Lewis on 25, James Farmer on 24, Andrew Young on 23, Medgar Evers on 20, Whitney Young on 17...and James Bevel on 3.
Kryn is certainly entitled to his personal opinion, but again, none of the sort of high-quality sources on which we rely accord Bevel anything like the status Kryn wishes to grant him--far from it--so his name should remain out. DocKino ( talk) 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Under "Contemporary era", the article states simply that "Major health care and financial system reforms were enacted in 2010." I think having just that sentence implies that the reforms were universally considered positive ones. I feel that the article should go into somewhat further detail about these enactments, and mention the controversy they have generated. Thoughts? Philpill691 ( talk) 20:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Texas Medical Center Aerial.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC) |
I'd like to briefly mention—as many articles of other countries do—the United States' High Development Index in the introduction, as an addendum to the economy paragraph. Any reasons not to—anyone?-- AndresTM ( talk) 22:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"Why did you make a change (a) without discussion and (b) without comment that (c) lowers the visual quality of the article?"
All right, then:
Flag of the United States (Pantone).svg -> Flag of the United States.svg
because it is an updated version of the flag (and it's the same file used for the Flag of the United States page), and
USA orthographic.svg -> United States (orthographic projection).svg
because as cleaner as the first map is, the lack of the Great Lakes (as if the area was all land) makes the map misleading. Raistuumum ( talk) 03:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the US of A a name some people call it? Tommy2215 ( talk) 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Very few people use "US of A" and mostly joke about it due to hearing from the movie Borat. Whatever we have now is fine and no more.-- Maydin37622 ( talk) 05:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The U.S. is de facto a secular country. We are culturally a Christian nation due to ~80% (249 million) Americans identified as Christians as of 2011, of which the U.S. has the world's largest Christian population. Our federal/state holidays are both secular and Christians (Good Friday/Christmas Day). All of our presidents and some of our founding fathers were Christians. All of this should be mentioned in the article.-- Maydin37622 ( talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it should definitely be mentioned that 249 million Americans live in the United States which is rougly 80% of the population. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. How could government be 100% secular when "God" is on our currency and motto, and Christian high holidays as public holidays, and presidents swear on bible?!
The article should mention the importance of French language in the United States. French is after Spanish language the most taught and widely used language. French language is spoken as an official language by our neighbor in north. French language is also available in many products and certain other things. -- Maydin37622 ( talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Why the demonym in the infobox says "american" since America is a whole continent including more countries? That's a bit racist. 201.207.106.214 ( talk) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The context here is "as used in wikipedia." So . . . . . . . ..... ?
I once saw a Canadian documentary about what it means to be a Canadian, and it turned out that Canadians had little in common except (and I quote) "We are not Americans." They were pretty clear what the term means.
Carptrash (
talk)
06:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What about 'merican. I don't think that has any confusion.
I don't think it is racist whatsoever. Calling somebody who lives in Canada a Canadian isn't racist, is it? Though, yes, there are both of the Americas, North and South, it is typical for one who is referring to people of the United States to say "Americans." Other countries have their own demonyms, and they use them, instead of referring to themselves as Americans because they live in the Americas. Canadians and Mexicans are Canadians and Mexicans, and though they could be called Americans as well, they are not. Simple as that. If it really matters, which I don't think that it does, then you should see the person who decided that people in the USA would be called Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevorm ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff substituted a vastly expanded race and ethnicity table for the existing one in the Demographics section. DocKino reverted on the following grounds: "That massive level of detail is inappropriate for this summary overview article. You need to make your case in Talk and see if there's any support for altering the well-established table."
While SDS's proposed table offers worthwhile information—it essentially duplicates a table we feature in the topical article Demographics of the United States—I concur with DocKino's assessment that it drills down to a level of detail that isn't suitable for this general country-level article. Related considerations are the very large size of this article—which compels us to always be looking to restrain growth—and the existing density of media (in which I include tables) in the specific section in question—which argues against making the section even more media-heavy. I believe the article is better off with the status quo and without this new table. Comments from all are invited.— DCGeist ( talk) 11:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The left table with percentage only is enough. We do not need to get in more details, which it seems very confusing. I would like to update the list of languages spoken/understood as of 2010. -- Maydin37622 ( talk) 16:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Race/Ethnicity (2010) [3] | |
---|---|
White | 72.4% |
Black/African American | 12.6% |
Asian | 4.8% |
American Indian and Alaska Native | 0.9% |
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander | 0.2% |
Other | 6.2% |
Two or more races | 2.9% |
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) | 16.3% |
Race / Ethnicity | Number | Percentage of U.S. population [4] |
---|---|---|
Not Hispanic or Latino | 258,267,944 | 83.7 % |
White | 196,817,552 | 63.7 % |
Black or African American | 37,685,848 | 12.2 % |
Asian | 14,465,124 | 4.7 % |
Two or more races | 5,966,481 | 1.9 % |
American Indian or Alaska Native | 2,247,098 | 0.7 % |
Some other race | 604,265 | 0.2 % |
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander | 481,576 | 0.2 % |
Hispanic or Latino | 50,477,594 | 16.3 % |
White | 26,735,713 | 8.7 % |
Some other race | 18,503,103 | 6.0 % |
Two or more races | 3,042,592 | 1.0 % |
Black or African American | 1,243,471 | 0.4 % |
American Indian or Alaska Native | 685,150 | 0.2 % |
Asian | 209,128 | 0.1 % |
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander | 58,437 | 0.0 % |
Total | 308,745,538 | 100.0% |
Excellent tables. I prefer the left one more, because we do not need to get in details of actual numbers. Percentage is enough.
Somedifferentstuff has tagged this section as POV and we are told to come here; I assume this is the section referred to, but the consensus appears pretty strong to keep the more basic table. I strongly urge SDS to elaborate on why the tag exists quickly, or it will be removed. -- Golbez ( talk) 22:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
While I prefer the table on the right, for its precision, I do not necessarily find the table on the left "misleading". The interested reader will have to delve a little more for accuracy, mostly as pertains to the issue of "white" versus Hispanic. All that being said, while I prefer the table on the right, I do not feel so strongly that I would carry on a protracted debate. Boneyard90 ( talk) 00:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I included a source comment next to the article title synonyms to attempt to warn off the continued linking of the article titles to other articles, e.g. the (POV) linking of America over to the article for Americas, referring to WP:CONTEXTLINK.
Also included the definite article the in the bolded article synonym "the States" (as opposed to "States") as the definite article is necessary semantically for this informal term to refer to the United States.
Both were reverted as "plainly misguided". The only guidance I had was the MOS, so I invite comment on the matters. – RVJ ( talk) 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Cloudblazer wishes to add the following to the lead section:
However, the recent financial crisis of 2008-09 has, as a Pew Research article put it, "...has turned the spotlight to America’s declining economic prowess. Once the fearsome colossus, many now see the financially-strapped U.S. as a great power in decline." [5] A recent CIA report [6] [7] that was published before the financial crisis suggested that United States dominance on the world stage could come to a close as soon as 2020; indicative that United States power is in a steep decline. [8] [9] [10]
I reverted the addition. The lead section is meant to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" ( WP:LEAD); the addition of this material in this case clearly undermines that aim, rather than enhances it. The addition was also made in evident ignorance of the frequently voiced concerns about the article's length. As a more general point, this is a Good Article, and any sort of major addition to or alteration of the lead should only take place after clear discussion and achievement of consensus. DocKino ( talk) 05:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me quote something to you. "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." From the what should be in a lead section. I do believe the Financial crisis is somewhat covered in another part of the article, so it follows the guidelines. The statements are well sourced and documented; I fail to understand your problem with it. I don't consider it "crystal ball gazing" either. I mean the United States is heading the way of the British empire albeit much quicker then the former did. many military conflicts The US has made can uncannily be compared to similar actions the British empire took in the waning years of its supremacy. I believe the US will remain a dominant player on the world stage for the foreseeable future, but this notion/fantasy that we are still a superpower is unsettling. The power that has for a long time centered in the west is moving to other countries, China, India, Brazil. These are the superpowers of the future. I have not met anyone else in my field who would deny that power shift. Who are the largest creditor nations in the world? Japan, China, Asian Countries. The largest(massive) debtor nation? United States at a whopping 15+trillion. Study some history lads, what empire in history do you know has maintained the height of its power after its economy collapsed and its main body of government entered huge debts? That's why the Roman Empire collapsed. It could no longer afford to maintain its massive empire so its tax revenue fell crushing the economy of mainland Rome which for over a thousand years had relied on that income and large cheap imports from its colonies. I don't think the US is going to collapse, but it should be included that its massive power is fading. It is no longer the "leading culture, economic, political force" in the world. Its government is in the process of coming to terms with this reality. Give me your facts boys(or girls) that its not true the US super/hyper power is not fading. FACTS. or if your predictable argument is going to be it doesn't belong in the lead section(refer to my first statements) please tell me where it should go. Cloudblazer ( talk) 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The USA is still the worlds sole superpower. The most powerful nation on earth by by far. There are several ways to show this.
- The US economy is by far the largest in the world. It is 3 times larger than China. - The USA still has the worlds largest manufacturing idustry. 20% of the world’s manufacturing output is from the USA. - The USA spends more on the military than the next 17 nations COMBINED. - The US Navy is larger than the next 13 navies COMBINED. - The US Navy has 11 supercarriers. - The US military has by far the best technollogy in the world. - The USA has 8,500 nuclear weapons. - There are 828 cars per 1,000 people. The highest in the world(Monaco isn't a country).
Who knows how long US supremacy will last. The USA and China will be the two superpowers in the 20th century. Moonshot926 ( talk) 17:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
it has no need to be the single superpower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.108.54 ( talk) 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no link to Politics of the United States at the beginning of the section "Government, elections, and politics" -- 194.100.207.130 ( talk) 16:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that basketball while invented in the states was done so by a Canadian and the completely, America born label, as suggested in this article, is misleading.
Taken from the NBA's website:
The roots of basketball are firmly embedded in Canada. In 1891 the game was invented by Dr. James Naismith, a Canadian who hailed from Almonte, Ontario. Having been given the task of creating a new indoor sports activity while conducting a physical education class at the international YMCA training school in Springfield, Massachusetts, Naismith designed what we now call basketball. The original game involved 13 rules and a peach basket hung ten feet above the floor. Even though it took place in the United States, at least ten of the players who participated in the first-ever game were university students from Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.93.106 ( talk) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the sports section Basketball is labeled as an American invention. However, it should be noted that basketball while invented in the states was done so by a Canadian and the completely, America born label, as suggested in this article, is misleading.
Taken from the NBA's website:
The roots of basketball are firmly embedded in Canada. In 1891 the game was invented by Dr. James Naismith, a Canadian who hailed from Almonte, Ontario. Having been given the task of creating a new indoor sports activity while conducting a physical education class at the international YMCA training school in Springfield, Massachusetts, Naismith designed what we now call basketball. The original game involved 13 rules and a peach basket hung ten feet above the floor. Even though it took place in the United States, at least ten of the players who participated in the first-ever game were university students from Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.93.106 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 142.90.93.106 ( talk) 23:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Already done
Celestra (
talk)
06:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The United States is a Representative Democratic Republic. The United States is not a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. To be a Constitutional Republic, the people would derive their rights from the Constitution. We do not. The Constitution of the United States was created to protect and codify the unalienable rights of the people. To be a Presidential republic, the power would be required to be mainly in the Executive branch when, in fact, in the U.S. the Legislative branch is the most powerful. To be a Federal Republic, the power would rest solely in a Federal government, while in the U.S. the Federal Government is co-equal to that of the States, some of which are already independent republics. This is poli-sci 101. I would be happy to provide cites for this, but any first year poli-sci text book will bear me out.
Thank you for all that you do and for your great work here on Wikipedia!!! Regards.
Rdmaclean ( talk) 08:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_States/archive4
I started by adding some references.
Any thoughts?
-- Iankap99 ( talk) 07:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
EU has largest Gdp in the world,stronger currency too. EU owns the largest conventional military in the world and a nuclear stockpile able to cancel Earth.So where is this souperpower named usa? Eu compared is an empire.In Wiki enn all Us apeople are in and Cia Propaganda that support wiki doesn't tell reality. Usa today in EU are considered 2nd world...superpower hehehehe You are strongly complexed vs EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.24.174 ( talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very high volume article that is close to FA, please be as thorough as possible.
Thanks, Iankap99 ( talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Kumioko First I want to say thanks for submitting this. I agree its very important both to the project and because its extremely high hit amount. Although it is currently an A class article, IMO it needs quite a bit of work and probably isn't A class quality but its all fixable and this is a good start. Here are some of my observations so far and I will read through in more detail in the next couple days. I hope you don't mind but as I read through I am going to fix some obvious small things.
Missed this peer review, but if I could add some quick comments, Kumioko above noted the article was too long, and the article needed restructuring. It needs restructuring definitely, but I think it'd be much better to look to combining sections rather than splitting, as with the current Foreign relations and military section. It's easy to present them together, as there is overlap, which comes naturally with the United State's superpower status. Obviously not all foreign relations of the US are military, but if it's split than things will need to be repeated in two sections, not the most efficient use of space. CMD ( talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Aren't territories part of the U.S.? The people who live in U.S. territories are U.S. citizens by birth, so how are they not part of the U.S.? Rklawton ( talk) 17:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Additional source: 18 USC § 2340 - DEFINITIONS:
"(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States."
[15]
Rklawton (
talk)
18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
You cite the Factbook, but what about the fact that it does not include the territories' population and area in the country's? The territories are also listed there as "dependent areas". They are dependent on the U.S., not part of it. There is a difference between incorporated territories like Arizona Territory and Palmyra Atoll, and unincorporated territories like the Virgin Islands and the Philippines. Man and Jersey and Gibraltar are not part of the UK, and Puerto Rico and Guam are not part of the U.S. That the U.S. code supplies a definition for the United States is presumably because most of the laws made in Washington apply to the territories, but obviously not all, nor do all constitutional provisions automatically apply like they would for an incorporated territory. It's easier to specify the laws that do not apply to the territories than the ones that do.
Finally, quoting from Political status of Puerto Rico: "... according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases [Puerto Rico] is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."" -- Golbez ( talk) 21:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikih101 recently made some provisional changes to the Transportation section. While a couple were useful, several made improper use of the presented sources and introduced poor grammar. Here's a summary of the ones that have been reverted or substantially altered:
Does the blatant anti-American left leaning tone to this article (lifted from Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States) need be mentioned? I often wonder, why is there no mention of Canadians or Mexicans displacing natives under their articles? Were those countries not settled by the same europeans? Wiki has enervated itself with such nonsensical political posturing. It's a joke now.-- MarioSmario ( talk) 17:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but they mention it was taking place in the United States, too. Why not mention Canada and Mexico (and Australian and New Zealand) in the United States article? Why must Canada's crimes against humanity be somehow lessened by the reference the same thing occurred in the US? Keep trying, comrade.-- MarioSmario ( talk) 22:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Folks who characterize Howard Zinn as " blatant anti-American" and then toss around "comrades" lose credibility with me quickly. As do those who dribble. Well, except some. Carptrash ( talk) 16:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The article reads:
Of Americans twenty-five and older, 84.6% graduated from high school, 52.6% attended some college, 27.2% earned a bachelor's degree, and 9.6% earned graduate degrees
but the data is from 2003.
It must be updated: here is a link to 2011 data: [16]
Skydeepblue ( talk) 09:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just reading the article and I came across this sentence in the Cold War section:
"Resisting leftist land and income redistribution projects around the world, the United States often supported authoritarian governments."
I get the second part of the sentence but what in the world is the first part about? There's no explanation, links, or sources. What projects? Whose? In what way were they resisted? It's just a generally unhelpful sentence. Can anyone fill it out or provide a link to a more explanatory page? Or a book? Something? 70.90.87.73 ( talk) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
War went from 1775-1783, not 1781. Battles near my house in Charleston, SC occured in late 1782. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.168.60 ( talk) 20:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Last year it appears that someone proposed adding Puerto Rico to the green area of the map on this page (it appears in gray). looks like there was a consensus but no one had the technical know how to make the changes. Anyone want to change it (or oppose the change?) MonteMiz ( talk) 03:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
These pages are not made for domestic use mainly, they know what USA is. The expression united states are a non clear expression and the complete name must be used, United states of America. There are a large number of united states around the world. The problem is that in the case of USA there is no other name that are recognised for the country, like Germany, France, Italy or India, the word America means for most people a continent of south and north America. There are indeed a lot of sloppy or highly domestic expressions and could be refered to in links and in the beginning of the article, in also known as statements. If governments or the congress is supporting local expressions by law, it makes no difference, it is still domestic expressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.54.220 ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
[ [17]] {{Quotation|
I think USA and its support for regimes in south america and Middle east as well as Africa need to be discussed in the foreign relations section Ruffruder0 ( talk) 09:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the demographic section it is stated that "Fertility is also a factor; the average Hispanic woman gives birth to 3.0 children in her lifetime, compared to 2.2 for non-Hispanic black women and 1.8 for non-Hispanic white women (below the replacement rate of 2.1)." this was the case a few years ago,but as of 2010 the fertility rates for all racial groups have seen declines. For hispanics especially the rate has dropped from 3.0 children per women to 2.3 per woman.Furthermore from the year of 2009-2010 hispanics have seen a 0.2 reduction in total fertility.
The statement that "fertility is also a factor" may be true,but the statistics that are cited are not.
As of 2010 the fertility rates of the United States by race:
Whole United States: 1,932.0
Non-Hispanic white: 1,791.0
Non-Hispanic black: 1,971.5
American Indian or Alaska Native: 1,404.0
Asian or Pacific Islander: 1,689.5
Hispanic: 2,352.5
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf
Helloagain56 (
talk)
21:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll just note this here since pages this major attract rollbacks and edit-warring. Yes, U.S. with the two periods is quite common, especially among older writers and sources. However, both uses have become standard and the only real factor to consider is consistency. If we're writing US and not U.S.A. and GDP and not G.D.P., we should use US rather than U.S.
I personally feel the page looks less cluttered now, but have no preference for whether we go the all-period route or the no-period one. Just let's pick one and use it throughout. Thank y'kindly. — LlywelynII 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be lacking. Subsequent recounts verify that Bush won Florida regardless (based on Gore's preferred recount approach), but the current wording makes it sound as though the Supreme Court handed him the election rather than ruled on a matter of election law. Similarly, the second Iraq war did in fact have UN resolutions in their support (however questionably attained) and calling the COTW "so-called" is snarkier and POVier than simply calling it "a coalition" even if you don't want to give them their own name for themselves. The health care reforms haven't been enacted and won't be until 2014. &c.
I'll throw up my suggestions, but even if they're removed, this is something we should work on improving rather than allow the article to be used as propaganda for team Red or team Blue. — LlywelynII 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph:
"Indigenous peoples descended from forebears who migrated from Asia have inhabited what is now the mainland United States for many thousands of years. This Native American population was greatly reduced by disease and warfare after European contact. The United States was founded by thirteen British colonies located along the Atlantic seaboard. On July 4, 1776, they issued the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed their right to self-determination and their establishment of a cooperative union. The rebellious states defeated the British Empire in the American Revolution, the first successful colonial war of independence.[8] The current United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787; its ratification the following year made the states part of a single republic with a stronger central government. The Bill of Rights, comprising ten constitutional amendments guaranteeing many fundamental civil rights and freedoms, was ratified in 1791."
Should read: "Indigenous peoples, descended from forebears who migrated from Asia, have inhabited what is now the mainland United States for many thousands of years. This Native American population was greatly reduced by disease and warfare after European contact. The British established thirteen colonies located along the Atlantic seaboard. On July 4, 1776, a convention of the British colonies issued the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed their right to self-governance and their establishment of a cooperative federation. The rebellious colonies defeated the British Empire in the American Revolution, the first successful colonial war of independence.[8] The current United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787; its ratification the following year made the states part of a federal republic with a permanent central government. The Bill of Rights, comprising ten constitutional amendments guaranteeing many fundamental civil rights and freedoms, was ratified in 1791." 129.133.127.112 ( talk) 01:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Based on a few artilces:
Evidence grows N. America's first colonizers were European http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news168.htm
The traditional view of American prehistory was that Clovis people travelled by land from Asia.
This version was so accepted that few archaeologists even bothered to look for artefacts from periods before 10,000BC. But when Jim Adavasio continued to dig below the Clovis layer at his dig near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he found blades and blade cores dating back to 16,000BC. His findings were dismissed as erroneous; too astonishing to be credible. The Clovis consensus had too many reputations behind it to evaporate easily. Some archaeologists who backed Adavasio's conclusions with other similar data were accused of making radiocarbon dating errors or even of planting finds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml
Of course there are others. Maybe deleted out the Asian part, or modify it? Trentc ( talk) 17:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Geography section, the current line, "the United States is third in size behind Russia and China, just ahead of Canada" should read "the United States is third in size behind Russia and CANADA, just ahead of CHINA" Thanks!
63.95.36.13 ( talk) 21:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
De facto the "American English" is most spoken(not English, read all). And if You really want to write, the Spanish should be also listed there. Why? Firstly - the Spanish is also used by most of the govt. agencies and it is really way of contacting them. To add this, the USA was made by immigrants, and current spoken English is basically one of the many. Even it won with other by just some minimal advance. Of course currently the most govt. use it is. But if You want to show the national(not official, which is not listed anywhere as official) You should include at least other(for short list only Spanish, for longer - others). Probably the most wrong things, when people say "In USA we speak English" is that they don't known about immigration, and because of problems with legal battles the millions are not listed. Secondly most English works are made by "more knowledge" USA citizens, but average USA born don't speak English well, even if he is not "Spanglish". Just look at USA - based forums, talk with (most people) low paid workers, and see that this look more like "Simple English", with local accents/words that in ever other part of word may be considered for e.g. like the Welsh in UK, or Irish. Don't saying of course about lot of (especially older people) communities which speak only their born/parents language like Italian, Irish, Poles, Russians, French and many others.
If You want to compare - just go to US states, especially deep/south, poor homes. You will see that more English speaking people(even as second language) You will find in some non native English countries.
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Mdann52 (
talk)
10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)In the final paragraph of the introduction to the article, there exists the following sentence: "The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union left the United States as the sole superpower".
The grammar is incorrect. A possible corrected version would be "The ending of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union had left the United States as the sole superpower".
The original sentence had ambiguous tense, which leaves doubt as to whether the sentence intends to claim that the US is still the world's sole superpower, or that it was left as the sole superpower at the conclusion of the cold war. I believe that if the sentence intends to claim that the US is still a superpower, then it should be noted that it is a highly disputed claim. Alternately, if the sentence merely intends to state that the US was the sole superpower at the end of the cold war, then my correction to the sentence will make this view clear.
In either case, the original sentence needs editing to make the verb tense correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.159.41 ( talk) 12:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted DCGeist for two reasons. Fistly, per WP:ALT, text in images should accurately describe the picture. Secondly, the sentence he deleted was sourced. Pass a Method talk 19:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This section is for editors to air any concerns with recent edits in lede and Etymology, without resorting to summary reverts without explanation. All edits were rolled back by one editor. The edits included these changes:
I don't know what the one editor's issue was, so I cannot address it. – RVJ ( talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It still claims Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, yet John Boehner has been for quite some time. Somebody want to fix that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.151.199 ( talk) 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Under ' World War I, Great Depression, and World War II ' in paragraph 2, the sentence reading "The United States, having developed the first nuclear weapons, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war." makes it sound as if the atomic bombs were used due to their development.
While the motivation can be contested behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in order to maintain a more neutral (and less nonsensical) stance the sentence should probably be modified. Removing the commas aids in that, but risks making it more of a run-on.
Another option for neutrality would be "The United States had recently developed the first nuclear weapons, and in August, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war."
The other option is editing to reflect a more accurate point of view. Harry Truman made the final decision to drop the bomb, quoted as saying it was done to "end the war". [15]
The argument could then be made to edit the sentence to read, "The United States had recently developed the first nuclear weapons, and in August, President Harry Truman authorized the use of them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war."
Medevila ( talk) 05:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I know this is a long entry but I lumped these together to show the larger pattern, and could have added a lot more. The “Health” section in particular reads like an agenda driven, one sided hit job on the state of healthcare in the US. Since some have complained the article is too long it might be better just to delete some or all of the offending the lines (especially the first two Health segments I list), but if they remain then additions are required. You can’t just post a bunch of left wing talking points and refuse to tolerate any counterpoints if you want Wikipedia to retain any credibility. I’m open minded and willing to listen to rational counter proposals, including alternatives or rewrites of the additions I suggest. I can envision various compromises, but these points need to be addressed.
Some concerns in Health and elsewhere:
The World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system in 2000 as first in responsiveness, but 37th in overall performance.
The footnote is an opinion piece advocating for a single payer health care system, but it correctly cites the 2000 WHO rankings. The problem is that WHO itself is a policy advocacy outfit that also favors a much larger government role in healthcare, explicitly praising the “Nordic” model as a template for other nations to follow ( http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr29/en/index.html). The 2000 report itself devotes an entire chapter to the notion that the government is ultimately responsible for a population’s healthcare.
Its “rankings” are from a subjectively constructed index slanted by ideology that heavily weights factors like “Financial Fairness” and “inequality” rather than actual healthcare quality, despite often being falsely reported as the latter in the media, and simply described as “performance” in this article. To the extent results are ostensibly counted, it’s through factors like life expectancy, where the slight differences among first world nations are largely determined by genetics, racial differences, car accidents, crime, culture, stress, and lifestyle choices (like obesity) rather than the healthcare system per se. Lest there be any doubt about the politics involved, the first report author listed is Philip Musgrove, who also argued that the US should adopt a European style healthcare system in a Health Affairs article, at one point asking, “Where should the blame be placed in the chaos that we jokingly refer to as the U.S. health care system?” http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/6/1664.full?sid=1e6b2b9c-1b92-4ef9-972c-8a9dd6ef15d8
In short, who cares about the WHO rankings? They’re meaningless. Anyone can construct an index that results in the “rankings” they want, and in this case it blatantly transcends healthcare quality (to the extent it even notices it) to include ideological concerns. You might as well post Al Gore or Obama’s opinion. The WHO “rankings” were popularized as a left wing talking point by Michael Moore’s propaganda flick Sicko, but it’s become rarer to see them cited in intelligent circles in recent years.
To ensure the alternative view is heard, here’s a proposed counterpoint to follow the sentence (references unformatted for visibility):
"Those rankings have been criticized by (among others) the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, for ideological bias, heavily weighting subjective factors like “financial fairness”, grading on a controversial curve that punishes high end spending, high margins of error in sampling, and measuring results with vague metrics such as life expectancy that are strongly influenced by factors other than the healthcare system (genetics, diet, stress, crime, accidents, life style choices, etc.). http://www.cato.org/publications/briefing-paper/whos-fooling-who-world-health-organizations-problematic-ranking-health-care-systems"
A 2009 study estimated that lack of insurance is associated with nearly 45,000 deaths a year.
Though billed as a “Harvard” study, it was conducted and released by members of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a lobbying group dedicated to pushing for a single payer system. A guy often shown in the picture at the top (it rotates with each visit)... http://www.pnhp.org/ is “co-founder” David Himmelstein. He was cited in the CNN article footnoting the “study” (though CNN neglected to mention PNHP, Reuters and some other outlets did). Study co-author and fellow PNHP founding member Steffie Woolhandler authored a public letter addressed to Obama demanding a single payer system. http://www.pnhp.org/obama/letter.php A third author, Andrew P. Wilper, has repeatedly spoken out to attack the for-profit healthcare system and has co-authored multiple studies with the two PNHP co-founders. Here’s one example: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/harvard_study_finds_.php
The “45k” study has been torn apart by critics for many reasons, including the facts that it didn’t look at a single cause of death, it took a snapshot of insurance status years before death without ever following up or even checking insurance status at the time of death (most uninsured regain coverage within a year), and because it didn’t reflect the major causes of being uninsured in real life (rich, didn’t need it, young and healthy, too poor, eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled, illegal alien, etc.). The heavily extrapolated “45,000” number is fiction (we don’t know whether those who died were insured or not) and they don’t come close to establishing causality. Obviously they failed to consider possible negative consequences to the US healthcare system in terms of quality, innovation, or availability if the reforms they want are passed. The study is garbage, and was released for headline impact as the 2009 healthcare debate was heating up.
A proposed addition:
The study was released by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a group dedicated to lobbying for a single payer healthcare system, and at least two of its authors are co-founders. Conservatives have criticized the study for (among other things) failing to look at a single cause of death and for taking a snapshot of insurance status years before death without checking to see if that status ever changed, important given that being uninsured is frequently temporary. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/09/21/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death/
The infant mortality rate of 6.06 per thousand places the United States 176th out of 222 countries, higher than all of Western Europe
The CIA source linked to (possibly updated) puts the US rate at 5.98 and 173rd, but the prose should make clear that the ranking is from worst to best, or reverse it to place the US "47th lowest out of 222 countries." (or "50th" if updated).
When juxtaposed with the healthcare system comments that follow, the implication is that the relatively high mortality rate is due to deficiencies in US healthcare, especially given the explicit comparison with ”Western Europe”. The reality is that the US premature baby survival rate is better than Europe’s (indicating high quality healthcare), but that the US has a much higher premature birth incidence, which is responsible for the skewed mortality rate. The high incidence rate is heavily impacted by racial differences (which those comparing the US with Europe in general should always keep in mind) and a much higher teen pregnancy rate. So, as with life expectancy earlier, the infant mortality differences speak more to lifestyle choices, genetics, and subcultural factors than healthcare. It can also be impacted by differences in the ways nations count infant mortality. This stuff deserves a mention.
A proposed addition:
According to the CDC, the relatively high US infant mortality rate is mostly due to a higher incidence of premature births, though premature babies survive at a significantly higher rate in the US than in Europe. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm Teenage pregnancy is a major cause of pre-term births, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/10/36 and the US has a substantially higher teenage pregnancy rate than other western nations. http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/AboutTeenPreg.htm Infant mortality rates can be distorted by differences in the ways nations report infant mortality http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy_2.htm http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html and skewed by racial differences. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/PretermBirth.htm
At the very least the first sentence should be added and the existing sentence should be updated.
To add further balance and show the US does have a first rate healthcare system, here’s another proposal referencing a study that’s actually scientific and focuses on survival rates, a better indication of healthcare system quality than vague demographic stats are:
A 2007 study by European doctors found the five year cancer survival rate was significantly higher in the US than in all 21 European nations studied, 66.3% versus the European mean of 47.3% for men and 62.9% versus 52.8% for women. http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/gsilverm/cancer%20survival2.pdf http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html
Total U.S. military spending in 2010, almost $700 billion, was 43% of global military spending and greater than the next fourteen largest national military expenditures combined. At 4.8% of GDP, the rate was the second-highest among the top fifteen military spenders, after Saudi Arabia.[73]
My problem is with the second sentence. Who cares about spending as a percentage of GDP of only the “top fifteen” spenders in absolute terms? It’s a convoluted and cherry-picked way to treat the issue, and is sourced by SIPRI, an anti-US military Swedish think tank/policy advocacy group. I deleted nothing, but posted this addition giving the latest CIA numbers for global percentage of GDP rankings (not just the top 15), and adding the even more relevant apples to apples historical information that US defense spending has largely declined over the last several decades as a percentage of GDP and the federal budget, but my contribution was reversed twice:
Globally the US ranks 23rd in defense spending as a percentage of GDP according to the most recent CIA World Factbook data, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html# and has seen military spending dramatically decline both as a percentage of GDP and federal spending over the past several decades. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/defending-defense-setting-the-record-straight-on-us-military-spending-requirements
The first reverser only claimed Heritage isn’t reliable (as though SIPRI is any less agenda driven), but the claim being supported is undeniably true. I could add a link to the historical tables from Obama’s OMB or any number of other government sources to confirm it, though the Heritage page conveniently gathers the (sourced) data together and adds easy to read charts, and I refuse to concede that conservative think tanks somehow aren’t legitimate sources when left wing think tanks are considered such (SIPRI’s numbers have been criticized http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/48/4/547.abstract. , though neither source I posted contradicts them as they make different points). I could also change it to cite specific numbers over time, though that might result in a longer contribution.
The second reverser's reasoning wasn’t clear, as he/she edited different sections at once. The CIA page ranking the US 23rd uses material that’s several years old, but I don’t know of any more recent global rankings, and there are numerous older sources sprinkled throughout this article (including the aforementioned subjective WHO rankings from 2000). SIPRI has more up to date figures on separate pages for each country, but I haven’t seen them gather them into a comprehensive list and I’m not sure they do every nation. Up to date rankings would still obviously have the US much lower than 2nd in military spending as a percentage of GDP, so even a slightly dated list provides valuable context to the contrived SIPRI list, blunting its apparently intended psychological impact.
BTW, the whole notion of judging the appropriateness of military spending through such international dollar to dollar comparisons (SIPRI’s motive) is infantile to begin with, as this Washington Post fact check piece lays out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-and-the-defense-budget-a-factoid-that-falls-short/2012/01/11/gIQADl2qrP_blog.html
So just deleting the existing segment instead might be a good way to save article space.
Though it has been abolished in most Western nations, capital punishment is sanctioned in the United States for certain federal and military crimes, and in thirty-four states.
“Though” indicates the US should be expected to go along with the rest of the west (which here means most of Europe and the British commonwealth; funny how on GDP the US gets compared to the entire EU but on stuff like capital punishment and healthcare suddenly each European nation gets a distinct, equal vote and America looks marginalized), and seems like advocacy.
I’d just delete the opening clause, but if the comparison must remain, I propose changing it to the more neutral:
"Unlike most Western nations, capital punishment is sanctioned in…”.
Which also has the advantage of being shorter. BTW, where are the comparisons with “most Western nations” on topics like loser pay tort laws, k-12 school choice, and territorial tax systems? Rhetorical question, but something to ponder when considering the problem of subtle bias. VictorD7 ( talk) 10:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)