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 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
there is no evidence of any national significance in terms of religion or architecture. there are no RS and none at the Wiki article at Mount Ecclesia. The nomination for National Register --commissioned by the Rosicrucians--leaves "national" importance unchecked and checks "state" importance instead, so it does not belong here. see https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/95000390.pdf Rjensen ( talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
If the Rosicrucians were so important, then surely a non-Rosicrucian would add them. Your edit history betrays a certain single purpose to your work here. -- Golbez ( talk) 02:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the fifth paragraph in the "Government and politics" section, it says, "However, the court currently has one vacant seat after the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia."
This is no longer true. 128.239.213.128 ( talk) 19:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Should the last polity admitted be 2012, considering this? – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 03:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the current image of the native American used in the section Culture fitting? The US has plenty of "culture", imho the current image, puts a distorted view on it.-- Joobo ( talk) 10:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
...if I tag this with {{ fanpov}}, {{ advert}}, and/or {{ peacock}}? It's really promotional. KMF ( talk) 02:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (a Canadian)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Many other countries are listed as just " federal republics" in their lead sentences, without the word " constitutional" with a wikilink to the " Constitution" page, despite these countries having constitutions; e.g. Argentina (see the page for Argentina's constitution here), Austria (see the page for Austria's constitution here), Mexico (see the page for Mexico's constitution here), and Nigeria (see the page for Nigeria's constitution here). I propose the word "constitutional" (which is wikilinked and redirects to the " Constitution" page) should be removed from the lead sentence of the United States article. If free will exists, do I have less of it than others ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it must have been debated in these archives before - hotly, I hope - that "America" is redirected here. When most Europeans have talked about "America" over the centuries, they have meant to include Canada, at least, if not the entire Western Hemisphere. Only Canadians think Canada is not part of "America", and they are a teensy-weensy minority.
In any case, I would like to add my formal
Protest to any many which there probably, hopefully, reasonably have been before, against that redirect. I think it's horrifying!
How about an article called "America" detailing all this etymological and geographical cacaphony once and for all? There must be lots of reliable sources. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Proposal - change redirect of America from "United States" to American (word) to satisfy any and all opinions. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This section is rife with errors. The source cited for this information is a misattribution. It leads to a beliefnet article on religious demographics and does not mention ethnic groups of the United States at all. The true source claims to pull information from the U.S. Census Bureau, but upon referencing the U.S. Census Bureau's table of reported ancestries(the closest source I could find) the numbers don't add up. E.g. ~13% of Americans reported German ancestry, but the source this information was pulled from claims it is 17%. I am not including the actual numbers for each reported group because of the following section.
The information currently listed is ancestry and is self-reported. Ancestry is not ethnicity. The United States does not have true ethnic groups the way countries like Afghanistan and the Philippines do. It does not describe ethnic communities the way they exist in some other countries. Right now, this section states that 6.7% of the U.S. population is American which does not make any sense and is very misleading. To be sure, there are historically notable communities such as the German Texans and the Pennsylvania Dutch and it may be worth researching and listing these, but these communities make up a very small portion of the U.S. population and it is still debatable if they are true ethnic groups.
Therefore, I propose that this section be removed. Ethnic groups are typically linguistically and culturally isolated so if anyone can think of something like that in the United States that may be a worthwhile replacement. Bludragn0 ( talk) 07:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
[Full reproduction of article removed.]
The sum of the religions is over 99% essentially covering the population 100%, implying there are no atheists or negligible irreligion. A flat falsehood rather than a misrepresentation. Probably best source on this will be Pew Religion. Suggest you consult usage in similar countries, i.e. Canada, UK, and Australia. Implying that religion applied to the entire population would be reasonable in the set of countries like Malta, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. but not this set. Lycurgus ( talk) 04:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.188.27.18 ( talk) 20:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Current text | Suggested text |
---|---|
The United States of America /əˈmɛrɪkə/ (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a constitutional federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions. Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is in the ... | The United States of America, commonly referred to as the United States, America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal district. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the ... |
I removed the term "Constitutional" from the first sentence. The first sentence has a consensus that went through dispute resolution and should only be altered with another strong consensus. While consensus can change, the last discussion that brought up the word usage next to "Federal Republic" seems to indicate there is no need to add the word. "Federal Republic" is sourced.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Additional discussion; [5] and here [6] and here [7] and here [8].-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Just double checking but it seems that the change was made on February 9th with no explanation by user XXGfHXx.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We should probably use a more accurate term that includes the oligarchical nature of the government. Something like "illiberal democracy" or "inverted totalitarian regime" would probably be more accurate, but those are political philosophies rather than actual systems of government. Perhaps "oligarchical representative democracy?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:8065:3D00:6C38:C9E9:BE9F:F5C5 ( talk) 12:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel like the Culture section should make mention of firearms. 174.54.203.225 ( talk) 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add words almost exactly as follows to the start of the Food section:
“ | The United States has a strikingly different food culture from other Western countries, with which it shares basic food types, with the difference focusing on quantity. The average American eats more than 3,000 Calories per day, and typical food servings are double that of other countries. The country has introduced sugar-based beverages (Coca Cola) and carbohydrate-rich fast food (McDonalds), and as a result of this and other cultural differences, the country faces a the largest epedemic of obesity (40%) among all developed countries. As direct result of the food culture, morbidity from preventable disease is by far the highest among all developed countries, and although the country is the richest in the world, as a direct result of preventable eating-related health outcomes (preventable leading causes of death include Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases), Chronic lower respiratory diseases, Diabetes, Heart Disease), its life expectancy is 31st in the world, at only 69 years (both sexes life expectancy, HALE), a full 5% - or 4 years - lower than comparable countries without this epidemic. Americans are often caricatured as "fat" and masses of clinically obese people are a surprising first sight for all international travelers arriving in any American city. There is a cultural movement called Fat Acceptance having its source in the United States and with the purpose of normalizing and promoting these eating habits. The reasons why American cuisine has moved so markedly in this direction are not clear but began in earnest only in the second half of the twentieth century. | ” |
As it is, you fail to describe or summarize food in the United States. You simply don't give basic information. it would be like writing about the Catholic faith without mentioning the Vatican. you're omitting the fundamental information everyone knows. For balance you could mention the FDA and nutritional labels (which are very positive.) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:AB88:2481:FC80:BD9F:CBC9:CDF4:C41C (
talk) 01:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I am the OP who started this section. The person who said that my suggestion places too much emphasis on health effects for the food section is correct! You are right that obesity isn't literally "food". It is probably not appropriate for the "food" section. At the same time, if you talk with ANYONE who is not from the United States (from ANY country) and ask "how was the food", the first words out of their mouth will be something like, "oh my God there is so MUCH of it - the portions are absolutely massive." Basically, an objective, neutral description of American food MUST begin and have as its major component the fact that there is so much of it and the food culture's effect on the population. Other countries really don't come close in their food culture. To the people who objected to my specific health analysis, I think you are correct that the "food" section should be basically cultural and not basically be about health or nutrition. So somehow you should reword the section to be very encyclopedic but get across the main defining characteristic of food in the United States: its overabundance and overconsumption. This is also pretty new historically speaking (it wasn't at all true in 1920, say), and it's not clear to me when this happened. There should at east be some kind of indication of this. It is not a good article section if you find out more by going there (to America) than you do by reading its encyclopedia article, because the encyclopedia article leaves out the most important and salient aspect! That means it is not neutral. Please improve it! Thank you. 2A02:AB88:2481:FC80:50C4:ED5D:F7B1:3D6F ( talk) 12:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
...United States of America (/əˈmɛrɪkə/; USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America...
...United States of America (/əˈmɛrɪkə/; USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or USA...
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The United States is often incorrectly called 'America'. America is a Continent divided into two sub continents called North America and South America. Canada and Brazil for examples, are other countries in America. Therefore, Canada could also be refereed to as 'Canada of America'. Garry Reay-Laidler ( talk) 13:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Last fall and winter, I argued on this talk page that we should change the sentence "Within American political culture, the center-right Republican Party is considered 'conservative' and the center-left Democratic Party is considered 'liberal'." (Under "Parties and elections" under "Government and politics".) I argued that we should change "center-right" to "right-wing." The sentence was never changed, and now, I am going to argue the same thing: we should change it to "right-wing."
My biggest reason for this is global warming, which is a well-established scientific fact. In spite of this, nearly all Republican politicians dispute that man-made global warming is real. They are denying the validity of science, and that's a really extreme thing to do. A center-right political party would never dispute well-established science. The Republicans are therefore an extremist party, not a center-right party.
You can also look at lots of other issues. For example, health care has been all over the news recently. The Republicans in Congress came pretty close (they were just a couple of votes shy) to taking away the health insurance of some 22 million people, all while giving tax cuts to the richest Americans. That's pretty extreme. A center-right party would not do such a thing. Or you can look at their tax and regulation policies in general: they have fought to remove many regulations on guns, pollution, banking, etc. even when these regulations are common in most industrialized countries. Again, that's not center-right.
Finally, look at our president, who is a Republican and was nominated by the Republican Party. He behaves like a child. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He lies constantly. His election was aided by the Russians. He is a disgrace to our country. But the Republicans let him take the nomination, and they endorsed him and supported him (some criticized him a little bit, but they still endorsed him and voted for him). If the Republicans were a center-right party, then last summer, they all would have said, "This man is unfit to be president, and we refuse to support him." But they didn't. And that goes to show that they are not a center-right party.
Anyway, I think we should change that sentence by replacing "center-right" with "right-wing." Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals ( talk) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have edited thusly [9]. Yes, the statement is true, but it is also tautology. Something doesn't fail because it is succeeded by something else! The main problem is its placing gives too much emphasis to this. Yes, a very few communal experiments failed, but this doesn't mean they were doomed to fail. A better understanding of crops soon to be learnt from the indigenous pop'n was going to make a difference. Less emphasis on the company's insistence the men look for gold, to the detriment of their own welfare, would have helped make the settlements sustainable. That the communal flavour of the settlement was imposed by the company on its indentured servants, not one voluntarily entered into, must be a factor. A reading of the 3 pages cited includes a conventional and correct economic explanation of the benefits of private property over communal ownership. But the settlements failed for multiple reasons, not this one alone. The same referenced book tells in the surrounding pages how the abolishment of the private company running the Virginia settlements in favour of a formal colony is what allowed the company imposed system to be replaced by private settlers. So the economic point being made in the sentence I have removed, although it is one with which we should have much sympathy, hides the fact that it was the abolishment of +private+ company property rights in favour of the establishment of a +state+ colony which allowed for the private settlements! Also, this claim in the History section of this main page is not mentioned in the detailed article History_of_the_United_States. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 07:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
As people began to analyze their DNA for origins, the multi-racial demographics may need to be updated. Some analyzers go to the point of trying to identify archaic origins. For Black, uniquely American, as opposed to African, the legal percentage, often referred to as the one drop rule, however, I understand the actual percentage for legal identification as Black is 3% or 1/32 or one great-great-great grandparent. For some Native American Nations, the requirement is not of actual percentages, but the ability to prove lineage to a living, individual having reported after relocation to Oklahoma around the turn of the century. This data may come from census data. However, in that case, it would be what an individual identifies with in the individual's report of the individual's in the household. The Hispanic category is confusing. It may simply require origins from a Spanish speaking country or culture. I do not where that places Belizeans. I was apprised that in the Puerto Rican there is a concept of light and dark. I do not know how this translates to demographics. However, Caribbean genepools most likely differ vastly from Mexican, which is located on the North American continent. However, for paternity, I don't think one compares a Caribbean to North American Hispanics, which would probably imply Mexican. I have not encountered the concept of separating AmerIndian form Mexican from the Mexicans that I have encountered in the US. I have read some South American countries contain no percentage of AmerIndians. I don't know that I saw Asian, specifically, but with South Asians, I am not sure which category they use. I did ask one person who said she was mixed, so checks Asian. Often there is not a category that one might find fits their needs on a form or questionnaire. In Biology, they teach the origins of all people came out of the fertile crest in Africa. However, it's been discovered that some carry Neanderthal DNA. And, if you DNA looks like a travel guide or a mitration path, you might be very confused as to which box to check. I consider myself to be the sum total of DNA and unique experiences. However, there are also racial/cultural groups with whom I do identify within the experiences of my DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:e944:b500:1416:bc4d:8de8:b591 ( talk) 20:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The third paragraph of this section claims "Due to the dot-com boom, stable monetary policy under Alan Greenspan, and reduced social welfare spending, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001." There is an embedded link in the phrase "reduced social welfare spending" leading to the page "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act." The implication is "Due to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history."
First of all, no sneaky links for the purpose of political argument. Remove the link or edit the sentence so this politically-motivated claim is out in the open for readers. Any mention of this act in this context must explain how and/or why it had a positive impact on the US economy.
Second, the cited works do not support or even mention this point. One of the cited works is a newspaper opinion article and not a peer-reviewed academic source. Therefore it is a claim, not a fact. Furthermore neither source mentions the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" or the effects of any reduction in welfare spending during the 1990s. Therefore this statement is unsourced and must be removed.
Please leave the political arguments out of this article and stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 ( talk) 01:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The statement "The withdrawal caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the successor of al-Qaeda in the region." referring to the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq during 2009-2010, has no source. The cited article "The JRTN Movement and Iraq’s Next Insurgency" does not support this statement. Therefore the statement is unsourced and must be removed.
The cited article from 2011 actually claims "(The Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshabandi Sunni insurgency movement) emerged as the only Iraqi insurgent group to have grown stronger during and since the U.S.-led “surge.” Indeed, U.S. statements on JRTN have arguably added to its credibility and potential for recruiting and fundraising." Further the 2011 article predicts "The withdrawal of most or all U.S. forces could be another stressful transition for JRTN. The movement’s current raison d’être—expelling U.S. forces—could dry up in the coming six months. JRTN is already struggling to maintain the flow of new attack videos due to reduced availability of U.S. targets as bases shut down and convoy traffic declines, and this could stem the movement’s external fundraising."
The article does not support the intended politically-motivated bias of the aforementioned erroneous claim in the United States wikipedia article, the intent of which is to assert that "President Obama's defense policy caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency in Iraq, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." This is an unsupported and unsourced political attack that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Therefore it must be properly sourced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 ( talk) 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template in the same section as your request. This helps us editors know what the request is without blindly removing the template and considering it a test edit. For this reason, I am adding the template into the section for you and leaving it open for any other editor to look into.
jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (
talk) 02:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)"America was left the world's only super power after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991." I don't know why that was removed from the article. Because China and Russia are not super powers. Russia is a world power and China is a regional power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lj996 ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The start of the 5th paragraph has a similar issue to the mentioned 3rd paragraph. It cites a book "Hidden in Plain Sight: What really caused the world's worst financial crisis" for "Government policy designed to promote affordable housing", which isn't the point made by the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.137.114 ( talk) 08:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That map seems misleading in its titling of the large brown area on the right side of the map. Please help solving or discussing that issue on File talk:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png#Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 15:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I notice then, that both Golbez (and NYActuary in the discussion on File talk:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png#Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.) agree that those lands north and west of the Ohio River were in 1783 not part of any of those thirteen founding states. Next question: is anyone capable of adjusting such a Wikimedia map? -- Corriebertus ( talk) 10:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.136.223.139 ( talk) 18:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Elinor Rajka: Hello, Elinor. I see that you've begun an edit war over the inclusion of an image in this article. You haven't provided any justification for the addition of a world map to a section already heavily loaded with images from American history. But more to the point, you seem to be disregarding the note appearing at the top of this Talk page -- the one that calls attention to the Arbitration Committee's concern about maintaining proper standards of behavior and editorial process. This includes the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle under which you discuss the matter here prior to re-inserting challenged material. Would you please engage in discussion on this issue and, while this discussion is taking place, would you please remove the challenged image from the article? I look forward to hearing your response. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 13:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Two tables in this article, "Population Centers" (Metro Area Population, one column) and "Languages" (Number of Speakers, three columns) do not properly align figures at the rightmost "ones" digit, whereas all other tables do so. As this is WP style, I've tried to adjust the entries -- to no avail. This is minor, I guess, but the current off-alignment does look unprofessional. Mason.Jones ( talk) 17:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:144:200:F284:4467:6C33:2DD4:487 ( talk) 21:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this because of a past consensus, or just that no one has ever bothered to expand the section? Either way, it's ridiculously short and I'm going to expand it to a similar length as the other "History" subsections. CJK09 ( talk) 16:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This article uses colon (;) extensively (208 times). It was not meant to be used this much. Well respected magazines and newspapers hardly ever use it! 193.242.214.225 ( talk) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
A mega diverse country criteria is based on its wildlife, not climate or geography Mason.Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree this mason guy is editing to belittle usa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
A mega diverse country is based on biological diversity, not geographical or climate, and it should be stated as such. Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 3:31, 09 September 2017 (UTC)
There are far a lot of graphs and images. Text is sandwiched in between templates and other images and is excessively heavy in the Demographics section.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Race/Ethnicity (2015 ACS estimates) [1] | |
---|---|
By race: [1] | |
White | 77.1% |
Black | 13.3% |
Asian | 5.6% |
American Indian and Alaska Native | 1.2% |
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander | 0.2% |
Multiracial | 2.6% |
By ethnicity: [1] | |
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) | 17.6% |
Non- Hispanic/Latino (of any race) | 82.4% |
Non-Hispanic whites | 62.8% |
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 19:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
References
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I began switching the article over to short citations while I am checking sources and cleaning up references, since we already have a fully fleshed out bibliography?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 18:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not see the reason in adding Land Area, it should just be total area. Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 3:34, 09 September 2017 (UTC)
Images suggested
|
---|
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:E000:928B:5C00:DC86:6738:4DB2:64F7 (
talk) 07:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
References
|
"Death of Captain Cook" by Johann Zoffany (1795)
Can someone remove this image and replace with one of this instead.
Or add an image to give a valence like the trail of tears or one that talks about the American Indian Genocide or the big numbers of Indians that past because of effects on and interaction. 2602:304:CFF8:5A30:D9B3:7840:BCDE:B633 ( talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The main problem with the image is that it shows behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone on the front page of the article which ultimately lead to someones passing. It would be better place in the History of the United States article. By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments. We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA). Like Thanksgiving winch after all is a major holiday in the United States by presidential proclamation. Not trying to white wash history; only trying to give a more rounded and ecliptic view of what it is to be an american. In other words violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence. Most people only pay a small among of time in articles and see the images most of the time with out reading the full article, attaching meaning. I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits. Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party. In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way. As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:E501:230F:4093:5F0C ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Misuse of article talk page. All caps ramble with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The reasoning given for the removal is simply your personal reaction/opinion and has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The image depicts a historic event which is a part of American history. The fact that it depicts an act of violence that ended in the life of the man is not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. Pointing out to be having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people. The argument holds absolute weight your reasoning is simply your personal reaction/opinion and we would not have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Ceasar this is an article on the United States. "By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments" If you have followed me here from the Alt-left article to become a problem you might want to rethink what you are attempting. "We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA)." This isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view. I agree this isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view. To be objective. I did not followed you here from the Alt-left article to become a problem. I'm not attempting anything but making the article the best it can be. Before this talk with you I did not know you exited. "violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence." I have no idea what this means. It means you are not being objective and think this is a propaganda page. Because in retrospect, that seems to describe..ya know...you. "I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits." I have no idea what is you just don't like but clearly you just don't like something. Don't like that it shows Natives as not wanting to interact with Europeans. When we have a holiday to give tanks "Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party" No, just...no. I have no idea why you think another image to be included is a bad idea. What is it you just don't like? but clearly you just don't like something? "In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way" Oh really? There were many witnesses including the ship's surgeon, First Lt. King and a person who history would rememeber as Captain Bligh. There were also Native Hawaiian witnesses that gave detailed accounts that match the western accounts. This was written about a great deal. We know the name of the actual person who stabbed Cook, the man that held him and the many facts that in most situations in history are nowhere near as well recorded. One of the reasons we know so much about captain cook and the reason he show up in so many history textbooks is because we have tons of records about him, but they're almost all European records. Even the Hawaiion recoros we have about cook have been heavily influenced by later contact with Europeans. "As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant" Original research...and perhaps you simply do not understand but...African Americans are not indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC) That's the point. African Americans are not indigenous people of the Americans. Pointing out that not everything is black or white. Captain cook sailor and eventually a British Naval officer, who saw action in the seven year war. Best know for his three voyages of exploration and scientic discovery that took place in the Pacific Ocean. Part of the middle wave of European colonization. The one that took place after Europeans settled in the Americas, but before they set their sights on Africa. having discussed the life of captain cook, lets turn to the most controversial thing he ever did. Die. So Cook landed in Hawaii at Kealakekua bay in early 1779 and explored the island. While he was ashore he was greeted by an important person, probably a chief. In early February, he left. But the ship had trouble and was forced to return to the bay for repairs. During this second visit, he had difficulty with the Hawaiians, who'd previously had been pretty hospitable. And there was a fracas, in which captain cook was killed by at least one Hawaiian. We know this from journals kept by various crewman, but the historical controversy arises from the details and interpretation of his death. Why, in short, was cook killed? The traditional view is that cook was killed for some religious reason, although what isn't always clear. One of the most fleshed out versions of this story comes from the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, in his book "Eslands of History" So in the Hawaiian religious system ku the God of war and Human sacrifice, rules for eight or nine months out of the year. The other months are reserved for the Fertility God, Lono. the season long festival for Lono is call "Mukaniki" and during this the Hawalion king, who is associated with Ku, is ritually defeated. During the Makuhiki, an image of Lono tours the island, gets worshipped, and collects taxes. And at the end of the Makahiki period, Lono is ritually defeated and returned to his native Tahiti. The thinking goes that because cook arrived in the middle of the Makahiki, the Hawaiians perceived him as Lono. So cook took part in the rituals and sacrifices that were made as part of the Makuhiki and in Sahilins view, Cook was killed as ritual murder to mark the end of Makahiki. For Ku to return, the festival to end, and the normal political order to be restored, Lono had to be defeated and presumably killed! For Sahlins, Cooks's death fits perfectly with the ritual structure of Hawaiian culture. Opposing view from Gunanath Obeyeskere for looking a lot more like European myth than like Hawaiian ritual. First off, Obeyesekera argues that Cook himself would not easily be confused with Lono. In fact if he were lake for a God, it would probably be Ku, the war God, what with all the cannons and muskets. Also there's the fact that the name Cook sounds more like Ku than Lono. Also, arguing that native Hawaiians would see a European and think him a God has all kinds of troubling implications. One of them being that native Hawaiians aren't terribly smart. Last Lono is associted with fertility and the Hawaiians would have associated the Europeans with the exact opposite of fertility because they introduced gonorrhea to Hawaii. Plus noting in Howaiian religion has any of their gods being ritually killed. Part of their mythology can be seen as sanctioning a ritual killing of the king, but not of a god and also it's a long way from ritual killing to actual killing. The truth is probably a lot less spectacular which is that cook was probably killed during a malee in which a bunch of Hawaions were also killed. Before his death, Cook had attempted to take a Hawaiian king hostage in response to Hawaiians taking a bunch of stuff from Cook's boats. This was common practice for Cook. He had done the same thing in Tahiti and other Polynesion Island after islanders had taken European goods. Which happened everywhere Cook went in the Pacific. Great sailor terrible anthropologist. Although to be fair, anthropology handn't be invented. So why the tension? Probably because the Europeans dismontled a Hawaiian ritual space, some sources call it a temple, and used it for firewood. Cook attempted to pay for it, but his low-ball offer of two hatchets, was refused. This being a Hawaiian explanation. Of course it's also possible that Hawaiians were just upset that cook had attempted to kidnap their king. Most accounts from the time portrays a chaotic scene in shich cook himself fired at least two shots, probably killing at least one islander. And one thing that seem pretty clear is Cook death does not look premeditated and it sure doesn't look like a ritual. But even so, the idea that Hawaiians saw cook as a God has ended up in a good many accounts of this demise. Why? well one explanation is that it fits with other stories of explorers. Like the Tainos thought Columbus was a god and the Aztecs supposedly thought Cortes was a god. And this just makes Cook one in a long line of Europeans who were thought to be gods by people who Europeans felt were savages. Sure Cook never had much formal schooling but his voyages were all about increasing knowledge and scientific exploration. And having him die at the hands of a people who were so obviously mistaken in thinking him a god makes an argument for the superiority over the intellectualism of the Enlightenmen versus the so called "Primitive Religion" of the colonies. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:CCAC:F4D:4328:7929 ( talk) 11:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC) |
Misuse of article talk page. All caps ramble with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To be clear. No one is telling to remove image because of the person or because Cook has no intrinsic value to the United States history. This view still has its adherents. What is being talk about is our standards of assert ability regarding depiction. I think the view that is coming in more and more is that one cannot make a total separation between wha'ts true and what our standards of assertability are. That the way in which the-what I called using the Kantian picture the "mind-dependece of truth" comes in-is the fact that what's true and what's false is in part a function of what our standards of truth and falsity are. And because even within one scientific theory, you often have different accounts can be given of so-called facts. One could say "boy-scout A fired his stater's pistal before boy-scout B," the other could say "no, boy-scout B fired his starter's pistol before boy-scout A" And if the distance is sufficiently large so that a light singnal can't travel from on to the other without exceeding the speed of light, then it may be both descriptions are correct, both are admissible. I wanna say one shouldn't push that too far because we don't wanna give up our standards of intelligibility altogether. I think another image of Cook is sufficient to make the "point." Lastly because Miller may not compliantly understand withing framework of what a talk page is. I'm moving on. Keep the article locked. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:DC86:6738:4DB2:64F7 ( talk) 06:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC) |
English is the de-facto main language in the United States. However, it could be argued that Spanish, in addition to English, has a status of a national language (i. e. language that has some connection with people and the territory they occupy). Primarily Spanish-speaking territories include scattered areas in the Southwestern United States, Miami, and Puerto Rico.
Switzerland has four national languages:
German,
French,
Italian and
Romansh.
[1] Romansh, while being a national language, is only spoken by 0.6% of the population of Switzerland. In comparison, Spanish is the native language of 13% of the population of the United States.
I saw that you were the last to edit this page.
May I inquire on why you removed the "cultural prominence." description of America? Are you implying that we have lost our cultural edge in the world? If so, then please explain your reasoning behind it. I would appreciate that. Thanks! NocturnalDef ( talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It meets all the criteria for being listed as such. Multiple sources, multiple statistics, a general consensus. Even debate.com has 94% saying that the USA is a police state.
I'm an American by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8DC7:3700:15EC:7100:5DC5:20E ( talk) 23:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
A police state is an Authoritarian nation where a government uses excessive force to control its populace body. Since America is neither Authoritarian, nor a dictatorship, i don't think it's logical to label the country as a police state. Some police units in the country do break with sanctioned procedures but that is not itself without consequence. The Constitution protects the rights of all citizens, regardless if an unruly officer acts on his/her own authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Can some one add a vaudeville link under Literature, philosophy, and the arts and theater 2605:E000:928B:5C00:704A:8C59:61E:FAF4 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The word "corner" should be changed to "quadrant" in the first paragraph of this article. First past the post ( talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems like listing the largest 13 metro areas is an odd choice of numbers, and using 4.5 million as a cutoff for listing also seems odd. Why not top 10? Why not a rounder number like 5 million? However, my edit is more specific: user Mason.Jones added San Bernardino to Riverside with the comment "This metro is "Riverside-San Bernardino," per official designation, US Census. Both cities are of same relative size and weight." First, the official designation is "Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario," so if you're going to claim "official"-ness, you need to get your facts straight. Second, every metro on this list has more than one city in their "official" title, so if you're going to do it here, you need to be consistent. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, and so on. Third, the relative size of the cities are the same ratio as Dallas and Fort Worth, so again, for consistency, why wasn't Fort Worth added? Whatever the number of places listed, in an introductory, overview-type section like this, simpler is better. One city listed for each metro. I've removed San Bernardino. If anyone has any discussion or thoughts, I'm happy to hear them. Dtcomposer ( talk) 05:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Forty-eight states and the federal district are....Dhtwiki ( talk) 08:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this was so prematurely edited? Why were those descriptions removed? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
First off mark, where is your particular source that suggests the US has concurrently lost it's hegemonic influence/leadership; politically, economically and culturally? Second if you need a source that provides the contrary of your assessment, I have several; according to the "Monocle" soft power survey of 2017, the USA as a 'foreign power' still held the top spot for political, economic and cultural influence over the world. Other media, index sources such as "The independent" and "Knight Frank_ also claim that the US influence ranks first.
Thirdly, the USD is still the world's reserve currency regardless that we rank second in PPP. So how would we have thus lost economic leadership if every country on Earth still relies on the US dollar for trade/export and not the Yaun? And no, our debt is not a factor yet because we can still print money.
Lastly, how is it relevant to state that London is the leading global city over NY when they only slightly edge on influence in SOME rankings when others still rank NY at the top... then claim that your reasoning to remove the latter of American dominance from the USA article is due to either incredibly or non-importance when describing any particular nation? That seems a tad one-sided and biased if you put two and two together, Implying that the hidden intention isn't anything personal -- not self reassuring ones passionate hast for America's decline, and a multipolar world? Can you deduce two sides of an argument?
Thanks. NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, America is handsdown' still the largest exporter of Media, music, fashion and cultural solidarity... so again I ask; how can you deduce that American soft power and cultural lead is no longer relevant as factual? What are YOUR sources or are you only speculating what should be factually read? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Mark+ It seems suddenly irregular that you won't respond to my argument after I took the liberty to provide you with the evidence which you so apparently required, and yet, didn't waste any time in walking all over remdom115...seemingly because it required little effort.
Make no mistake though; I am not remdom115. I am actually very astute when it comes to discussion on the concurrent political realm and status quo. I have an education. I can provide you details, all the elements that you require. So again I ask you, why continue to prematurely presume what I can already prove -- facts which are oblivious to you and information you provided as canon without properly qouting its source? Can you prove me otherwise? If not, then I would like access to properly edit this article. NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
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 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
there is no evidence of any national significance in terms of religion or architecture. there are no RS and none at the Wiki article at Mount Ecclesia. The nomination for National Register --commissioned by the Rosicrucians--leaves "national" importance unchecked and checks "state" importance instead, so it does not belong here. see https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/95000390.pdf Rjensen ( talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
If the Rosicrucians were so important, then surely a non-Rosicrucian would add them. Your edit history betrays a certain single purpose to your work here. -- Golbez ( talk) 02:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the fifth paragraph in the "Government and politics" section, it says, "However, the court currently has one vacant seat after the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia."
This is no longer true. 128.239.213.128 ( talk) 19:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Should the last polity admitted be 2012, considering this? – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 03:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the current image of the native American used in the section Culture fitting? The US has plenty of "culture", imho the current image, puts a distorted view on it.-- Joobo ( talk) 10:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
...if I tag this with {{ fanpov}}, {{ advert}}, and/or {{ peacock}}? It's really promotional. KMF ( talk) 02:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (a Canadian)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Many other countries are listed as just " federal republics" in their lead sentences, without the word " constitutional" with a wikilink to the " Constitution" page, despite these countries having constitutions; e.g. Argentina (see the page for Argentina's constitution here), Austria (see the page for Austria's constitution here), Mexico (see the page for Mexico's constitution here), and Nigeria (see the page for Nigeria's constitution here). I propose the word "constitutional" (which is wikilinked and redirects to the " Constitution" page) should be removed from the lead sentence of the United States article. If free will exists, do I have less of it than others ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it must have been debated in these archives before - hotly, I hope - that "America" is redirected here. When most Europeans have talked about "America" over the centuries, they have meant to include Canada, at least, if not the entire Western Hemisphere. Only Canadians think Canada is not part of "America", and they are a teensy-weensy minority.
In any case, I would like to add my formal
Protest to any many which there probably, hopefully, reasonably have been before, against that redirect. I think it's horrifying!
How about an article called "America" detailing all this etymological and geographical cacaphony once and for all? There must be lots of reliable sources. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Proposal - change redirect of America from "United States" to American (word) to satisfy any and all opinions. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This section is rife with errors. The source cited for this information is a misattribution. It leads to a beliefnet article on religious demographics and does not mention ethnic groups of the United States at all. The true source claims to pull information from the U.S. Census Bureau, but upon referencing the U.S. Census Bureau's table of reported ancestries(the closest source I could find) the numbers don't add up. E.g. ~13% of Americans reported German ancestry, but the source this information was pulled from claims it is 17%. I am not including the actual numbers for each reported group because of the following section.
The information currently listed is ancestry and is self-reported. Ancestry is not ethnicity. The United States does not have true ethnic groups the way countries like Afghanistan and the Philippines do. It does not describe ethnic communities the way they exist in some other countries. Right now, this section states that 6.7% of the U.S. population is American which does not make any sense and is very misleading. To be sure, there are historically notable communities such as the German Texans and the Pennsylvania Dutch and it may be worth researching and listing these, but these communities make up a very small portion of the U.S. population and it is still debatable if they are true ethnic groups.
Therefore, I propose that this section be removed. Ethnic groups are typically linguistically and culturally isolated so if anyone can think of something like that in the United States that may be a worthwhile replacement. Bludragn0 ( talk) 07:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
[Full reproduction of article removed.]
The sum of the religions is over 99% essentially covering the population 100%, implying there are no atheists or negligible irreligion. A flat falsehood rather than a misrepresentation. Probably best source on this will be Pew Religion. Suggest you consult usage in similar countries, i.e. Canada, UK, and Australia. Implying that religion applied to the entire population would be reasonable in the set of countries like Malta, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. but not this set. Lycurgus ( talk) 04:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.188.27.18 ( talk) 20:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Current text | Suggested text |
---|---|
The United States of America /əˈmɛrɪkə/ (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a constitutional federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions. Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is in the ... | The United States of America, commonly referred to as the United States, America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal district. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the ... |
I removed the term "Constitutional" from the first sentence. The first sentence has a consensus that went through dispute resolution and should only be altered with another strong consensus. While consensus can change, the last discussion that brought up the word usage next to "Federal Republic" seems to indicate there is no need to add the word. "Federal Republic" is sourced.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Additional discussion; [5] and here [6] and here [7] and here [8].-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Just double checking but it seems that the change was made on February 9th with no explanation by user XXGfHXx.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We should probably use a more accurate term that includes the oligarchical nature of the government. Something like "illiberal democracy" or "inverted totalitarian regime" would probably be more accurate, but those are political philosophies rather than actual systems of government. Perhaps "oligarchical representative democracy?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:8065:3D00:6C38:C9E9:BE9F:F5C5 ( talk) 12:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel like the Culture section should make mention of firearms. 174.54.203.225 ( talk) 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add words almost exactly as follows to the start of the Food section:
“ | The United States has a strikingly different food culture from other Western countries, with which it shares basic food types, with the difference focusing on quantity. The average American eats more than 3,000 Calories per day, and typical food servings are double that of other countries. The country has introduced sugar-based beverages (Coca Cola) and carbohydrate-rich fast food (McDonalds), and as a result of this and other cultural differences, the country faces a the largest epedemic of obesity (40%) among all developed countries. As direct result of the food culture, morbidity from preventable disease is by far the highest among all developed countries, and although the country is the richest in the world, as a direct result of preventable eating-related health outcomes (preventable leading causes of death include Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases), Chronic lower respiratory diseases, Diabetes, Heart Disease), its life expectancy is 31st in the world, at only 69 years (both sexes life expectancy, HALE), a full 5% - or 4 years - lower than comparable countries without this epidemic. Americans are often caricatured as "fat" and masses of clinically obese people are a surprising first sight for all international travelers arriving in any American city. There is a cultural movement called Fat Acceptance having its source in the United States and with the purpose of normalizing and promoting these eating habits. The reasons why American cuisine has moved so markedly in this direction are not clear but began in earnest only in the second half of the twentieth century. | ” |
As it is, you fail to describe or summarize food in the United States. You simply don't give basic information. it would be like writing about the Catholic faith without mentioning the Vatican. you're omitting the fundamental information everyone knows. For balance you could mention the FDA and nutritional labels (which are very positive.) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:AB88:2481:FC80:BD9F:CBC9:CDF4:C41C (
talk) 01:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I am the OP who started this section. The person who said that my suggestion places too much emphasis on health effects for the food section is correct! You are right that obesity isn't literally "food". It is probably not appropriate for the "food" section. At the same time, if you talk with ANYONE who is not from the United States (from ANY country) and ask "how was the food", the first words out of their mouth will be something like, "oh my God there is so MUCH of it - the portions are absolutely massive." Basically, an objective, neutral description of American food MUST begin and have as its major component the fact that there is so much of it and the food culture's effect on the population. Other countries really don't come close in their food culture. To the people who objected to my specific health analysis, I think you are correct that the "food" section should be basically cultural and not basically be about health or nutrition. So somehow you should reword the section to be very encyclopedic but get across the main defining characteristic of food in the United States: its overabundance and overconsumption. This is also pretty new historically speaking (it wasn't at all true in 1920, say), and it's not clear to me when this happened. There should at east be some kind of indication of this. It is not a good article section if you find out more by going there (to America) than you do by reading its encyclopedia article, because the encyclopedia article leaves out the most important and salient aspect! That means it is not neutral. Please improve it! Thank you. 2A02:AB88:2481:FC80:50C4:ED5D:F7B1:3D6F ( talk) 12:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
...United States of America (/əˈmɛrɪkə/; USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America...
...United States of America (/əˈmɛrɪkə/; USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or USA...
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The United States is often incorrectly called 'America'. America is a Continent divided into two sub continents called North America and South America. Canada and Brazil for examples, are other countries in America. Therefore, Canada could also be refereed to as 'Canada of America'. Garry Reay-Laidler ( talk) 13:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Last fall and winter, I argued on this talk page that we should change the sentence "Within American political culture, the center-right Republican Party is considered 'conservative' and the center-left Democratic Party is considered 'liberal'." (Under "Parties and elections" under "Government and politics".) I argued that we should change "center-right" to "right-wing." The sentence was never changed, and now, I am going to argue the same thing: we should change it to "right-wing."
My biggest reason for this is global warming, which is a well-established scientific fact. In spite of this, nearly all Republican politicians dispute that man-made global warming is real. They are denying the validity of science, and that's a really extreme thing to do. A center-right political party would never dispute well-established science. The Republicans are therefore an extremist party, not a center-right party.
You can also look at lots of other issues. For example, health care has been all over the news recently. The Republicans in Congress came pretty close (they were just a couple of votes shy) to taking away the health insurance of some 22 million people, all while giving tax cuts to the richest Americans. That's pretty extreme. A center-right party would not do such a thing. Or you can look at their tax and regulation policies in general: they have fought to remove many regulations on guns, pollution, banking, etc. even when these regulations are common in most industrialized countries. Again, that's not center-right.
Finally, look at our president, who is a Republican and was nominated by the Republican Party. He behaves like a child. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He lies constantly. His election was aided by the Russians. He is a disgrace to our country. But the Republicans let him take the nomination, and they endorsed him and supported him (some criticized him a little bit, but they still endorsed him and voted for him). If the Republicans were a center-right party, then last summer, they all would have said, "This man is unfit to be president, and we refuse to support him." But they didn't. And that goes to show that they are not a center-right party.
Anyway, I think we should change that sentence by replacing "center-right" with "right-wing." Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals ( talk) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have edited thusly [9]. Yes, the statement is true, but it is also tautology. Something doesn't fail because it is succeeded by something else! The main problem is its placing gives too much emphasis to this. Yes, a very few communal experiments failed, but this doesn't mean they were doomed to fail. A better understanding of crops soon to be learnt from the indigenous pop'n was going to make a difference. Less emphasis on the company's insistence the men look for gold, to the detriment of their own welfare, would have helped make the settlements sustainable. That the communal flavour of the settlement was imposed by the company on its indentured servants, not one voluntarily entered into, must be a factor. A reading of the 3 pages cited includes a conventional and correct economic explanation of the benefits of private property over communal ownership. But the settlements failed for multiple reasons, not this one alone. The same referenced book tells in the surrounding pages how the abolishment of the private company running the Virginia settlements in favour of a formal colony is what allowed the company imposed system to be replaced by private settlers. So the economic point being made in the sentence I have removed, although it is one with which we should have much sympathy, hides the fact that it was the abolishment of +private+ company property rights in favour of the establishment of a +state+ colony which allowed for the private settlements! Also, this claim in the History section of this main page is not mentioned in the detailed article History_of_the_United_States. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 07:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
As people began to analyze their DNA for origins, the multi-racial demographics may need to be updated. Some analyzers go to the point of trying to identify archaic origins. For Black, uniquely American, as opposed to African, the legal percentage, often referred to as the one drop rule, however, I understand the actual percentage for legal identification as Black is 3% or 1/32 or one great-great-great grandparent. For some Native American Nations, the requirement is not of actual percentages, but the ability to prove lineage to a living, individual having reported after relocation to Oklahoma around the turn of the century. This data may come from census data. However, in that case, it would be what an individual identifies with in the individual's report of the individual's in the household. The Hispanic category is confusing. It may simply require origins from a Spanish speaking country or culture. I do not where that places Belizeans. I was apprised that in the Puerto Rican there is a concept of light and dark. I do not know how this translates to demographics. However, Caribbean genepools most likely differ vastly from Mexican, which is located on the North American continent. However, for paternity, I don't think one compares a Caribbean to North American Hispanics, which would probably imply Mexican. I have not encountered the concept of separating AmerIndian form Mexican from the Mexicans that I have encountered in the US. I have read some South American countries contain no percentage of AmerIndians. I don't know that I saw Asian, specifically, but with South Asians, I am not sure which category they use. I did ask one person who said she was mixed, so checks Asian. Often there is not a category that one might find fits their needs on a form or questionnaire. In Biology, they teach the origins of all people came out of the fertile crest in Africa. However, it's been discovered that some carry Neanderthal DNA. And, if you DNA looks like a travel guide or a mitration path, you might be very confused as to which box to check. I consider myself to be the sum total of DNA and unique experiences. However, there are also racial/cultural groups with whom I do identify within the experiences of my DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:e944:b500:1416:bc4d:8de8:b591 ( talk) 20:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The third paragraph of this section claims "Due to the dot-com boom, stable monetary policy under Alan Greenspan, and reduced social welfare spending, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001." There is an embedded link in the phrase "reduced social welfare spending" leading to the page "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act." The implication is "Due to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history."
First of all, no sneaky links for the purpose of political argument. Remove the link or edit the sentence so this politically-motivated claim is out in the open for readers. Any mention of this act in this context must explain how and/or why it had a positive impact on the US economy.
Second, the cited works do not support or even mention this point. One of the cited works is a newspaper opinion article and not a peer-reviewed academic source. Therefore it is a claim, not a fact. Furthermore neither source mentions the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" or the effects of any reduction in welfare spending during the 1990s. Therefore this statement is unsourced and must be removed.
Please leave the political arguments out of this article and stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 ( talk) 01:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The statement "The withdrawal caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the successor of al-Qaeda in the region." referring to the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq during 2009-2010, has no source. The cited article "The JRTN Movement and Iraq’s Next Insurgency" does not support this statement. Therefore the statement is unsourced and must be removed.
The cited article from 2011 actually claims "(The Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshabandi Sunni insurgency movement) emerged as the only Iraqi insurgent group to have grown stronger during and since the U.S.-led “surge.” Indeed, U.S. statements on JRTN have arguably added to its credibility and potential for recruiting and fundraising." Further the 2011 article predicts "The withdrawal of most or all U.S. forces could be another stressful transition for JRTN. The movement’s current raison d’être—expelling U.S. forces—could dry up in the coming six months. JRTN is already struggling to maintain the flow of new attack videos due to reduced availability of U.S. targets as bases shut down and convoy traffic declines, and this could stem the movement’s external fundraising."
The article does not support the intended politically-motivated bias of the aforementioned erroneous claim in the United States wikipedia article, the intent of which is to assert that "President Obama's defense policy caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency in Iraq, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." This is an unsupported and unsourced political attack that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Therefore it must be properly sourced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 ( talk) 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template in the same section as your request. This helps us editors know what the request is without blindly removing the template and considering it a test edit. For this reason, I am adding the template into the section for you and leaving it open for any other editor to look into.
jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (
talk) 02:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)"America was left the world's only super power after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991." I don't know why that was removed from the article. Because China and Russia are not super powers. Russia is a world power and China is a regional power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lj996 ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The start of the 5th paragraph has a similar issue to the mentioned 3rd paragraph. It cites a book "Hidden in Plain Sight: What really caused the world's worst financial crisis" for "Government policy designed to promote affordable housing", which isn't the point made by the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.137.114 ( talk) 08:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That map seems misleading in its titling of the large brown area on the right side of the map. Please help solving or discussing that issue on File talk:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png#Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 15:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I notice then, that both Golbez (and NYActuary in the discussion on File talk:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png#Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.) agree that those lands north and west of the Ohio River were in 1783 not part of any of those thirteen founding states. Next question: is anyone capable of adjusting such a Wikimedia map? -- Corriebertus ( talk) 10:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.136.223.139 ( talk) 18:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Elinor Rajka: Hello, Elinor. I see that you've begun an edit war over the inclusion of an image in this article. You haven't provided any justification for the addition of a world map to a section already heavily loaded with images from American history. But more to the point, you seem to be disregarding the note appearing at the top of this Talk page -- the one that calls attention to the Arbitration Committee's concern about maintaining proper standards of behavior and editorial process. This includes the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle under which you discuss the matter here prior to re-inserting challenged material. Would you please engage in discussion on this issue and, while this discussion is taking place, would you please remove the challenged image from the article? I look forward to hearing your response. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 13:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Two tables in this article, "Population Centers" (Metro Area Population, one column) and "Languages" (Number of Speakers, three columns) do not properly align figures at the rightmost "ones" digit, whereas all other tables do so. As this is WP style, I've tried to adjust the entries -- to no avail. This is minor, I guess, but the current off-alignment does look unprofessional. Mason.Jones ( talk) 17:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:144:200:F284:4467:6C33:2DD4:487 ( talk) 21:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this because of a past consensus, or just that no one has ever bothered to expand the section? Either way, it's ridiculously short and I'm going to expand it to a similar length as the other "History" subsections. CJK09 ( talk) 16:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This article uses colon (;) extensively (208 times). It was not meant to be used this much. Well respected magazines and newspapers hardly ever use it! 193.242.214.225 ( talk) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
A mega diverse country criteria is based on its wildlife, not climate or geography Mason.Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree this mason guy is editing to belittle usa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
A mega diverse country is based on biological diversity, not geographical or climate, and it should be stated as such. Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 3:31, 09 September 2017 (UTC)
There are far a lot of graphs and images. Text is sandwiched in between templates and other images and is excessively heavy in the Demographics section.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Race/Ethnicity (2015 ACS estimates) [1] | |
---|---|
By race: [1] | |
White | 77.1% |
Black | 13.3% |
Asian | 5.6% |
American Indian and Alaska Native | 1.2% |
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander | 0.2% |
Multiracial | 2.6% |
By ethnicity: [1] | |
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) | 17.6% |
Non- Hispanic/Latino (of any race) | 82.4% |
Non-Hispanic whites | 62.8% |
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 19:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
References
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I began switching the article over to short citations while I am checking sources and cleaning up references, since we already have a fully fleshed out bibliography?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 18:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not see the reason in adding Land Area, it should just be total area. Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 3:34, 09 September 2017 (UTC)
Images suggested
|
---|
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:E000:928B:5C00:DC86:6738:4DB2:64F7 (
talk) 07:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
References
|
"Death of Captain Cook" by Johann Zoffany (1795)
Can someone remove this image and replace with one of this instead.
Or add an image to give a valence like the trail of tears or one that talks about the American Indian Genocide or the big numbers of Indians that past because of effects on and interaction. 2602:304:CFF8:5A30:D9B3:7840:BCDE:B633 ( talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The main problem with the image is that it shows behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone on the front page of the article which ultimately lead to someones passing. It would be better place in the History of the United States article. By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments. We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA). Like Thanksgiving winch after all is a major holiday in the United States by presidential proclamation. Not trying to white wash history; only trying to give a more rounded and ecliptic view of what it is to be an american. In other words violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence. Most people only pay a small among of time in articles and see the images most of the time with out reading the full article, attaching meaning. I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits. Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party. In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way. As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:E501:230F:4093:5F0C ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Misuse of article talk page. All caps ramble with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The reasoning given for the removal is simply your personal reaction/opinion and has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The image depicts a historic event which is a part of American history. The fact that it depicts an act of violence that ended in the life of the man is not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. Pointing out to be having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people. The argument holds absolute weight your reasoning is simply your personal reaction/opinion and we would not have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Ceasar this is an article on the United States. "By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments" If you have followed me here from the Alt-left article to become a problem you might want to rethink what you are attempting. "We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA)." This isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view. I agree this isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view. To be objective. I did not followed you here from the Alt-left article to become a problem. I'm not attempting anything but making the article the best it can be. Before this talk with you I did not know you exited. "violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence." I have no idea what this means. It means you are not being objective and think this is a propaganda page. Because in retrospect, that seems to describe..ya know...you. "I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits." I have no idea what is you just don't like but clearly you just don't like something. Don't like that it shows Natives as not wanting to interact with Europeans. When we have a holiday to give tanks "Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party" No, just...no. I have no idea why you think another image to be included is a bad idea. What is it you just don't like? but clearly you just don't like something? "In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way" Oh really? There were many witnesses including the ship's surgeon, First Lt. King and a person who history would rememeber as Captain Bligh. There were also Native Hawaiian witnesses that gave detailed accounts that match the western accounts. This was written about a great deal. We know the name of the actual person who stabbed Cook, the man that held him and the many facts that in most situations in history are nowhere near as well recorded. One of the reasons we know so much about captain cook and the reason he show up in so many history textbooks is because we have tons of records about him, but they're almost all European records. Even the Hawaiion recoros we have about cook have been heavily influenced by later contact with Europeans. "As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant" Original research...and perhaps you simply do not understand but...African Americans are not indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC) That's the point. African Americans are not indigenous people of the Americans. Pointing out that not everything is black or white. Captain cook sailor and eventually a British Naval officer, who saw action in the seven year war. Best know for his three voyages of exploration and scientic discovery that took place in the Pacific Ocean. Part of the middle wave of European colonization. The one that took place after Europeans settled in the Americas, but before they set their sights on Africa. having discussed the life of captain cook, lets turn to the most controversial thing he ever did. Die. So Cook landed in Hawaii at Kealakekua bay in early 1779 and explored the island. While he was ashore he was greeted by an important person, probably a chief. In early February, he left. But the ship had trouble and was forced to return to the bay for repairs. During this second visit, he had difficulty with the Hawaiians, who'd previously had been pretty hospitable. And there was a fracas, in which captain cook was killed by at least one Hawaiian. We know this from journals kept by various crewman, but the historical controversy arises from the details and interpretation of his death. Why, in short, was cook killed? The traditional view is that cook was killed for some religious reason, although what isn't always clear. One of the most fleshed out versions of this story comes from the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, in his book "Eslands of History" So in the Hawaiian religious system ku the God of war and Human sacrifice, rules for eight or nine months out of the year. The other months are reserved for the Fertility God, Lono. the season long festival for Lono is call "Mukaniki" and during this the Hawalion king, who is associated with Ku, is ritually defeated. During the Makuhiki, an image of Lono tours the island, gets worshipped, and collects taxes. And at the end of the Makahiki period, Lono is ritually defeated and returned to his native Tahiti. The thinking goes that because cook arrived in the middle of the Makahiki, the Hawaiians perceived him as Lono. So cook took part in the rituals and sacrifices that were made as part of the Makuhiki and in Sahilins view, Cook was killed as ritual murder to mark the end of Makahiki. For Ku to return, the festival to end, and the normal political order to be restored, Lono had to be defeated and presumably killed! For Sahlins, Cooks's death fits perfectly with the ritual structure of Hawaiian culture. Opposing view from Gunanath Obeyeskere for looking a lot more like European myth than like Hawaiian ritual. First off, Obeyesekera argues that Cook himself would not easily be confused with Lono. In fact if he were lake for a God, it would probably be Ku, the war God, what with all the cannons and muskets. Also there's the fact that the name Cook sounds more like Ku than Lono. Also, arguing that native Hawaiians would see a European and think him a God has all kinds of troubling implications. One of them being that native Hawaiians aren't terribly smart. Last Lono is associted with fertility and the Hawaiians would have associated the Europeans with the exact opposite of fertility because they introduced gonorrhea to Hawaii. Plus noting in Howaiian religion has any of their gods being ritually killed. Part of their mythology can be seen as sanctioning a ritual killing of the king, but not of a god and also it's a long way from ritual killing to actual killing. The truth is probably a lot less spectacular which is that cook was probably killed during a malee in which a bunch of Hawaions were also killed. Before his death, Cook had attempted to take a Hawaiian king hostage in response to Hawaiians taking a bunch of stuff from Cook's boats. This was common practice for Cook. He had done the same thing in Tahiti and other Polynesion Island after islanders had taken European goods. Which happened everywhere Cook went in the Pacific. Great sailor terrible anthropologist. Although to be fair, anthropology handn't be invented. So why the tension? Probably because the Europeans dismontled a Hawaiian ritual space, some sources call it a temple, and used it for firewood. Cook attempted to pay for it, but his low-ball offer of two hatchets, was refused. This being a Hawaiian explanation. Of course it's also possible that Hawaiians were just upset that cook had attempted to kidnap their king. Most accounts from the time portrays a chaotic scene in shich cook himself fired at least two shots, probably killing at least one islander. And one thing that seem pretty clear is Cook death does not look premeditated and it sure doesn't look like a ritual. But even so, the idea that Hawaiians saw cook as a God has ended up in a good many accounts of this demise. Why? well one explanation is that it fits with other stories of explorers. Like the Tainos thought Columbus was a god and the Aztecs supposedly thought Cortes was a god. And this just makes Cook one in a long line of Europeans who were thought to be gods by people who Europeans felt were savages. Sure Cook never had much formal schooling but his voyages were all about increasing knowledge and scientific exploration. And having him die at the hands of a people who were so obviously mistaken in thinking him a god makes an argument for the superiority over the intellectualism of the Enlightenmen versus the so called "Primitive Religion" of the colonies. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:CCAC:F4D:4328:7929 ( talk) 11:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC) |
Misuse of article talk page. All caps ramble with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To be clear. No one is telling to remove image because of the person or because Cook has no intrinsic value to the United States history. This view still has its adherents. What is being talk about is our standards of assert ability regarding depiction. I think the view that is coming in more and more is that one cannot make a total separation between wha'ts true and what our standards of assertability are. That the way in which the-what I called using the Kantian picture the "mind-dependece of truth" comes in-is the fact that what's true and what's false is in part a function of what our standards of truth and falsity are. And because even within one scientific theory, you often have different accounts can be given of so-called facts. One could say "boy-scout A fired his stater's pistal before boy-scout B," the other could say "no, boy-scout B fired his starter's pistol before boy-scout A" And if the distance is sufficiently large so that a light singnal can't travel from on to the other without exceeding the speed of light, then it may be both descriptions are correct, both are admissible. I wanna say one shouldn't push that too far because we don't wanna give up our standards of intelligibility altogether. I think another image of Cook is sufficient to make the "point." Lastly because Miller may not compliantly understand withing framework of what a talk page is. I'm moving on. Keep the article locked. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:DC86:6738:4DB2:64F7 ( talk) 06:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC) |
English is the de-facto main language in the United States. However, it could be argued that Spanish, in addition to English, has a status of a national language (i. e. language that has some connection with people and the territory they occupy). Primarily Spanish-speaking territories include scattered areas in the Southwestern United States, Miami, and Puerto Rico.
Switzerland has four national languages:
German,
French,
Italian and
Romansh.
[1] Romansh, while being a national language, is only spoken by 0.6% of the population of Switzerland. In comparison, Spanish is the native language of 13% of the population of the United States.
I saw that you were the last to edit this page.
May I inquire on why you removed the "cultural prominence." description of America? Are you implying that we have lost our cultural edge in the world? If so, then please explain your reasoning behind it. I would appreciate that. Thanks! NocturnalDef ( talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It meets all the criteria for being listed as such. Multiple sources, multiple statistics, a general consensus. Even debate.com has 94% saying that the USA is a police state.
I'm an American by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8DC7:3700:15EC:7100:5DC5:20E ( talk) 23:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
A police state is an Authoritarian nation where a government uses excessive force to control its populace body. Since America is neither Authoritarian, nor a dictatorship, i don't think it's logical to label the country as a police state. Some police units in the country do break with sanctioned procedures but that is not itself without consequence. The Constitution protects the rights of all citizens, regardless if an unruly officer acts on his/her own authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Can some one add a vaudeville link under Literature, philosophy, and the arts and theater 2605:E000:928B:5C00:704A:8C59:61E:FAF4 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The word "corner" should be changed to "quadrant" in the first paragraph of this article. First past the post ( talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems like listing the largest 13 metro areas is an odd choice of numbers, and using 4.5 million as a cutoff for listing also seems odd. Why not top 10? Why not a rounder number like 5 million? However, my edit is more specific: user Mason.Jones added San Bernardino to Riverside with the comment "This metro is "Riverside-San Bernardino," per official designation, US Census. Both cities are of same relative size and weight." First, the official designation is "Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario," so if you're going to claim "official"-ness, you need to get your facts straight. Second, every metro on this list has more than one city in their "official" title, so if you're going to do it here, you need to be consistent. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, and so on. Third, the relative size of the cities are the same ratio as Dallas and Fort Worth, so again, for consistency, why wasn't Fort Worth added? Whatever the number of places listed, in an introductory, overview-type section like this, simpler is better. One city listed for each metro. I've removed San Bernardino. If anyone has any discussion or thoughts, I'm happy to hear them. Dtcomposer ( talk) 05:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Forty-eight states and the federal district are....Dhtwiki ( talk) 08:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this was so prematurely edited? Why were those descriptions removed? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
First off mark, where is your particular source that suggests the US has concurrently lost it's hegemonic influence/leadership; politically, economically and culturally? Second if you need a source that provides the contrary of your assessment, I have several; according to the "Monocle" soft power survey of 2017, the USA as a 'foreign power' still held the top spot for political, economic and cultural influence over the world. Other media, index sources such as "The independent" and "Knight Frank_ also claim that the US influence ranks first.
Thirdly, the USD is still the world's reserve currency regardless that we rank second in PPP. So how would we have thus lost economic leadership if every country on Earth still relies on the US dollar for trade/export and not the Yaun? And no, our debt is not a factor yet because we can still print money.
Lastly, how is it relevant to state that London is the leading global city over NY when they only slightly edge on influence in SOME rankings when others still rank NY at the top... then claim that your reasoning to remove the latter of American dominance from the USA article is due to either incredibly or non-importance when describing any particular nation? That seems a tad one-sided and biased if you put two and two together, Implying that the hidden intention isn't anything personal -- not self reassuring ones passionate hast for America's decline, and a multipolar world? Can you deduce two sides of an argument?
Thanks. NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, America is handsdown' still the largest exporter of Media, music, fashion and cultural solidarity... so again I ask; how can you deduce that American soft power and cultural lead is no longer relevant as factual? What are YOUR sources or are you only speculating what should be factually read? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Mark+ It seems suddenly irregular that you won't respond to my argument after I took the liberty to provide you with the evidence which you so apparently required, and yet, didn't waste any time in walking all over remdom115...seemingly because it required little effort.
Make no mistake though; I am not remdom115. I am actually very astute when it comes to discussion on the concurrent political realm and status quo. I have an education. I can provide you details, all the elements that you require. So again I ask you, why continue to prematurely presume what I can already prove -- facts which are oblivious to you and information you provided as canon without properly qouting its source? Can you prove me otherwise? If not, then I would like access to properly edit this article. NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)