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 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | → | Archive 100 |
Okay, so this is the second time that my revision - an attempt to return what was properly stated about American influence on this article text' for years prior of it's sudden removal - was removed, again without evidence or sources to prove that such an action was justifiably necessary and, or; prematurely acted upon.
I have provided my revision with proper sources, which was approved by one of the editors here and another discrediting it as "weak factoid." Now I am under the impression that there is some disagreement on whether or not the US is still indeed leads the world' in a cultural, economic (which I have not attempted to bring back because of PPP complications) and political basis. However, no counter proof or sources were provided to discount my revision as a non-canon factoid - therefore, my concern is to whether there is a motive of personal interest; as to promote isolationist sentiment, rather than to educate readers of informative knowledge concurrent to the political theater. In all actuality, general knowledge and political science states' the American hegemony while in decline, hasn't quite ended and is still unequivocally the leader of Western culture, political influence, economical standing (USD being the world's reserve currency still) and militarily; which is the only concept not being challenged by fellow editors.
I would like to debate this issue with anyone here who is in disagreement with my revision before it creates a conflict. Please enlighten me on your opinion with tangible sources instead of a repeated and bias discrediting.
Thanks, and looking forward to your contribution.
NocturnalDef ( talk) 19:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I have contributed a factoid of America's standing influence in the world that is neither biased or misleading. As America is the largest media export in the world and known the world over for it's; pop culture, fashion, music, television shows, cinema, Facebook, Google, ect... even wiki. Many nation's in the world also host American military personnel and the UN is hosted by NYC which the US leads -- which can be denoted unmistakably as being a significant political influence in the world.
Once again, I would like to point out - I am NOT implying that we're in the lead...only stating the facts. I hope the general consensus can agree with my compromised revision. Thanks for your contributions. NocturnalDef ( talk) 11:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
IDK GB fan. I've been doing quite a bit of self-debating on the issue - while we still have influence in the world, I have become rather conflicted on the matter just within the past 24 hours. I could easily source my contribution of American influence in the world, but at the same time I question whether or not I should. While the US is still big on paper, declining more and more each day - I have to question the nation's moral fiber. This is not the same America that I love and know. It's leaderless. Corrupt. The very institution that reintroduced democracy into the world is crumbling before us. A majority of millennial Americans have given up on the two party system, while on the right - there is an ever growing surge for authoritarian nationalism and white supremacy. I'm debating as a liberal, whether America even deserves such a privilege as archived accolades. At least not at the trajectory this nation is headed. The world may yet just have become unofficially multipolar, ever more so because of this administrations isolationist agenda. Retreating from free trade deals. Normalizing ludicrous behavior of what used to be the highest position held. I'm not even sure if the presidency will ever be as it was or if our former prestige will ever recover. At this point, I think I'm just going to put this whole thing on hold.
For now at least... NocturnalDef ( talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Dhtwiki+ I have already shared the text which was removed several times prior but I will share it again; the part/text that was removed was the sentence describing the US as "the foremost political, cultural and economic force in the world" which was correct. I have inquired why many times but was given no answer. On a side note, I am not vacillating my suggestion in anyway, I am only doing my part in staying neutral on the consensus by challenging my own belief and offering counter evidence against it; although I still believe that America is the predominant force in the world, at least culturally. NocturnalDef ( talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've have done the research and I have sources proving my claims. I'm not going to do it now but eventually I'm going to edit this page and add the sources. NocturnalDef ( talk) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
And yes, they are reliable. NocturnalDef ( talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
And if anyone would like to go over these sources with me before I make the changes and add them, please have no hesitation in asking. I would be more than obliged to share them in discussion first. NocturnalDef ( talk) 00:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
-'The Soft Power 30' (2017 survey) NocturnalDef ( talk) 19:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
-'The Elcano Global Presence' index (2017) NocturnalDef ( talk) 19:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Http://softpower30.com/country/United-States/
-While initially ranked third, Portland explains its US ranking as more to do with sentiment than fact, and that the United States was still unequivocally still the leading soft power; politically, culturally and economically, ect - referring that trump was rather a deterrent to world view than the US losing it's top perch.
Hope this helps. NocturnalDef ( talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
www.Globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/ NocturnalDef ( talk) 20:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe you will find these sources 'factoid' satisfactory. NocturnalDef ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
So I believe we are all in consensus of my evidence? NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the current article revision and have no further need to add anything. Thank you all for hearing me. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, you guys removed the cultural part again, even though I provided you with solid evidence? Now I am going to edit it myself and add the sources. NocturnalDef ( talk) 04:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I would anyone to challenge my sources. Somebody please inform in my sources are non-factoid. NocturnalDef ( talk) 04:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Many American cultural elements, especially from popular culture, have spread across the globe through modern mass media. America stands as the most prominent cultural force today.
In accordance to the (Elcano Global Presence) index, the United States in the predominant global cultural force in the world.
<ref>{{cite...}}</ref>
markup) and not as well written ("In accordance to" should be "... with", and it's not as well linked, nor as specific, as the previous).Where are the reliable sources that protect the biased text that claims that mainstream media views american culture as classes? There are no sources there and there is no proof that suggests such a thing...yet you do nothing. I've read the UK article who's text states that they have great influence within the world and nothing to source it, and still, you do not seem to care. But when I provide you with proper sources that HAD secondary sources, you say that my sources are improper? What is it about that you are so desperate to down play? I am going to write down what I read in the text and I am going to properly site it. I did everything that you've asked and more...to prevent me from adding the correct information on this article at this point is to block the correct standing of the United States. Again, what is your evidence to suggest otherwise because you still haven't answered that question? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Why do most editors here seem to be so biased against American accolades? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. I've added proper sources and cited it properly and still it was removed by Mason with little or no reason. I have to admit that there are some editors here that don't want to keep this thing neutral and this is getting a little frustrating.
First off, the source was reliable, power Softpower30 is an organization index ranker, not news-speak. Second, if you actually read the source, you would find that I only qouted the author; I in know way made up my own text. Third, how is fair that the UK article can the described their political influence and the US can't... especially since the UK source is purely news-speak. I am sensing complete bias on the issue and have been trying to comply with you but non of you respond to my questions. If I am in any way in violation of any code or standard, then why do the codes and standards only apply to the US article? Again...are you implying that US cultural prominence has ended or are you just promoting it? Again...I ask you to source the evidence here on this consensus discussion, if not, please leave my revisions be. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the typos, it's difficult to type on a media device.
Again...if you would like me to revise it in a way where it makes the description of US influence seem more neutral, you are free to edit that part. But removing entirely is unethical and unnecessary. I am willing to compromise if you are. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I have also linked all secondary index sources in this discussion. Feel free to look. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Dhtwiki- I will agree with your suggestion to change the text to the beginning of the US cultural section if you believe that to be necessary. I have revised the article at the top section, the same as the UK article... still I am very willing to compromise in all fairness to the consensus. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok regentspark...I will give it another go. And to be fair, if you disagree with my current edit, you may remove it without further protest from me, as long as we are all willing to discuss the matter and not ignore it. I also apologize if I too, take a long time to get back to you. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Understood regentspark, more than happy to discuss this further with everyone. NocturnalDef ( talk) 01:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@regentspark--www.globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en
Elcano Global Presence' index (updated 2017) that is my secondary source. NocturnalDef ( talk) 09:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will look into it - All spectrums. NocturnalDef ( talk) 23:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Give me a day or two. NocturnalDef ( talk) 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
https://geographica.gs/en/showcase/elcano-global-presence-index/
NocturnalDef ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Also; I don't believe that a secondary source is necessary for providing evidence of US cultural prominence since this particular article (aside from the fact of it being common knowledge), has originally stated this "in text" since wikipedias existence. I also find it hard to believe that as editors of this page, some of you would be oblivious to this knowledge... especially since you claim to have been editing this particular page for years now. Hence, the WP: PRIMARY would not be applicable - as this is not "original thought" or subversive in theory to be proven otherwise. It also states that news articles CAN be used as a reliable source, that only tabloids are considered non-factoid. Nevertheless, I'll still provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
And I quote the original text and the latter edited version: "The United States is a leading political, economic and cultural force in the world."
Then the latter version stated: "The United States is a prominent political and cultural force in the world, it is also the foremost economic and military presence."
@regentspark: so you and others who agree with your sentiment have no recollection what so ever of these text sources? Because I've been reading them on this article for years, all up until the end of summer when it was removed without proper consensus. NocturnalDef ( talk) 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
And subjectively, if seemingly (not accusing anyone but merely accessing), that using Wikipedia codes and violations as loopholes to keep other, or less experienced editors from bringing back the original texts as stated about the American LEAD; be an improper consensus among a gang of veteran editors with akin political beliefs, agendas -- such as framing the illusion that America is not and has never been the leader of the Western world in order to promote a type of isolationist propaganda and sentiment throughout the American popular digest of Wikipedia users? Because if a true concern resides in just the rules, then wouldn't it also apply to every national article as well... such as the UK article which seems to enjoy all the privileges of boasting international influence, not just in one sentence but throughout the entire article. My concern being that this would make it look as if American leadership has been surpassed by Britain. Again, this is only a measure of speculation and my chief motive because in all actuality, you are giving false data on a site that's dedicated to education and free information...not an abuse of authority through the improper consensus empowered by only a collection of editors who happen to share political solidarity.
Again, Wikipedia is an open site and should be for everyone to contribute...not just a few.
Personally, I don't appreciate being accused of warring with other editors, nor the threat of being removed as a voice entirely because I view globalism in a positive spectrum, as did happen with remdon115.
Now you see my point of view respective. NocturnalDef ( talk) 02:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC);:
This 04:07, 11 September 2017 edit by Mark Miller seems to be what NocturnalDef is missing from the article:
...and is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally. [1]
If so, should it be put back, as a belated reversion, and the appropriateness of its removal discussed? The edit summary read: "This apears to be original research or synthysis presented in this manner. There must be a better way to word this to be better referenced" Dhtwiki ( talk) 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC) {{reflist-talk}
Anyways, blocking me would just prove my point. My apologies if I appear overly direct... just my opinionated nature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Dhtwiki, indeed that's how it was. And I only wish to contribute as everyone is allowed, and the revision you suggested seems very fair. Thank you for discussing this with me. So what would be a better way of putting it do you think, so not to violate the rules?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to thank all the editors here in making this consensus possible and restoring a proper text to it's roots and standing. I know at times there has been little bouts of frustration but I'm glad to say that it all worked out in the end. Again, I thank everyone here who contributed their time.
I would like to give special recognition to the wonderful editors "Dthwiki" and "ChamithN" who have been especially patient. You have my gratitude and my respect. NocturnalDef ( talk) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC) NocturnalDef ( talk) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
References
The table of the largest US urban places (see under Population section) is off. Some editor decided back last summer to include the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) figures for the first five cities only—even though the table head specifically states that these are metropolitan areas, with the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) name listed just to the right. Now, fifth-ranked Houston is listed with a smaller population than 6th-ranked Washington, DC. Moreover, Los Angeles is listed with its full CSA stat of 18 million-plus, which means that Riverside–San Bernardino should NOT be listed at all further down the list. (Riverside–SB is included in that CSA population of Los Angeles. LA's MSA population is actually 13 million, without Riverside-SB.) I don't care much which yardstick editors prefer—the CSA or the MSA—but it should be consistent, without comparing apples to oranges. That's simply mistaken and misleading. Mason.Jones ( talk) 23:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the first six MSA populations in this table, which should record the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) population as indicated across the table head: latest estimated population of MSA (2016), official U.S. Census name of that MSA, and overall Wikipedia link ("see complete list"). Any other version is inconsistent and erroneous. Mason.Jones ( talk) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the paragraph above this table, I'm going to bring up a topic that I mentioned earlier this fall. In this sentence: "The metro areas of San Bernardino, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix all grew by more than a million people between 2000 and 2008." San Bernardino should be changed to Riverside, as it's the first-listed city in the Census Bureau's Metro Area title and is by far the largest city in the metro area. I made a similar edit to a section that no longer exists in the article (I changed "Riverside-San Bernardino" to just "Riverside" since every other entry in that list was single city only). Mason.Jones reverted that edit with the argument that the metro is "officially" titled with both cities since they are "officially" co-equal, and that San Bernardino was listed first up until two years ago, as it was the larger city until just recently. I don't want this to be an argument or edit war, but I want to point out that a) there was no "official" definition of this area having "co-equal" cities, the same way that has not been defined anywhere else, and that b) Riverside has been larger than San Bernardino for 50 years, and the title of the Metro Area has listed Riverside first since 1970. I haven't changed the article, since I'd rather have a discussion first, but if an argument is going to be made for one phrasing or another, the "evidence" presented to support that argument should be based in fact. Dtcomposer ( talk) 07:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
While I do think the two cities are the "coequal" ones on the Top 20 list, it's just an opinion. General references to U.S. metro areas should use the U.S. Census name as the yardstick. Mason.Jones ( talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add an italic explanation at the top that readers may be looking for Organization of American States 98.197.198.46 ( talk) 01:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
English is not the only national language in the United States when 42 million of your citizens speak Spanish at home and the territory of Puerto Rico speak Spanish as majority language it deserves a proper recognition something that has been constantly covered and ignored by the anglo speaking majority. Armando1492 ( talk) 03:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Feel free to continue to discuss but looking through the archives
1, this is not simple, uncontested opinion, and so is out of scope of an edit request
Cannolis (
talk)
03:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)I think that this page should be a featured article. It meets the FA Standards it is well written and has a lot of info. So I decided to nominate it. Felicia (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
So for this one to be readable we should condense it to less than 25%. No, we don't need to take it that far. As WP:SIZERULE says, what matters is the readable prose size. And the readable text size is currently sitting at 103kb according to Prosesize, which barely passes the "almost certainly should be divided" criteria. I think it'd be fine as long as we get it below 100 kB given the scope of the article, but that's not to say we should give up on trying to get it below 60 kB or 50 kB. To me, the reason why the article is uncomfortable to navigate is those hugeass reference and bibliography lists; but hey, that doesn't mean we should get rid of them. I'm calling it right now. If this article were to be designated a featured article someday, it'll be among the top 5 of Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length, or it will at least get there, eventually. -- ChamithN (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
+ Languages spoken at home by more than 1 million persons in the U.S. (2016) [1] [2] [fn 1] 147.0.112.99 ( talk) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
References
I just updated the U.S. 2017 population estimate in the historical chart (the historical chart uses decennial U.S. Census figures and annual estimates, and the new 2017 estimate was released this week). That said, I don't see the logic of using a different metric in the infobox, which is the population clock from a different U.S. government agency. The U.S. Census estimate is released annually each December, and this estimate is within a few thousand people of the population clock. If editors insist on the clock, then the reference should say "population clock," not "estimate". Across Wikipedia articles about U.S. states and cities, "estimate" means the Census Bureau estimate, period. Mason.Jones ( talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of junk has been added lately....should add {{Very long|date=January 2018}} bUT don't want to cause problems. How can we fix this ? Where to start. Was going to start on the religion section but there's so many other things to clean up. Anyone want to help? The article is going to loose it's GA status if things are done to fix the size and layout problems. Moxy ( talk) 14:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sectionsaccording to WP:SIZE. This discussion provides a clear idea about what the readable prose size refers to. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Even thought not everyone speaks it, many across the US speaks Spanish so should be listed as a national language after English? Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigcheese ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
General American (GenAm), is the perceived language of the states and most of her territories. Spanish (espanol), is widely used among Hispanics within the country and while it's relevant that policies have been established to make the language more applicable for an ever increasing Spanish populace, it is still only that minority of Hispanics who actually speak it. Very few Americans in general understand the language and it's only established for those newly arrived Hispanics who have yet to learn general American. Overall, it is not required for students of elementary grade levels to learn it otherwise, so I cannot vouch for espanol to be even remotely considered as a second American language. Perhaps one day, but not at the present. ---- NocturnalDEF (talk) 07:33, 15 January (UTC)
I think should be a link or a quotation explaining the "America" nomination emphasizing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestor Acevedo ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the first line has an extra 0 added on by mistake when stating the total land area of the United States, as the source only lists it as being about 3,800,000, rather than the 38,000,000 currently written. If someone could fix that, my neuroticism would greatly appreciate it! 68.184.219.213 ( talk) 04:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Area section, Total Area should be listed as 9,833,520 km2 (3,796,742 sq mi), Total land area as 9,147,590 km2 (3,531,905 sq mi). Under the Population section, Density should be listed as 35.0/km2 (90.6/sq mi). This is to maintain consistency with every other country's entry on Wikipedia. Riakm ( talk) 17:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of "strong national ties", where applicable:In non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97 pounds (44 kg).Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Mason.Jones: The name Spanish–American War uses an en dash, not a hyphen. Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, MOS:DASH, An en dash between separate nations; ... France–Britain rivalry; French–British rivalry. It doesn't matter what an editor learned in school; Wikipedia's own style guide takes precedence. Chris the speller yack 17:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
There are some group of references in the article. Can we split them? -- Drabdullayev17 ( talk) 21:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite news |title=Did Clinton Do It, or Was He Lucky? |author=Dale, Reginald |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-think.2.t_2.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 18, 2000 |accessdate=March 6, 2013}}<br />{{cite book |last=Mankiw |first=N. Gregory |title=Macroeconomics |url=https://books.google.com/?id=58KxPNa0hF4C&lpg=PA463 |year=2008 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-0-324-58999-3 |page=559 |accessdate=October 25, 2015}}</ref>
The most religious area of the United States is American Samoa, not Mississippi. The rate of religious affiliation in American Samoa is more than 30% higher than in Mississippi. A sentence mentioning this fact was added, but it keeps getting reverted.
One objection is that mentioning American Samoa is too trivial. What makes mentioning American Samoa more trivial than Mississippi? While it's true that American Samoa is not a state, it is still part of the United States (it has a zip code, U.S. National Park, people there get U.S. Medicare and sign up for the U.S. military, they have a representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, etc.)
Another objection is that this article is only about states, which isn't true. This article is about all components of the United States: states, territories, the federal district, etc.
The religion fact is not explicitly about territories: for example, if the religious rate in Mississippi was 99.5%, then American Samoa would not need to be mentioned. It just happens to be that American Samoa has the highest religious rate in the country.
I'd like to bring the religion fact back, but first want to acknowledge whether it will get reverted again. LumaP15 ( talk) 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
American Samoa has a much lower population than Mississippi. The entire population is estimated to 54,194 people. It is not that surprising that they are less diverse when it comes to religion.
" CIA Factbook 2010 estimate shows the religious affiliations of American Samoa as 98.3% Christian, other 1%, unaffiliated 0.7%. [1] World Christian Database 2010 estimate shows the religious affiliations of American Samoa as 98.3% Christian, 0.7% agnostic, 0.4% Chinese Universalist, 0.3% Buddhist and 0.3% Bahá'í. [2]
According to Pew Research Center, 98.3% of the total population is Christian. Among Christians, 59.5% are Protestant, 19.7% are Roman Catholic and 19.2% are other Christians. A major Protestant church on the island, gathering a substantial part of the local Protestant population, is the Congregational Christian Church in American Samoa, a Reformed denomination in the Congregationalist tradition. As of August 2017 [update], The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints website claims membership of 16,180 or one-quarter of the whole population, with 41 congregations, and 4 family history centers in American Samoa. [3] Jehovah's Witnesses claim 210 "ministers of the word" and 3 congregations. [4] " Dimadick ( talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
References
CIAfactbook
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I moved this section here for discussion as to whether it should be sourced and included or excluded.
Lutheranism in the United States has its origin in immigration from Scandinavia and Germany. North and South Dakota are the only states where a plurality of the population is Lutheran. citation needed Presbyterianism was introduced in North America by Scottish and Ulster Scots immigrants. citation needed Although it has expanded across the country, it is heavily concentrated on the East Coast. Dutch Reformed congregations were founded first in New Amsterdam (New York City) before spreading westward. citation needed Episcopalians/ Anglicans played a pivotal role in the country's founding and separated from the Church of England after the American Revolution. citation needed They tend to be concentrated on the East Coast. Quakers are present mostly on the East Coast as well. citation needed Anabaptists and Pietists have a strong presence citation needed in Pennsylvania and in some East North Central states.
Utah is the only state where Mormonism is the religion of the majority of the population. citation needed Eastern Orthodoxy is claimed by 5% of people in Alaska, a former Russian colony, and maintains a presence on the U.S. mainland due to recent immigration from Eastern Europe. citation needed Finally, a number of other Christian groups are active across the country, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, Restorationists, Churches of Christ, Christian Scientists and many others. citation needed
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
......and so on. I guess some good sources would be the first step, if all think we can make this informative over just links..-- Moxy ( talk) 23:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
How about leaving the sentences about distribution, historical links, etc. out of that section? Focus on what denominations are present and so condense it entirely? Ernio48 ( talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The list of World Heritage Sites in the United States of America is incorrect and leaves out Poverty Point in Northeastern Louisiana. This was designated a World Heritage Site on June 22nd, 2014 at the UNESCO Convention in Doha, Qatar. JonCaz ( talk) 15:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the default motto of the United States from "In God We Trust" to "E Pluribus Unum." The original is the latin and the alternative is "In God We Trust." Digital2analog ( talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Unitarians)) to ((Unitarianism|Unitarians)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f ( talk) 13:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It should be a “Federal Constitutional Republic” Willis Hanger ( talk) 01:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence in the lead, " is the foremost military power in the world needs to be reworded, the source is from 2013 but now China has the largest active military in the world, followed by India. The source is used to validate the largest army claim, which no longer holds true. So please replace it or reword the sentence. 31.215.112.224 ( talk) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 31.215.112.224 ( talk) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I think we have to change |religion_year from 2017 to 2016. Because source data is for 2016. -- Drabdullayev17 ( talk) 06:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why my edit about the U.S. being a kritarchy was considered disruptive? -- Pedro8790 ( talk) 06:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
no info about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobomanokio ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
In the intro I had removed 'current' before 'constitution' on the thesis that it is the only constitution the United States has ever had. My edit was reverted on the grounds that the Articles of Confederation had preceded it and constituted a 'constitution'. While the Articles were adopted by the Continental Congress in 1781, and therefore certainly preceded the Constitution which was ratified in 1788, the Articles were actually a wartime confederation which did not establish a central government, and therefore were not a 'constitution' as that term is recognized today. In view of the fact that the Founding Fathers agreed with this definition by deciding to abandon the Articles and write a new Constitution establishing a federal republic with a strong centralized government, one Constitutional scholar has stated that the U.S. Constitution "is regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world."[citation 2] (see WP article U.S. Constitution - lead). Therefore, to use the word 'current' implies that other constitutions preceded the Constitution. I would like to remove the word 'current' and add the citation 2 noted immediately above, but I would appreciate other editors' opinions. American In Brazil ( talk) 20:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
noun 1. the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed. 2. the document embodying these principles.
Is this article citing (current Constitution) referencing towards a revised version of the original? Meaning, other amendments added.
I think it's fair to say that we've always had a constitution since our founding, and many founding Federalists like (Alexander Hamilton), pushed for a strong Central government. So we've always had that as well. NocturnalDef ( talk) 08:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)>>>>NocturnalDEF
I meant "generally." >>>>NocturnalDef NocturnalDef ( talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern,
It is a common misconception that the United States of America is a democracy. According to Diffen.com, the United States of America is a republic. I'm not very good at knowing whether or not a source is reliable. Can one of you please check the following source: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic. The reason I am mentioning this is because, in the section before the "Etymology" section, it first says it's a republic, and then it says it's a democracy. I just want the article to be consistent. Thank you, in advance.
Sincerely,
Daniel Klimovich
Daniel Klimovich ( talk) 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Daniel Klimovich
The map about "ancestry" is ridiculous because it is not possible to compare "Mexican" or "German" ancestry with "African" ancestry as "Africa is not a country". You can compare "European" ancestry with "African" ancestry, but not "German" or "Mexican" or "French" ancestry with "African" ancestry. It only could be with "Nigerian" ancestry, "Kenyan" ancestry, "Algerian" ancestry etc.-- 213.60.237.52 ( talk) 13:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I can’t edit because the article is protected, but there is a grammar error in the first paragraph. There should be a period between “third-most populous country” and “A ‘nation of immigrants’.
That is all. Chaws1 ( talk) 17:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
A recent addition was made that I objected to only in that it does not sufficiently summarize content from the article and I believe needs direct sourcing to include;
"A " nation of immigrants", America's population is almost exclusively made up of the descendants of immigrants from a high variety of nations and peoples."
Thougts?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if the claim of the united States as a nation of immigrants is a solid fact. I am also not sure if the insertion of the material is political in nature and as such might be contentious.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
A "nation of immigrants", America's population is almost exclusively made up of the descendants of immigrants from a high variety of nations and peoples]].
Currently, the lead reads:
The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.)
The inconsistency between USA and U.S. seems odd. It seems like it would be more proper to have both with .'s between them both (U.S.A. and U.S.) to have it be the same, but I'm not sure if there is any prior consensus on the matter, and I wanted to bring the issue here for discussion before making an edit.
Thanks, Fritzmann2002 17:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The file Indeterminate Grammy aware.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
As explained in my edit summery, the term "Native American" is far more used to refer to the indigenous people of the U.S. rather than "American Indian". The latter also creates confusion with Indian Americans. Javiero Fernandez ( talk) 21:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.
These are not various possessions. They are the minor outlying islands. Why are we only mentioning the 5 inhabited territories? There are 16 total. -- Wyn.junior ( talk) 22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Someone reading would think there are territories and minor outlying islands. The 9 minor outlying islands are also territories.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 22:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two separate statistics for the percent of global wealth held by Americans. The first one is listed as 33.4% in the intro paragraph. It is listed as 41.6% at the top of the Income, poverty, and wealth section.
Intro: "Though its population is only 4.3% of the world total,[33] the U.S. holds 33.4% of the total wealth in the world"
Income section: "Accounting for 4.4% of the global population, Americans collectively possess 41.6% of the world's total wealth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.68.203.43 ( talk) 17:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
amerika e kur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.47.83.110 ( talk) 12:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
When you type "America" in the search engine, it takes you here, instead of taking you to the page about the continent of the Americas. I believe this is a serious - and very chauvinistic - mistake. It is an insult to the millons of americans who don't live in the U.S.A. It is as if "Europe" will take to the page about the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.245.150 ( talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are lots of broken outgoing links on this page.. I'id like to either make them correct or remove if correct link doesn't exist Sahil7459 ( talk) 14:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Drivers on left Tharealmaya ( talk) 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
In the graphic about the "dominant ancestry in each state" it refers to "African" while anybody in the rest of the World knows that "Africa" is not a country but many countries. If they mean "Black", then there should be also "White" (which is the domiant ancestry in those Southern states too)...and if they mean "country of ancestry" then use "Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, Angola..." the same way as they use "Germany, Ireland, Italy..." etc. Otherwise it is ridiculous.-- 213.60.237.52 ( talk) 20:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The type of government listed is inaccurate. America is now an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B -- Platocres ( talk) 13:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
In the infobox on the right, in the ethnicity tab, the minority (Hispanic & Latinos) is on top, whereas the majority (Non-Hispanics & Latinos) is on bottom. Shouldn't it be like race where the larger percentage is on top? Sorry if this seems unimportant, it's just bothering me. If you could, fix please.
( NitrocideWP ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The preponderance of photographs used in this article shows images of New York. Apart from photos of the President and Vice-President, 10 out of 35 photographs are dedicated to New York. This represents a staggering 28%. The majority of other US states have absolutely no photographic representation at all in this good-rated article. The currently skewed situation should be better balanced, especially for an article named United States. New York certainly has an important place here, but not taking up more than a quarter of the total photographs. I leave it to American Wiki editors who certainly know their country better than I do to rectify this. Veritycheck✔️ ( talk) 14:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Photo content | Number of photos | Percentage of total photos |
---|---|---|
New York | 11 | 30.5% |
8 other states represented* | 17 | 47.2% |
Misc. (Food, sports, portraits, etc.) | 8 | 22.2% |
41 States not represented at all | 0 | 0% |
The type of government listed is inaccurate. America is now an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B -- Platocres ( talk) 13:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
In the infobox on the right, in the ethnicity tab, the minority (Hispanic & Latinos) is on top, whereas the majority (Non-Hispanics & Latinos) is on bottom. Shouldn't it be like race where the larger percentage is on top? Sorry if this seems unimportant, it's just bothering me. If you could, fix please.
( NitrocideWP ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
A study has shown that the United States is more of an elite oligarchy than a democracy: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Should this be incorporated into the article ? Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I have made an alternative version of {{ Largest metropolitan areas of the United States}} at {{ Largest metropolitan areas of the United States/sandbox}}. The new version is based on {{ Largest cities}} and would provide consistency with many other country articles also using this type of template. Should we replace the template with the version in the sandbox? — AfroThundr ( u · t · c) 23:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
class=nav
which is the navbox class. Leaving it empty gives a more infobox-like color scheme. Actually, I went ahead and did that.
Anyone else want to weigh in on the proposed replacement? Note that changing or removing the images is orthogonal to this proposal. — AfroThundr ( u · t · c) 04:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the "Treaty of Penn with the American Indians" as it replaced an image that had actual context to the precise section it was in and the new painting is merely decorative and not mentioned.
We are having some images replaced that have strong consensus so I am going to check the last discussion to be sure the correct images are still in place.
Thoughts and/or discussion on images or what should be replaced or removed?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 19:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
At the moment, looking through the history a lot has been added and replaced without a lot of discussion but there has been silent consensus. For the moment I am not changing or removing anything else but I replaced the Law enforcement vehicle to the last consensus discussion as that apears to still hold as I see no discussion to replace that.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 20:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There was a bunch of new images added which I removed because it was a bulk addition of far too many at once without a discussion on whether the mostly graphic map additions are needed or sourced properly etc.. I tried to rescue one photo of Martin Luther King Jr but a quick check of the copyright status on Commons shows that this might have been an accidental flicker washing by a historical society which has removed the image. I don't believe the Historical society owns the rights to the image to release it.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
--
Tobby72 (
talk)
16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=fn>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}}
template (see the
help page).
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 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | → | Archive 100 |
Okay, so this is the second time that my revision - an attempt to return what was properly stated about American influence on this article text' for years prior of it's sudden removal - was removed, again without evidence or sources to prove that such an action was justifiably necessary and, or; prematurely acted upon.
I have provided my revision with proper sources, which was approved by one of the editors here and another discrediting it as "weak factoid." Now I am under the impression that there is some disagreement on whether or not the US is still indeed leads the world' in a cultural, economic (which I have not attempted to bring back because of PPP complications) and political basis. However, no counter proof or sources were provided to discount my revision as a non-canon factoid - therefore, my concern is to whether there is a motive of personal interest; as to promote isolationist sentiment, rather than to educate readers of informative knowledge concurrent to the political theater. In all actuality, general knowledge and political science states' the American hegemony while in decline, hasn't quite ended and is still unequivocally the leader of Western culture, political influence, economical standing (USD being the world's reserve currency still) and militarily; which is the only concept not being challenged by fellow editors.
I would like to debate this issue with anyone here who is in disagreement with my revision before it creates a conflict. Please enlighten me on your opinion with tangible sources instead of a repeated and bias discrediting.
Thanks, and looking forward to your contribution.
NocturnalDef ( talk) 19:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I have contributed a factoid of America's standing influence in the world that is neither biased or misleading. As America is the largest media export in the world and known the world over for it's; pop culture, fashion, music, television shows, cinema, Facebook, Google, ect... even wiki. Many nation's in the world also host American military personnel and the UN is hosted by NYC which the US leads -- which can be denoted unmistakably as being a significant political influence in the world.
Once again, I would like to point out - I am NOT implying that we're in the lead...only stating the facts. I hope the general consensus can agree with my compromised revision. Thanks for your contributions. NocturnalDef ( talk) 11:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
IDK GB fan. I've been doing quite a bit of self-debating on the issue - while we still have influence in the world, I have become rather conflicted on the matter just within the past 24 hours. I could easily source my contribution of American influence in the world, but at the same time I question whether or not I should. While the US is still big on paper, declining more and more each day - I have to question the nation's moral fiber. This is not the same America that I love and know. It's leaderless. Corrupt. The very institution that reintroduced democracy into the world is crumbling before us. A majority of millennial Americans have given up on the two party system, while on the right - there is an ever growing surge for authoritarian nationalism and white supremacy. I'm debating as a liberal, whether America even deserves such a privilege as archived accolades. At least not at the trajectory this nation is headed. The world may yet just have become unofficially multipolar, ever more so because of this administrations isolationist agenda. Retreating from free trade deals. Normalizing ludicrous behavior of what used to be the highest position held. I'm not even sure if the presidency will ever be as it was or if our former prestige will ever recover. At this point, I think I'm just going to put this whole thing on hold.
For now at least... NocturnalDef ( talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Dhtwiki+ I have already shared the text which was removed several times prior but I will share it again; the part/text that was removed was the sentence describing the US as "the foremost political, cultural and economic force in the world" which was correct. I have inquired why many times but was given no answer. On a side note, I am not vacillating my suggestion in anyway, I am only doing my part in staying neutral on the consensus by challenging my own belief and offering counter evidence against it; although I still believe that America is the predominant force in the world, at least culturally. NocturnalDef ( talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've have done the research and I have sources proving my claims. I'm not going to do it now but eventually I'm going to edit this page and add the sources. NocturnalDef ( talk) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
And yes, they are reliable. NocturnalDef ( talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
And if anyone would like to go over these sources with me before I make the changes and add them, please have no hesitation in asking. I would be more than obliged to share them in discussion first. NocturnalDef ( talk) 00:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
-'The Soft Power 30' (2017 survey) NocturnalDef ( talk) 19:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
-'The Elcano Global Presence' index (2017) NocturnalDef ( talk) 19:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Http://softpower30.com/country/United-States/
-While initially ranked third, Portland explains its US ranking as more to do with sentiment than fact, and that the United States was still unequivocally still the leading soft power; politically, culturally and economically, ect - referring that trump was rather a deterrent to world view than the US losing it's top perch.
Hope this helps. NocturnalDef ( talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
www.Globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/ NocturnalDef ( talk) 20:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe you will find these sources 'factoid' satisfactory. NocturnalDef ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
So I believe we are all in consensus of my evidence? NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the current article revision and have no further need to add anything. Thank you all for hearing me. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, you guys removed the cultural part again, even though I provided you with solid evidence? Now I am going to edit it myself and add the sources. NocturnalDef ( talk) 04:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I would anyone to challenge my sources. Somebody please inform in my sources are non-factoid. NocturnalDef ( talk) 04:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Many American cultural elements, especially from popular culture, have spread across the globe through modern mass media. America stands as the most prominent cultural force today.
In accordance to the (Elcano Global Presence) index, the United States in the predominant global cultural force in the world.
<ref>{{cite...}}</ref>
markup) and not as well written ("In accordance to" should be "... with", and it's not as well linked, nor as specific, as the previous).Where are the reliable sources that protect the biased text that claims that mainstream media views american culture as classes? There are no sources there and there is no proof that suggests such a thing...yet you do nothing. I've read the UK article who's text states that they have great influence within the world and nothing to source it, and still, you do not seem to care. But when I provide you with proper sources that HAD secondary sources, you say that my sources are improper? What is it about that you are so desperate to down play? I am going to write down what I read in the text and I am going to properly site it. I did everything that you've asked and more...to prevent me from adding the correct information on this article at this point is to block the correct standing of the United States. Again, what is your evidence to suggest otherwise because you still haven't answered that question? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Why do most editors here seem to be so biased against American accolades? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. I've added proper sources and cited it properly and still it was removed by Mason with little or no reason. I have to admit that there are some editors here that don't want to keep this thing neutral and this is getting a little frustrating.
First off, the source was reliable, power Softpower30 is an organization index ranker, not news-speak. Second, if you actually read the source, you would find that I only qouted the author; I in know way made up my own text. Third, how is fair that the UK article can the described their political influence and the US can't... especially since the UK source is purely news-speak. I am sensing complete bias on the issue and have been trying to comply with you but non of you respond to my questions. If I am in any way in violation of any code or standard, then why do the codes and standards only apply to the US article? Again...are you implying that US cultural prominence has ended or are you just promoting it? Again...I ask you to source the evidence here on this consensus discussion, if not, please leave my revisions be. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the typos, it's difficult to type on a media device.
Again...if you would like me to revise it in a way where it makes the description of US influence seem more neutral, you are free to edit that part. But removing entirely is unethical and unnecessary. I am willing to compromise if you are. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I have also linked all secondary index sources in this discussion. Feel free to look. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Dhtwiki- I will agree with your suggestion to change the text to the beginning of the US cultural section if you believe that to be necessary. I have revised the article at the top section, the same as the UK article... still I am very willing to compromise in all fairness to the consensus. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok regentspark...I will give it another go. And to be fair, if you disagree with my current edit, you may remove it without further protest from me, as long as we are all willing to discuss the matter and not ignore it. I also apologize if I too, take a long time to get back to you. NocturnalDef ( talk) 22:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Understood regentspark, more than happy to discuss this further with everyone. NocturnalDef ( talk) 01:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@regentspark--www.globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en
Elcano Global Presence' index (updated 2017) that is my secondary source. NocturnalDef ( talk) 09:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will look into it - All spectrums. NocturnalDef ( talk) 23:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Give me a day or two. NocturnalDef ( talk) 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
https://geographica.gs/en/showcase/elcano-global-presence-index/
NocturnalDef ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Also; I don't believe that a secondary source is necessary for providing evidence of US cultural prominence since this particular article (aside from the fact of it being common knowledge), has originally stated this "in text" since wikipedias existence. I also find it hard to believe that as editors of this page, some of you would be oblivious to this knowledge... especially since you claim to have been editing this particular page for years now. Hence, the WP: PRIMARY would not be applicable - as this is not "original thought" or subversive in theory to be proven otherwise. It also states that news articles CAN be used as a reliable source, that only tabloids are considered non-factoid. Nevertheless, I'll still provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
And I quote the original text and the latter edited version: "The United States is a leading political, economic and cultural force in the world."
Then the latter version stated: "The United States is a prominent political and cultural force in the world, it is also the foremost economic and military presence."
@regentspark: so you and others who agree with your sentiment have no recollection what so ever of these text sources? Because I've been reading them on this article for years, all up until the end of summer when it was removed without proper consensus. NocturnalDef ( talk) 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
And subjectively, if seemingly (not accusing anyone but merely accessing), that using Wikipedia codes and violations as loopholes to keep other, or less experienced editors from bringing back the original texts as stated about the American LEAD; be an improper consensus among a gang of veteran editors with akin political beliefs, agendas -- such as framing the illusion that America is not and has never been the leader of the Western world in order to promote a type of isolationist propaganda and sentiment throughout the American popular digest of Wikipedia users? Because if a true concern resides in just the rules, then wouldn't it also apply to every national article as well... such as the UK article which seems to enjoy all the privileges of boasting international influence, not just in one sentence but throughout the entire article. My concern being that this would make it look as if American leadership has been surpassed by Britain. Again, this is only a measure of speculation and my chief motive because in all actuality, you are giving false data on a site that's dedicated to education and free information...not an abuse of authority through the improper consensus empowered by only a collection of editors who happen to share political solidarity.
Again, Wikipedia is an open site and should be for everyone to contribute...not just a few.
Personally, I don't appreciate being accused of warring with other editors, nor the threat of being removed as a voice entirely because I view globalism in a positive spectrum, as did happen with remdon115.
Now you see my point of view respective. NocturnalDef ( talk) 02:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC);:
This 04:07, 11 September 2017 edit by Mark Miller seems to be what NocturnalDef is missing from the article:
...and is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally. [1]
If so, should it be put back, as a belated reversion, and the appropriateness of its removal discussed? The edit summary read: "This apears to be original research or synthysis presented in this manner. There must be a better way to word this to be better referenced" Dhtwiki ( talk) 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC) {{reflist-talk}
Anyways, blocking me would just prove my point. My apologies if I appear overly direct... just my opinionated nature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Dhtwiki, indeed that's how it was. And I only wish to contribute as everyone is allowed, and the revision you suggested seems very fair. Thank you for discussing this with me. So what would be a better way of putting it do you think, so not to violate the rules?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to thank all the editors here in making this consensus possible and restoring a proper text to it's roots and standing. I know at times there has been little bouts of frustration but I'm glad to say that it all worked out in the end. Again, I thank everyone here who contributed their time.
I would like to give special recognition to the wonderful editors "Dthwiki" and "ChamithN" who have been especially patient. You have my gratitude and my respect. NocturnalDef ( talk) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC) NocturnalDef ( talk) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
References
The table of the largest US urban places (see under Population section) is off. Some editor decided back last summer to include the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) figures for the first five cities only—even though the table head specifically states that these are metropolitan areas, with the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) name listed just to the right. Now, fifth-ranked Houston is listed with a smaller population than 6th-ranked Washington, DC. Moreover, Los Angeles is listed with its full CSA stat of 18 million-plus, which means that Riverside–San Bernardino should NOT be listed at all further down the list. (Riverside–SB is included in that CSA population of Los Angeles. LA's MSA population is actually 13 million, without Riverside-SB.) I don't care much which yardstick editors prefer—the CSA or the MSA—but it should be consistent, without comparing apples to oranges. That's simply mistaken and misleading. Mason.Jones ( talk) 23:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the first six MSA populations in this table, which should record the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) population as indicated across the table head: latest estimated population of MSA (2016), official U.S. Census name of that MSA, and overall Wikipedia link ("see complete list"). Any other version is inconsistent and erroneous. Mason.Jones ( talk) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the paragraph above this table, I'm going to bring up a topic that I mentioned earlier this fall. In this sentence: "The metro areas of San Bernardino, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix all grew by more than a million people between 2000 and 2008." San Bernardino should be changed to Riverside, as it's the first-listed city in the Census Bureau's Metro Area title and is by far the largest city in the metro area. I made a similar edit to a section that no longer exists in the article (I changed "Riverside-San Bernardino" to just "Riverside" since every other entry in that list was single city only). Mason.Jones reverted that edit with the argument that the metro is "officially" titled with both cities since they are "officially" co-equal, and that San Bernardino was listed first up until two years ago, as it was the larger city until just recently. I don't want this to be an argument or edit war, but I want to point out that a) there was no "official" definition of this area having "co-equal" cities, the same way that has not been defined anywhere else, and that b) Riverside has been larger than San Bernardino for 50 years, and the title of the Metro Area has listed Riverside first since 1970. I haven't changed the article, since I'd rather have a discussion first, but if an argument is going to be made for one phrasing or another, the "evidence" presented to support that argument should be based in fact. Dtcomposer ( talk) 07:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
While I do think the two cities are the "coequal" ones on the Top 20 list, it's just an opinion. General references to U.S. metro areas should use the U.S. Census name as the yardstick. Mason.Jones ( talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add an italic explanation at the top that readers may be looking for Organization of American States 98.197.198.46 ( talk) 01:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
English is not the only national language in the United States when 42 million of your citizens speak Spanish at home and the territory of Puerto Rico speak Spanish as majority language it deserves a proper recognition something that has been constantly covered and ignored by the anglo speaking majority. Armando1492 ( talk) 03:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Feel free to continue to discuss but looking through the archives
1, this is not simple, uncontested opinion, and so is out of scope of an edit request
Cannolis (
talk)
03:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)I think that this page should be a featured article. It meets the FA Standards it is well written and has a lot of info. So I decided to nominate it. Felicia (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
So for this one to be readable we should condense it to less than 25%. No, we don't need to take it that far. As WP:SIZERULE says, what matters is the readable prose size. And the readable text size is currently sitting at 103kb according to Prosesize, which barely passes the "almost certainly should be divided" criteria. I think it'd be fine as long as we get it below 100 kB given the scope of the article, but that's not to say we should give up on trying to get it below 60 kB or 50 kB. To me, the reason why the article is uncomfortable to navigate is those hugeass reference and bibliography lists; but hey, that doesn't mean we should get rid of them. I'm calling it right now. If this article were to be designated a featured article someday, it'll be among the top 5 of Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length, or it will at least get there, eventually. -- ChamithN (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
+ Languages spoken at home by more than 1 million persons in the U.S. (2016) [1] [2] [fn 1] 147.0.112.99 ( talk) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
References
I just updated the U.S. 2017 population estimate in the historical chart (the historical chart uses decennial U.S. Census figures and annual estimates, and the new 2017 estimate was released this week). That said, I don't see the logic of using a different metric in the infobox, which is the population clock from a different U.S. government agency. The U.S. Census estimate is released annually each December, and this estimate is within a few thousand people of the population clock. If editors insist on the clock, then the reference should say "population clock," not "estimate". Across Wikipedia articles about U.S. states and cities, "estimate" means the Census Bureau estimate, period. Mason.Jones ( talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of junk has been added lately....should add {{Very long|date=January 2018}} bUT don't want to cause problems. How can we fix this ? Where to start. Was going to start on the religion section but there's so many other things to clean up. Anyone want to help? The article is going to loose it's GA status if things are done to fix the size and layout problems. Moxy ( talk) 14:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sectionsaccording to WP:SIZE. This discussion provides a clear idea about what the readable prose size refers to. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Even thought not everyone speaks it, many across the US speaks Spanish so should be listed as a national language after English? Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigcheese ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
General American (GenAm), is the perceived language of the states and most of her territories. Spanish (espanol), is widely used among Hispanics within the country and while it's relevant that policies have been established to make the language more applicable for an ever increasing Spanish populace, it is still only that minority of Hispanics who actually speak it. Very few Americans in general understand the language and it's only established for those newly arrived Hispanics who have yet to learn general American. Overall, it is not required for students of elementary grade levels to learn it otherwise, so I cannot vouch for espanol to be even remotely considered as a second American language. Perhaps one day, but not at the present. ---- NocturnalDEF (talk) 07:33, 15 January (UTC)
I think should be a link or a quotation explaining the "America" nomination emphasizing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestor Acevedo ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the first line has an extra 0 added on by mistake when stating the total land area of the United States, as the source only lists it as being about 3,800,000, rather than the 38,000,000 currently written. If someone could fix that, my neuroticism would greatly appreciate it! 68.184.219.213 ( talk) 04:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Area section, Total Area should be listed as 9,833,520 km2 (3,796,742 sq mi), Total land area as 9,147,590 km2 (3,531,905 sq mi). Under the Population section, Density should be listed as 35.0/km2 (90.6/sq mi). This is to maintain consistency with every other country's entry on Wikipedia. Riakm ( talk) 17:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of "strong national ties", where applicable:In non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97 pounds (44 kg).Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Mason.Jones: The name Spanish–American War uses an en dash, not a hyphen. Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, MOS:DASH, An en dash between separate nations; ... France–Britain rivalry; French–British rivalry. It doesn't matter what an editor learned in school; Wikipedia's own style guide takes precedence. Chris the speller yack 17:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
There are some group of references in the article. Can we split them? -- Drabdullayev17 ( talk) 21:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite news |title=Did Clinton Do It, or Was He Lucky? |author=Dale, Reginald |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-think.2.t_2.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 18, 2000 |accessdate=March 6, 2013}}<br />{{cite book |last=Mankiw |first=N. Gregory |title=Macroeconomics |url=https://books.google.com/?id=58KxPNa0hF4C&lpg=PA463 |year=2008 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-0-324-58999-3 |page=559 |accessdate=October 25, 2015}}</ref>
The most religious area of the United States is American Samoa, not Mississippi. The rate of religious affiliation in American Samoa is more than 30% higher than in Mississippi. A sentence mentioning this fact was added, but it keeps getting reverted.
One objection is that mentioning American Samoa is too trivial. What makes mentioning American Samoa more trivial than Mississippi? While it's true that American Samoa is not a state, it is still part of the United States (it has a zip code, U.S. National Park, people there get U.S. Medicare and sign up for the U.S. military, they have a representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, etc.)
Another objection is that this article is only about states, which isn't true. This article is about all components of the United States: states, territories, the federal district, etc.
The religion fact is not explicitly about territories: for example, if the religious rate in Mississippi was 99.5%, then American Samoa would not need to be mentioned. It just happens to be that American Samoa has the highest religious rate in the country.
I'd like to bring the religion fact back, but first want to acknowledge whether it will get reverted again. LumaP15 ( talk) 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
American Samoa has a much lower population than Mississippi. The entire population is estimated to 54,194 people. It is not that surprising that they are less diverse when it comes to religion.
" CIA Factbook 2010 estimate shows the religious affiliations of American Samoa as 98.3% Christian, other 1%, unaffiliated 0.7%. [1] World Christian Database 2010 estimate shows the religious affiliations of American Samoa as 98.3% Christian, 0.7% agnostic, 0.4% Chinese Universalist, 0.3% Buddhist and 0.3% Bahá'í. [2]
According to Pew Research Center, 98.3% of the total population is Christian. Among Christians, 59.5% are Protestant, 19.7% are Roman Catholic and 19.2% are other Christians. A major Protestant church on the island, gathering a substantial part of the local Protestant population, is the Congregational Christian Church in American Samoa, a Reformed denomination in the Congregationalist tradition. As of August 2017 [update], The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints website claims membership of 16,180 or one-quarter of the whole population, with 41 congregations, and 4 family history centers in American Samoa. [3] Jehovah's Witnesses claim 210 "ministers of the word" and 3 congregations. [4] " Dimadick ( talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
References
CIAfactbook
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I moved this section here for discussion as to whether it should be sourced and included or excluded.
Lutheranism in the United States has its origin in immigration from Scandinavia and Germany. North and South Dakota are the only states where a plurality of the population is Lutheran. citation needed Presbyterianism was introduced in North America by Scottish and Ulster Scots immigrants. citation needed Although it has expanded across the country, it is heavily concentrated on the East Coast. Dutch Reformed congregations were founded first in New Amsterdam (New York City) before spreading westward. citation needed Episcopalians/ Anglicans played a pivotal role in the country's founding and separated from the Church of England after the American Revolution. citation needed They tend to be concentrated on the East Coast. Quakers are present mostly on the East Coast as well. citation needed Anabaptists and Pietists have a strong presence citation needed in Pennsylvania and in some East North Central states.
Utah is the only state where Mormonism is the religion of the majority of the population. citation needed Eastern Orthodoxy is claimed by 5% of people in Alaska, a former Russian colony, and maintains a presence on the U.S. mainland due to recent immigration from Eastern Europe. citation needed Finally, a number of other Christian groups are active across the country, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, Restorationists, Churches of Christ, Christian Scientists and many others. citation needed
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
......and so on. I guess some good sources would be the first step, if all think we can make this informative over just links..-- Moxy ( talk) 23:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
How about leaving the sentences about distribution, historical links, etc. out of that section? Focus on what denominations are present and so condense it entirely? Ernio48 ( talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The list of World Heritage Sites in the United States of America is incorrect and leaves out Poverty Point in Northeastern Louisiana. This was designated a World Heritage Site on June 22nd, 2014 at the UNESCO Convention in Doha, Qatar. JonCaz ( talk) 15:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the default motto of the United States from "In God We Trust" to "E Pluribus Unum." The original is the latin and the alternative is "In God We Trust." Digital2analog ( talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Unitarians)) to ((Unitarianism|Unitarians)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f ( talk) 13:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It should be a “Federal Constitutional Republic” Willis Hanger ( talk) 01:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence in the lead, " is the foremost military power in the world needs to be reworded, the source is from 2013 but now China has the largest active military in the world, followed by India. The source is used to validate the largest army claim, which no longer holds true. So please replace it or reword the sentence. 31.215.112.224 ( talk) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 31.215.112.224 ( talk) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I think we have to change |religion_year from 2017 to 2016. Because source data is for 2016. -- Drabdullayev17 ( talk) 06:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why my edit about the U.S. being a kritarchy was considered disruptive? -- Pedro8790 ( talk) 06:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
no info about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobomanokio ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
In the intro I had removed 'current' before 'constitution' on the thesis that it is the only constitution the United States has ever had. My edit was reverted on the grounds that the Articles of Confederation had preceded it and constituted a 'constitution'. While the Articles were adopted by the Continental Congress in 1781, and therefore certainly preceded the Constitution which was ratified in 1788, the Articles were actually a wartime confederation which did not establish a central government, and therefore were not a 'constitution' as that term is recognized today. In view of the fact that the Founding Fathers agreed with this definition by deciding to abandon the Articles and write a new Constitution establishing a federal republic with a strong centralized government, one Constitutional scholar has stated that the U.S. Constitution "is regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world."[citation 2] (see WP article U.S. Constitution - lead). Therefore, to use the word 'current' implies that other constitutions preceded the Constitution. I would like to remove the word 'current' and add the citation 2 noted immediately above, but I would appreciate other editors' opinions. American In Brazil ( talk) 20:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
noun 1. the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed. 2. the document embodying these principles.
Is this article citing (current Constitution) referencing towards a revised version of the original? Meaning, other amendments added.
I think it's fair to say that we've always had a constitution since our founding, and many founding Federalists like (Alexander Hamilton), pushed for a strong Central government. So we've always had that as well. NocturnalDef ( talk) 08:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)>>>>NocturnalDEF
I meant "generally." >>>>NocturnalDef NocturnalDef ( talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern,
It is a common misconception that the United States of America is a democracy. According to Diffen.com, the United States of America is a republic. I'm not very good at knowing whether or not a source is reliable. Can one of you please check the following source: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic. The reason I am mentioning this is because, in the section before the "Etymology" section, it first says it's a republic, and then it says it's a democracy. I just want the article to be consistent. Thank you, in advance.
Sincerely,
Daniel Klimovich
Daniel Klimovich ( talk) 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Daniel Klimovich
The map about "ancestry" is ridiculous because it is not possible to compare "Mexican" or "German" ancestry with "African" ancestry as "Africa is not a country". You can compare "European" ancestry with "African" ancestry, but not "German" or "Mexican" or "French" ancestry with "African" ancestry. It only could be with "Nigerian" ancestry, "Kenyan" ancestry, "Algerian" ancestry etc.-- 213.60.237.52 ( talk) 13:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I can’t edit because the article is protected, but there is a grammar error in the first paragraph. There should be a period between “third-most populous country” and “A ‘nation of immigrants’.
That is all. Chaws1 ( talk) 17:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
A recent addition was made that I objected to only in that it does not sufficiently summarize content from the article and I believe needs direct sourcing to include;
"A " nation of immigrants", America's population is almost exclusively made up of the descendants of immigrants from a high variety of nations and peoples."
Thougts?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if the claim of the united States as a nation of immigrants is a solid fact. I am also not sure if the insertion of the material is political in nature and as such might be contentious.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
A "nation of immigrants", America's population is almost exclusively made up of the descendants of immigrants from a high variety of nations and peoples]].
Currently, the lead reads:
The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.)
The inconsistency between USA and U.S. seems odd. It seems like it would be more proper to have both with .'s between them both (U.S.A. and U.S.) to have it be the same, but I'm not sure if there is any prior consensus on the matter, and I wanted to bring the issue here for discussion before making an edit.
Thanks, Fritzmann2002 17:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The file Indeterminate Grammy aware.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
As explained in my edit summery, the term "Native American" is far more used to refer to the indigenous people of the U.S. rather than "American Indian". The latter also creates confusion with Indian Americans. Javiero Fernandez ( talk) 21:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.
These are not various possessions. They are the minor outlying islands. Why are we only mentioning the 5 inhabited territories? There are 16 total. -- Wyn.junior ( talk) 22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Someone reading would think there are territories and minor outlying islands. The 9 minor outlying islands are also territories.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 22:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two separate statistics for the percent of global wealth held by Americans. The first one is listed as 33.4% in the intro paragraph. It is listed as 41.6% at the top of the Income, poverty, and wealth section.
Intro: "Though its population is only 4.3% of the world total,[33] the U.S. holds 33.4% of the total wealth in the world"
Income section: "Accounting for 4.4% of the global population, Americans collectively possess 41.6% of the world's total wealth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.68.203.43 ( talk) 17:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
amerika e kur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.47.83.110 ( talk) 12:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
When you type "America" in the search engine, it takes you here, instead of taking you to the page about the continent of the Americas. I believe this is a serious - and very chauvinistic - mistake. It is an insult to the millons of americans who don't live in the U.S.A. It is as if "Europe" will take to the page about the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.245.150 ( talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are lots of broken outgoing links on this page.. I'id like to either make them correct or remove if correct link doesn't exist Sahil7459 ( talk) 14:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Drivers on left Tharealmaya ( talk) 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
In the graphic about the "dominant ancestry in each state" it refers to "African" while anybody in the rest of the World knows that "Africa" is not a country but many countries. If they mean "Black", then there should be also "White" (which is the domiant ancestry in those Southern states too)...and if they mean "country of ancestry" then use "Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, Angola..." the same way as they use "Germany, Ireland, Italy..." etc. Otherwise it is ridiculous.-- 213.60.237.52 ( talk) 20:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The type of government listed is inaccurate. America is now an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B -- Platocres ( talk) 13:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
In the infobox on the right, in the ethnicity tab, the minority (Hispanic & Latinos) is on top, whereas the majority (Non-Hispanics & Latinos) is on bottom. Shouldn't it be like race where the larger percentage is on top? Sorry if this seems unimportant, it's just bothering me. If you could, fix please.
( NitrocideWP ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The preponderance of photographs used in this article shows images of New York. Apart from photos of the President and Vice-President, 10 out of 35 photographs are dedicated to New York. This represents a staggering 28%. The majority of other US states have absolutely no photographic representation at all in this good-rated article. The currently skewed situation should be better balanced, especially for an article named United States. New York certainly has an important place here, but not taking up more than a quarter of the total photographs. I leave it to American Wiki editors who certainly know their country better than I do to rectify this. Veritycheck✔️ ( talk) 14:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Photo content | Number of photos | Percentage of total photos |
---|---|---|
New York | 11 | 30.5% |
8 other states represented* | 17 | 47.2% |
Misc. (Food, sports, portraits, etc.) | 8 | 22.2% |
41 States not represented at all | 0 | 0% |
The type of government listed is inaccurate. America is now an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B -- Platocres ( talk) 13:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
In the infobox on the right, in the ethnicity tab, the minority (Hispanic & Latinos) is on top, whereas the majority (Non-Hispanics & Latinos) is on bottom. Shouldn't it be like race where the larger percentage is on top? Sorry if this seems unimportant, it's just bothering me. If you could, fix please.
( NitrocideWP ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
A study has shown that the United States is more of an elite oligarchy than a democracy: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Should this be incorporated into the article ? Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I have made an alternative version of {{ Largest metropolitan areas of the United States}} at {{ Largest metropolitan areas of the United States/sandbox}}. The new version is based on {{ Largest cities}} and would provide consistency with many other country articles also using this type of template. Should we replace the template with the version in the sandbox? — AfroThundr ( u · t · c) 23:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
class=nav
which is the navbox class. Leaving it empty gives a more infobox-like color scheme. Actually, I went ahead and did that.
Anyone else want to weigh in on the proposed replacement? Note that changing or removing the images is orthogonal to this proposal. — AfroThundr ( u · t · c) 04:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the "Treaty of Penn with the American Indians" as it replaced an image that had actual context to the precise section it was in and the new painting is merely decorative and not mentioned.
We are having some images replaced that have strong consensus so I am going to check the last discussion to be sure the correct images are still in place.
Thoughts and/or discussion on images or what should be replaced or removed?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 19:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
At the moment, looking through the history a lot has been added and replaced without a lot of discussion but there has been silent consensus. For the moment I am not changing or removing anything else but I replaced the Law enforcement vehicle to the last consensus discussion as that apears to still hold as I see no discussion to replace that.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 20:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There was a bunch of new images added which I removed because it was a bulk addition of far too many at once without a discussion on whether the mostly graphic map additions are needed or sourced properly etc.. I tried to rescue one photo of Martin Luther King Jr but a quick check of the copyright status on Commons shows that this might have been an accidental flicker washing by a historical society which has removed the image. I don't believe the Historical society owns the rights to the image to release it.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
--
Tobby72 (
talk)
16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=fn>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}}
template (see the
help page).