![]() | 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 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | → | Archive 95 |
I propose the inclusion of this graph because it presents an accurate, informative, useful, and actionable summary representation of the economic history of the United States. EllenCT ( talk) 14:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)That productivity graph has been discredited before on this talk page. It if a favorite left-wing distortion whose errors have been pointed out by numerous organizations ranging from the St. Louis Federal Reserve to mainstream financial publications. It ignores non-wage and salary compensation. It also ignores the affect of taxation, which further narrows the gap. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It should also be noted that a significant share of U.S. corporate profits are derived from outside the United States and that this share has increased over the years. So companies are helping offset the trade deficit. Also note that foreign profit are typically taxed in the country where they are earned and to bring them back to the U.S. would result in double taxation, so these profits are kept offshore. Phmoreno ( talk) 11:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Should the graph with the more explanatory caption shown at right be included adjacent to the passage on the size of the consumer spending proportion of the economy, as per [1]? 22:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there objections to the inclusion of any or all of these three images? EllenCT ( talk) 20:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article contains too many pictures for its overall length.(May 2016) |
I propose inclusion of [4]. Please share your opinions. EllenCT ( talk) 16:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Are there any actual reasons that any of the photographs in the article can help the reader understand the United States more than any of the graphs proposed above? I note that it is extraordinarily easy to find representative images of the US online, but that informative graphs illustrating specific conditions of US residents are much more difficult to identify among the sea of data graphs available. EllenCT ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I am curious as to why there is no inclusion of the information in the now well-known Princeton Study on "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". This is the study that became famous for being the "America is an Oligarchy" study. The findings are pretty glaring and interesting, and I'm genuinely surprised that there is no mention of this at all in the United States section, as I believe it to be pertinent to information about this country and the way it is governed.
Among the statements made in this study are this one: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
Shouldn't this play in some way into this article that is ostensibly about how the US is a "federal republic" where it may additionally be described as an oligarchic government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuggyBrodleteen ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose including the following table from Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances data published in [9]:
Median net worth in 2013 dollars | 1998 | 2013 | Change |
---|---|---|---|
All families | $102,500 | $81,200 | -20.8% |
Bottom 20% of incomes | $8,300 | $6,100 | -26.5% |
2nd lowest 20% of incomes | $47,400 | $22,400 | -52.7% |
Middle 20% of incomes | $76,300 | $61,700 | -19.1% |
Top 10% | $646,600 | $1,130,700 | +74.9% |
I also propose including, "In the United States between 2001 and 2014, higher income was associated with greater longevity, and differences in life expectancy across income groups increased over time." [10] EllenCT ( talk) 13:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please insert a piece in the United States article that discusses ambiguity of its governmental process. Specifically, that the country is officially known as a federal republic, but that certain evidence points to it being a functional capitalist oligarchy. Evidence in link below:
Nathaniel A. Peterson ( talk) 04:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)I proposed including [11] from [12] with the graph at right, and there were no objections before the talk section was archived. I would like to obtain further discussion about such changes, please. EllenCT ( talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".[267]
The placement of the reference suggests the entire paragraph is supports by the reference. However, page 6 of the reference: Scheb, John M.; Scheb, John M. II (2002). An Introduction to the American Legal System. Florence, KY: Delmar, p. 6. ISBN 0-7668-2759-3 is available on google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=MaBY0tsz5WwC&lpg=PP1&dq=Introduction%20to%20the%20American%20Legal%20System&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=true and states:
The United States relies on representative democracy, but our system of government is much more complex than that. We are not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law [...]
See https://imgur.com/download/Y2nS1wo/
In other words, the entire point of the paragraph is that the United States is NOT a representative democracy. Additionally, I could not find the word "federation" (using Google Books' search) in this book, and I'm pretty sure the Greek federation is one of many older federations.
Barry.carter ( talk) 23:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section "Language", blurp "Source:"
"Most Americans respondents who speak a language other than English at home also report speaking English "well" or "very well." For the language groups listed above, the strongest English-language proficiency is among native speakers of German (96% report..."
75.172.217.199 ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The quick reasons I can think of why this isn't good: The U.S. changed its borders many times other than these; the cost is irrelevant without accounting for inflation; the area doesn't add up to anything else in the article; it likely doesn't take into account losses, like with the Webster-Ashburton Treaty or the Treaty of 1818; it ignores substantial but past holdings like the Philippines; it is way too much detail for too little payoff in an already-overlarge article; it's vastly better handled in other articles; and the sourcing, to a 1972 edition of Rand McNally, is, to put it mildly, curious. -- Golbez ( talk) 19:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Accession | Date | Area (sq.mi.) | Cost in Dollars |
---|---|---|---|
Original territory of the Thirteen States | 1783 | 892,135 | ----- [1] |
Louisiana Purchase, from France | 1803 | 827,987 | $15,000,000 [2] [3] |
Florida (East and West), purchased from Spain | 1819 | 72,101 | $5,000,000 [4] [5] |
Annexation of Texas | 1845 | 389,166 | ----- [6] [7] |
Oregon Territory, by treaty with Great Britain | 1846 | 286,541 | ----- [8] |
Mexican Cession | 1848 | 529,189 | 15,000,000 [9] [10] |
Gadsden Purchase, from Mexico | 1854 | 29,670 | 10,000,000 [11] |
Baker Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856 | 1857 | 0.5 | ----- [12] |
Howland Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856 | 1857 | 0.6 | ----- [13] |
Jarvis Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856 | 1857 | 1.7 | ----- [14] |
Johnston Atoll, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856 | 1857 | 1.1 | ----- [15] |
Purchase of Alaska, from Russia | 1867 | 591,000 | 7,200,000 [16] [17] [18] |
Midway Islands, annexation of unoccupied area | 1867 | 2 | ----- [19] |
Hawaiian Islands annexaction | 1898 | 6,450 | ----- [20] [21] |
Philippine Islands, purchased from Spain (Full independence was granted in July, 1946) | 1898 | 115,800 | 20,000,000 [22] [23] |
Puerto Rico, by treaty with Spain | 1898 | 3,508 | ----- [24] |
Guam, by treaty with Spain | 1899 | 209 | ----- [25] [26] |
American Samoa, by treaty with Great Britain and Germany | 1899 | 76 | ----- [27] [28] |
Panama Canal Zone, by treaty with Panama | 1903 | 553 | $10,000,000 (plus $250,000 annually) [29] [30] |
Guantanamo, by treaty with Cuba | 1903 | 45 | $3,386.25 (rent annually) [31] |
Virgin Islands, by purchase from Denmark | 1917 | 136 | $25,000,000 [32] [33] |
Kingman Reef, annexed | 1922 | 0.4 | ----- [34] |
Kanton Island and Enderbury Island, joint occupation with Britain (Independent as Kiribati in 1979) | 1938 | 6.5 | ----- [35] |
Mariana Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; self-governing as Northern Mariana Islands | 1947 | 179 | ----- [36] |
Caroline Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; 1986 most islands adopt commonwealth status as Federated States of Micronesia | 1947 | 500 | ----- [37] |
Marshall Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; 1979 self-governing; 1986 independent as Republic of the Marshall Islands | 1947 | 70 | ----- [38] |
Kamel Tebaast 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
References
It's Northern Mariana Islands rather than Northern Marina Islands. I just don't know how to change maps.
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a section under the military about terrorism. Since the United States is active in the Middle East, this is important to include. Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light 15:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Is the US properly the ancestral home of the internet, or does the Telex lay greater claim to that title? Hint: Tickertape. EllenCT ( talk) 03:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
the article shows the data from 2010, as we are in 2016 the article shoulda be updated. the official census shows data from 2015: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
Race and Hispanic Origin:
White alone, percent, July 1, 2015
77.1%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2015 13.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2015 1.2%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2015 5.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2015 0,2%
Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2015 2.6%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015 17.6%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015 61,6% — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasFanch ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The lead currently says that the US "It leads the world in several measures of socioeconomic performance;" however, none of the lists linked there actually has the US at the top. Surely this wording is a little misleading? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
55 million Hispanics in the US source:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2015/cb15-ff18.html
Ayarrow ( talk) 23:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Ayarrow ( talk) 23:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Enough already. Anybody with even a minimal knoweldge of US Military would know the terrorism is notable and encyclopedic. Yeah, it may not be sourced now, but it's never going to get sources if you people keep removing it. U S A 21:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
There should probably be a section on international relations, given the importance this has for the US. Clean Copy talk 12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss whether the article should employ "United States" or the abbreviation "U.S." here rather than edit-warring! Thanks. (@ Hell Hawk, C.Fred, Mason.Jones, The United States of America is the best, and Thomas.W:) Clean Copy talk 17:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss really, there's absolutely no reason to abbreviate. Hell Hawk ( talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
For the last 15 years, "United States" has been spelled out as a noun in this article -- abbreviated only as an adjective, or in footnotes and references. This is the style in every encyclopedia article "United States" I've seen, in four languages. As a former copy editor, I know that style books often recommend this distinction, and I've never seen "U.S." as a noun in a feature article (exceptions: tables, charts, and graphs). Over the last week, two editors have decided to replace this style with the un-encyclopedic noun "U.S.," not once but every time in the key introductory paragraphs. This serves no practical purpose except to clutter up the introduction with abbreviations; it does not help us to economize space or to save on characters. What it does manage to do is make this article look less professional and more amateurish. Mason.Jones ( talk) 16:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Precisely -- both versions are allowed, and it remains to determine which should be preferred in the specific contexts being discussed. In the absence of any clear claim, historical priority is normally accepted (mostly to avoid senseless edit wars, I suspect). But if a clear justification can be established, that would be even better. Clean Copy talk 12:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
" ...whether there should be periods in the abbreviation (which seems to be what User:Mitch Ames is referring to) ..."
The use of the abbreviation as a noun seems far too informal to me.-- Khajidha ( talk) 17:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
History section focuses too much on Native Americans and their relation to the U.S. up until:
Independence and expansion (1776–1865)
Honestly, there were much more people who arrived to America in 1770s onwards than Native Americans, and their history should be covered more as they were the bulk of the population. Ernio48 ( talk) 08:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The great seal realy should not have the brown circle around it. It should just the plain coat of arms as it is shown on us passports. Like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_United_States.svg
Mlesch ( talk) 07:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)As all of you may know, one of the main goals of Wikipedia is to be as neutral as possible. Taking this into account, I think it would be best if the redirection from "America" is removed from this page and placed on the "Americas" article. This is a major change, but one that I, and possible many others, feel is necessary.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftyrye27 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
As Rjensen notes, this is an issue as described by Mencken in the 1940s before the adoption of American English in business, airlines and computers overtook British English in worldwide usage, hence the note for the usage at the United Nations for “American” to mean U.S. national. If there is a current reference to the update Mencken used at the America article, — then — it would make sense to redirect “America” to redirect to America (disambiguation) as I understand Johan Hanson to propose. Is there such a reference substantiating the controversy in the present day? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | → | Archive 95 |
I propose the inclusion of this graph because it presents an accurate, informative, useful, and actionable summary representation of the economic history of the United States. EllenCT ( talk) 14:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)That productivity graph has been discredited before on this talk page. It if a favorite left-wing distortion whose errors have been pointed out by numerous organizations ranging from the St. Louis Federal Reserve to mainstream financial publications. It ignores non-wage and salary compensation. It also ignores the affect of taxation, which further narrows the gap. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It should also be noted that a significant share of U.S. corporate profits are derived from outside the United States and that this share has increased over the years. So companies are helping offset the trade deficit. Also note that foreign profit are typically taxed in the country where they are earned and to bring them back to the U.S. would result in double taxation, so these profits are kept offshore. Phmoreno ( talk) 11:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Should the graph with the more explanatory caption shown at right be included adjacent to the passage on the size of the consumer spending proportion of the economy, as per [1]? 22:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there objections to the inclusion of any or all of these three images? EllenCT ( talk) 20:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article contains too many pictures for its overall length.(May 2016) |
I propose inclusion of [4]. Please share your opinions. EllenCT ( talk) 16:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Are there any actual reasons that any of the photographs in the article can help the reader understand the United States more than any of the graphs proposed above? I note that it is extraordinarily easy to find representative images of the US online, but that informative graphs illustrating specific conditions of US residents are much more difficult to identify among the sea of data graphs available. EllenCT ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I am curious as to why there is no inclusion of the information in the now well-known Princeton Study on "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". This is the study that became famous for being the "America is an Oligarchy" study. The findings are pretty glaring and interesting, and I'm genuinely surprised that there is no mention of this at all in the United States section, as I believe it to be pertinent to information about this country and the way it is governed.
Among the statements made in this study are this one: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
Shouldn't this play in some way into this article that is ostensibly about how the US is a "federal republic" where it may additionally be described as an oligarchic government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuggyBrodleteen ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose including the following table from Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances data published in [9]:
Median net worth in 2013 dollars | 1998 | 2013 | Change |
---|---|---|---|
All families | $102,500 | $81,200 | -20.8% |
Bottom 20% of incomes | $8,300 | $6,100 | -26.5% |
2nd lowest 20% of incomes | $47,400 | $22,400 | -52.7% |
Middle 20% of incomes | $76,300 | $61,700 | -19.1% |
Top 10% | $646,600 | $1,130,700 | +74.9% |
I also propose including, "In the United States between 2001 and 2014, higher income was associated with greater longevity, and differences in life expectancy across income groups increased over time." [10] EllenCT ( talk) 13:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please insert a piece in the United States article that discusses ambiguity of its governmental process. Specifically, that the country is officially known as a federal republic, but that certain evidence points to it being a functional capitalist oligarchy. Evidence in link below:
Nathaniel A. Peterson ( talk) 04:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)I proposed including [11] from [12] with the graph at right, and there were no objections before the talk section was archived. I would like to obtain further discussion about such changes, please. EllenCT ( talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".[267]
The placement of the reference suggests the entire paragraph is supports by the reference. However, page 6 of the reference: Scheb, John M.; Scheb, John M. II (2002). An Introduction to the American Legal System. Florence, KY: Delmar, p. 6. ISBN 0-7668-2759-3 is available on google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=MaBY0tsz5WwC&lpg=PP1&dq=Introduction%20to%20the%20American%20Legal%20System&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=true and states:
The United States relies on representative democracy, but our system of government is much more complex than that. We are not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law [...]
See https://imgur.com/download/Y2nS1wo/
In other words, the entire point of the paragraph is that the United States is NOT a representative democracy. Additionally, I could not find the word "federation" (using Google Books' search) in this book, and I'm pretty sure the Greek federation is one of many older federations.
Barry.carter ( talk) 23:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section "Language", blurp "Source:"
"Most Americans respondents who speak a language other than English at home also report speaking English "well" or "very well." For the language groups listed above, the strongest English-language proficiency is among native speakers of German (96% report..."
75.172.217.199 ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The quick reasons I can think of why this isn't good: The U.S. changed its borders many times other than these; the cost is irrelevant without accounting for inflation; the area doesn't add up to anything else in the article; it likely doesn't take into account losses, like with the Webster-Ashburton Treaty or the Treaty of 1818; it ignores substantial but past holdings like the Philippines; it is way too much detail for too little payoff in an already-overlarge article; it's vastly better handled in other articles; and the sourcing, to a 1972 edition of Rand McNally, is, to put it mildly, curious. -- Golbez ( talk) 19:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Accession | Date | Area (sq.mi.) | Cost in Dollars |
---|---|---|---|
Original territory of the Thirteen States | 1783 | 892,135 | ----- [1] |
Louisiana Purchase, from France | 1803 | 827,987 | $15,000,000 [2] [3] |
Florida (East and West), purchased from Spain | 1819 | 72,101 | $5,000,000 [4] [5] |
Annexation of Texas | 1845 | 389,166 | ----- [6] [7] |
Oregon Territory, by treaty with Great Britain | 1846 | 286,541 | ----- [8] |
Mexican Cession | 1848 | 529,189 | 15,000,000 [9] [10] |
Gadsden Purchase, from Mexico | 1854 | 29,670 | 10,000,000 [11] |
Baker Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856 | 1857 | 0.5 | ----- [12] |
Howland Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856 | 1857 | 0.6 | ----- [13] |
Jarvis Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856 | 1857 | 1.7 | ----- [14] |
Johnston Atoll, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856 | 1857 | 1.1 | ----- [15] |
Purchase of Alaska, from Russia | 1867 | 591,000 | 7,200,000 [16] [17] [18] |
Midway Islands, annexation of unoccupied area | 1867 | 2 | ----- [19] |
Hawaiian Islands annexaction | 1898 | 6,450 | ----- [20] [21] |
Philippine Islands, purchased from Spain (Full independence was granted in July, 1946) | 1898 | 115,800 | 20,000,000 [22] [23] |
Puerto Rico, by treaty with Spain | 1898 | 3,508 | ----- [24] |
Guam, by treaty with Spain | 1899 | 209 | ----- [25] [26] |
American Samoa, by treaty with Great Britain and Germany | 1899 | 76 | ----- [27] [28] |
Panama Canal Zone, by treaty with Panama | 1903 | 553 | $10,000,000 (plus $250,000 annually) [29] [30] |
Guantanamo, by treaty with Cuba | 1903 | 45 | $3,386.25 (rent annually) [31] |
Virgin Islands, by purchase from Denmark | 1917 | 136 | $25,000,000 [32] [33] |
Kingman Reef, annexed | 1922 | 0.4 | ----- [34] |
Kanton Island and Enderbury Island, joint occupation with Britain (Independent as Kiribati in 1979) | 1938 | 6.5 | ----- [35] |
Mariana Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; self-governing as Northern Mariana Islands | 1947 | 179 | ----- [36] |
Caroline Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; 1986 most islands adopt commonwealth status as Federated States of Micronesia | 1947 | 500 | ----- [37] |
Marshall Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; 1979 self-governing; 1986 independent as Republic of the Marshall Islands | 1947 | 70 | ----- [38] |
Kamel Tebaast 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
References
It's Northern Mariana Islands rather than Northern Marina Islands. I just don't know how to change maps.
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a section under the military about terrorism. Since the United States is active in the Middle East, this is important to include. Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light 15:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Is the US properly the ancestral home of the internet, or does the Telex lay greater claim to that title? Hint: Tickertape. EllenCT ( talk) 03:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
the article shows the data from 2010, as we are in 2016 the article shoulda be updated. the official census shows data from 2015: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
Race and Hispanic Origin:
White alone, percent, July 1, 2015
77.1%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2015 13.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2015 1.2%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2015 5.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2015 0,2%
Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2015 2.6%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015 17.6%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015 61,6% — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasFanch ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The lead currently says that the US "It leads the world in several measures of socioeconomic performance;" however, none of the lists linked there actually has the US at the top. Surely this wording is a little misleading? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
55 million Hispanics in the US source:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2015/cb15-ff18.html
Ayarrow ( talk) 23:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Ayarrow ( talk) 23:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Enough already. Anybody with even a minimal knoweldge of US Military would know the terrorism is notable and encyclopedic. Yeah, it may not be sourced now, but it's never going to get sources if you people keep removing it. U S A 21:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
There should probably be a section on international relations, given the importance this has for the US. Clean Copy talk 12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss whether the article should employ "United States" or the abbreviation "U.S." here rather than edit-warring! Thanks. (@ Hell Hawk, C.Fred, Mason.Jones, The United States of America is the best, and Thomas.W:) Clean Copy talk 17:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss really, there's absolutely no reason to abbreviate. Hell Hawk ( talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
For the last 15 years, "United States" has been spelled out as a noun in this article -- abbreviated only as an adjective, or in footnotes and references. This is the style in every encyclopedia article "United States" I've seen, in four languages. As a former copy editor, I know that style books often recommend this distinction, and I've never seen "U.S." as a noun in a feature article (exceptions: tables, charts, and graphs). Over the last week, two editors have decided to replace this style with the un-encyclopedic noun "U.S.," not once but every time in the key introductory paragraphs. This serves no practical purpose except to clutter up the introduction with abbreviations; it does not help us to economize space or to save on characters. What it does manage to do is make this article look less professional and more amateurish. Mason.Jones ( talk) 16:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Precisely -- both versions are allowed, and it remains to determine which should be preferred in the specific contexts being discussed. In the absence of any clear claim, historical priority is normally accepted (mostly to avoid senseless edit wars, I suspect). But if a clear justification can be established, that would be even better. Clean Copy talk 12:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
" ...whether there should be periods in the abbreviation (which seems to be what User:Mitch Ames is referring to) ..."
The use of the abbreviation as a noun seems far too informal to me.-- Khajidha ( talk) 17:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
History section focuses too much on Native Americans and their relation to the U.S. up until:
Independence and expansion (1776–1865)
Honestly, there were much more people who arrived to America in 1770s onwards than Native Americans, and their history should be covered more as they were the bulk of the population. Ernio48 ( talk) 08:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The great seal realy should not have the brown circle around it. It should just the plain coat of arms as it is shown on us passports. Like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_United_States.svg
Mlesch ( talk) 07:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)As all of you may know, one of the main goals of Wikipedia is to be as neutral as possible. Taking this into account, I think it would be best if the redirection from "America" is removed from this page and placed on the "Americas" article. This is a major change, but one that I, and possible many others, feel is necessary.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftyrye27 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
As Rjensen notes, this is an issue as described by Mencken in the 1940s before the adoption of American English in business, airlines and computers overtook British English in worldwide usage, hence the note for the usage at the United Nations for “American” to mean U.S. national. If there is a current reference to the update Mencken used at the America article, — then — it would make sense to redirect “America” to redirect to America (disambiguation) as I understand Johan Hanson to propose. Is there such a reference substantiating the controversy in the present day? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)