This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk | contribs) at 06:33, 12 May 2014 (→"Creed": disagree the creed is a red flag claim.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:33, 12 May 2014 by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk | contribs) (→"Creed": disagree the creed is a red flag claim.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1. How did the article get the way it is?
2. How about Switzerland?
Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Misplaced Pages articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.
| |||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
| This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 Archives (index) |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Contemporary history
I know this subsection is already short compared to the other ones, but we should still keep to the formula of "Big Picture" details only and avoid WP:RECENTISM, so a few detail removals are in order. This may involve the removal of the 9/11 image as it will become too big for the section and we can't shrink it down too much. But as it is the section is cluttered with images. I would like to point out that I removed mention of the assassination of Bin Laden as his death did not mean the end of Al-Qaeda or terrorism, so I wouldn't consider it "Big Picture". Revised version below:
After the Cold War, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001. The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists under the leadership of Osama bin Laden struck the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people. In response the U.S. government launched the global War on Terror, invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps. In 2003 the United States and several allied forces launched an invasion of Iraq to engineer regime change there, beginning the Iraq War. American combat troops fought in the country for eight years. In 2008, amid a global economic recession and two wars, the first African-American president, Barack Obama, was elected. Cadiomals (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose replacing "George W. Bush administration" with "United States". This is not one of the few instances where we clearly need to mention a specific president's name.
- I'll also throw it out there that we may want to reconsider mentioning Barack Obama here; we don't make specific note of John F. Kennedy being the first catholic president (which was once also considered a big deal), so why is it necessary to make specific note of the first African-American one? --Philpill691 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can concur with your first statement but I do think the latter should be kept in. In the coming decades, as newer more profound events unfold, it may be considered inconsequential, but for now the election of the first African-American president still remains a highly significant event in most people's eyes as it exemplifies the nation's progress in terms of racial views. Removing it would be risky and almost certainly a step too far for many editors. Cadiomals (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Phil that no presidents should be mentioned in the Contemporary section. Bush and Obama are both important presidents, but their legacies are still in flux. I take the opposite view that Cadiomals does; in the unfolding of time one or more of the recent presidents may be deemed important enough to warrant inclusion here, but simply being the "first" of a group falls short at this detail level. The Obama mention is recentism. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- At the very least the Obama sentence should be shortened. The "wars" segment is frivolous and at least mostly redundant, and we don't currently mention economic downturns apart from the Depression and the general stagflation phenomenon (which was a special kind of downturn involving soaring inflation). The current dismal economy is discussed in the main Economy and Income sections. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Propose changing "The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world" to "The Internet became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world". This is much more concise. Also, it seems out of place to mention ARPANET; the Internet itself certainly is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article, but its origins are not. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The reason ARPANET is mentioned is because it gives context as to why that statement should be included in a history of the United States in the first place. Not every country article mentions the Internet in their histories even though most countries have been impacted by it, but the origins of the Internet are connected to projects within the US. Otherwise it seems like a generic statement that could be applied to all of the developed world during the 90s. Cadiomals (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning, but mentioning ARPANET still seems far too specific for this article. How about something like this: The Internet, which largely had its origins in the United States, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. This is more concise, and not overly specific. --Philpill691 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
A few further changes
I feel as though the above changes, though quite helpful, did not go quite far enough in removing extraneous details. I have removed a few more details in the draft I have placed below. I think this draft makes this subsection's detail level more appropriate relative to the other parts of the History section.
After the Cold War, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001. The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people. In response the United States launched the global War on Terror, which includes the ongoing War in Afghanistan and the 2003–11 Iraq War. In 2008, amid a global economic recession, the first African-American president, Barack Obama, was elected.
Specifically, this draft removes:
- the remaining mention of Osama bin Laden; we don't mention that the Japanese forces at Pearl Harbor were under the leadership of Chuichi Nagumo and Isoroku Yamamoto. From a historical perspective, this really is no different.
- details of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. We provide no such detail level in mentions of previous wars of similar scale.
- the wikilink to the George W. Bush administration; we don't link to other presidents' administrations during mentions of national actions.
- "and two wars" as we already mention them, and based on the wording of the previous sentence, any reader can understand that the wars were still ongoing in 2008.
I thought it would be best to check in with others before I make these changes. Please tell me what you think. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I support these changes, though I still think we should lose the Obama sentence altogether. It was perhaps the most salient example of presidential recentism in the section, so it would be a shame if we went though all this just to leave it. VictorD7 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree with these changes, except there's the issue about the shortest History subsection having the only double-image, and Castncoot insists on keeping both with support from a couple others. If the section is shortened to this little both images would ideally have to be removed as they would not even fit anymore without pushing into the next section, which would be further disputed. With these current complications it is probably not the best time for further shortening, but it will definitely be kept in mind for finalized changes in the future before I plan on submitting it for a GA review. Cadiomals (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll note that if we follow previously agreed on plans, we would probably be adding a population update sentence soon (maybe the 2010 Census count). As for the picture, shrinking would be an option of necessary. Not ideal, but better than keeping bloat that should be trimmed. VictorD7 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- In conjunction with the addition of other earlier population mentions, I propose the following be added to the Contemporary section:
- By 2000 the United States had a population of approximately 281 million.
- --Philpill691 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll note that if we follow previously agreed on plans, we would probably be adding a population update sentence soon (maybe the 2010 Census count). As for the picture, shrinking would be an option of necessary. Not ideal, but better than keeping bloat that should be trimmed. VictorD7 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have implemented the summarizing changes. I have not added the population mention as a clear consensus for that has not yet emerged. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Internet
The old sentence:
- The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world.
As Philpill691 says above, it's overly specific. I propose the following same-sized sentence instead of the current one, to better explain the impact of the internet on society, culture and the economy in a sentence of the same length and including linking to relevant articles:
- The Internet, limited to academic and US defense networks until the 1990s, spread to the public through the World Wide Web, impacting greatly the global economy, society, and culture.
victor falk 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose change. That sentence is even longer, and loses its purpose by not mentioning the internet's origins, instead containing a cryptic reference to what it was "limited to" that might leave readers' scratching their heads. That's not an improvement. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- But the real weakness of the original sentence is the second, which is vague to the point of almost non sequitur. "The Internet spread". You know another thing that spread during the 90s? Lumber jack shirts. It doesn't say why or how, or if it had any importance or on what or who whatsoever. The only informative value is on the origin of the internet, which is a technical aspect much more pertinent in the science section and already done there as user:Philpill691 does and thus entirely redundant. And redundancy is the last thing we need in a busy article such as this one. victor falk 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually "spread around the world" is appropriate for this detail level, which is a very rough summary, as a glance at the rest of the History section shows. People using the internet already know what it is. The information given is the timing. There's no law against mentioning a word like "Arpanet" in more than one section, but if that goes the alternative would be something like Phil's earlier proposal: The Internet, which largely had its origins in the United States, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. That's concise and points out that it had its origins in the US, which is the sole rationale for including the internet in a country article history section. We certainly don't need a longer sentence that contains less critical info. VictorD7 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand your point about origins; what about:
The Internet, originating in academic and US defense networks, spread to the public through the World Wide Web in the 1990s, impacting greatly the global economy, society, and culture.
- victor falk 04:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- If we're going to change it we should shorten it per Phil's suggestion, not make it longer. We don't need "World Wide Web", or to spell out its impact. This is mostly about identifying the timing.VictorD7 (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- victor falk 04:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- That looks fine, though maybe "US" should be moved from before "defense" to before "academic", since the original universities were American too. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Done. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- That looks fine, though maybe "US" should be moved from before "defense" to before "academic", since the original universities were American too. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that ARPANET is already mentioned in the Science and technology section. I don't think we should mention it twice. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Before getting too deep into this, I would suggest going down and doing some supporting work in History of the United States (1980–91) and/or History of the United States (1991–present). At present there is no material in these supporting articles that you can summarize. ~KvnG 14:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Great Recession of 2008
I have been informed that some editors are against the inclusion of the historical recession is wp:recentism. I would like to clarify if references to it belong in the section or if it should be removed. victor falk 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep More than half a decade ago in no longer recent, and it's without a doubt one of, if not the, most significant event of our times. victor falk 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, really significant in the long view of things, significant enough to usher in a new era of federal regulation in an attempt to bring about transparency, fairness and competition in the face of global challenges and international shadow banking. The experiment in deregulation of financial markets broke at a huge cost to the U.S. and international economies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- There's been more desire to remove the Obama mention as recentism than the ongoing downturn, despite no other economic downturns being mentioned apart from the Depression and the stagflation era (a distinctive phenomenon), so maybe the "great recession" should have its own sentence, one that mentions the ongoing downturn since the recession's technical end in the first half of 2009 that has really made it so notable. A sharp recession lasting around the postwar average (as the "great recession" did) by itself wouldn't merit inclusion here. The sustained economic stagnation and falling median income is what makes this era economically notable. Of course many disagree with the contention that it was a failed "experiment in deregulation" as much as a consequence of excessive government intervention, but this wouldn't be the appropriate article to get into differing causal interpretations. VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Still work to do
In addition to whatever adjustments and sourcing/wording cleanups we do, I'll note that we still need to figure where and how to reinsert the Washington and Lincoln mentions, as well the population updates. The Lincoln mention should probably include his party, since we established but never updated the earlier party system with this segment: From 1820 to 1850, Jacksonian democracy began a set of reforms which included wider male suffrage, and it led to the rise of the Second Party System of Democrats and Whigs as the dominant parties from 1828 to 1854. VictorD7 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Lincoln
- I agree with you that Lincoln's mention should include his party. Let me throw this out there as a possible replacement for the current second paragraph in this subsection (excluding refs):
- Abraham Lincoln of the relatively new Republican Party, which largely opposed the spread of slavery, was elected as president in 1860 with negligible support from Southern states. Beginning soon thereafter, conventions in thirteen states declared secession, then formed the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians.
- --Philpill691 (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Or, "The Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln on a platform opposing the spread of slavery. He was elected as president in 1860 with negligible support from Southern states..." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Or: "In 1860 Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party ran for president on a platform opposing the spread of slavery, and was elected with negligible support from Southern states..." --Philpill691 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Or, "The Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln on a platform opposing the spread of slavery. He was elected as president in 1860 with negligible support from Southern states..." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a slightly shorter alternative, though I could live with any of your proposals too:
- Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, conventions in thirteen states ultimately declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians. VictorD7 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I like it, though I would remove the word "ultimately" and perhaps add the word "Southern" after "thirteen". --Philpill691 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Some qualifier such as "ultimately declared", "purportedly declared", "assumedly declared" is required, since both Missouri and Kentucky had ordinances of secession passed by rump minority factions of their legislature, but those Confederate shadow "governments" were in absentia from the early months of 1861, traveling out-of-state with Confederate armies for the duration of the war with no de facto administrative jurisdiction in those places. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were slave-holding states whose people remained represented in the U.S. Congress the entire war voted in by free elections in the regular polling places. While Kentucky and Missouri on the other hand, had pro-Davis army-elected slates of representatives in the Confederate Congress voted in without opposition. see Kenneth Martis in The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not necessarily wedded to "ultimately" but added it for the reasons TVH laid out. I didn't want us to imply that all those conventions voted for secession between Lincoln's election and the war's outbreak. I'm not sure we need "southern" since the previous paragraph focuses on the "north"/"south" divide, but I'm not opposed to adding it either. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've been toying with adding a clarifying sentence that would have the segment read...Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, seven states declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. After hostilities commenced four other states joined the Confederacy, while two closely divided states had delegations in both governments. The ensuing war....
- Or would that be too much at this detail level? On the up side it would hint at the "brother versus brother" aspect of the war that threatens to get totally lost with the pat emphasis on sectionalism. VictorD7 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Each southern state has its own pockets of Unionism, mostly in uplands and mountains. (Fantasies of guerrilla movements in the mountains require a sympathetic population, that it precisely where the population was not sympathetic to rebellion.) Rather than count the states with Resolves of Secession, why not simply link to the Confederacy at this level of summary account? "Rebelling states formed the Confederacy and fought on until spring, 1865." --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- That might be too short, and I'm not sure how it would integrate into the paragraph. I'll take your reply to mean you do think the extra clarifying sentence would be too long then. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Each southern state has its own pockets of Unionism, mostly in uplands and mountains. (Fantasies of guerrilla movements in the mountains require a sympathetic population, that it precisely where the population was not sympathetic to rebellion.) Rather than count the states with Resolves of Secession, why not simply link to the Confederacy at this level of summary account? "Rebelling states formed the Confederacy and fought on until spring, 1865." --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I like it, though I would remove the word "ultimately" and perhaps add the word "Southern" after "thirteen". --Philpill691 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Until and unless we can come up with further changes, I figure we should adopt an approach of minimal change to get Lincoln in. I'm close to implementing this:
Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, conventions in thirteen states ultimately declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians.
It mostly keeps what's already in place. Does anyone have any objection? VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Added with a minor tweak eliminating a comma. VictorD7 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Washington
I figure it might be easiest to tack the Washington sentence to the end of the Constitution paragraph, following the Bill of Rights sentence. I think it's important to identify him as the revolutionary army leader and first president. I also think we should mention his precedent setting voluntary relinquishment of power, since that was such a departure from how things were usually done in the world at the time, and highlights one of America's major contributions to global political development. Here's a two sentence proposal:
George Washington, who had led the revolutionary army to victory, was the first president elected under the new constitution. He set numerous precedents that shaped the country's future, including voluntarily relinquishing power after serving two terms, a rarity in the world at the time.
Thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think we'd want citation for the rarity part, as well as a link or source mentioning the other precedents. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, but since all this stuff is basic and verifiable, I figured we'd agree on text first and then worry about sourcing if necessary. The more pertinent question is whether it's too long. VictorD7 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that's just it. You say it's basic, but I'm unfamiliar with these other precedents. So I can't sign off on text that I don't know to be true. And I know it was a rarity in the world at the time, but just how rare? How many elected leaders even were there in the 1790s? In the entire time Washington was president, how many other leaders in the world voluntarily left power? It might be "a rarity" but it might also be completely unheard of. These are questions that need to be answered before I can sign off on the prose. --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. The ideal of Cincinnatus was not upheld by enlightened despots of the day. Maybe we could use Gary Wills' book, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment? --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am unsure myself as to the unprecedented nature of relinquishing power, either. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had already been doing so for quite some time. I will grant that was not their king, but there weren't exactly a ton of Republics kicking around at the time that come to mind. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- It might be better to say that Washington established precedents important to the United States. Even if he didn't establish the voluntary stepping down principle globally, he did do so for the United States himself, in so doing helping to define the relationship between the national leaders and the nation itself. He also established things like civilian supremacy over the military in the United States through his deferring to civilian leaders as commander in the Revolution, and resigning his commission and disbanding the Army at the conclusion of the Revolution, rather than maintaining a post-war commander role. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- "there weren't exactly a ton of Republics kicking around at the time" That's sort of the point. Heck, even contrast it with the French Revolution and Napoleon. There were calls to make Washington a king, which he rejected. There was sentiment among his officers, frustrated over ineptitude by the Continental Congress, to launch a military coup, which he defused. There were no presidential term limits at the time, so when an astonished King George III heard that Washington (the head of state, not the equivalent of the British PM at the time) was voluntarily stepping down from power, he said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." We take that for granted now, but it wasn't inevitable and was certainly a rarity (cautious language if anything) in the world back then. It'd be good if we could capture some aspect of that "Cincinnatus" impact he had in what admittedly little space we have. These characterizations are common in writing about Washington. I haven't read TVH's linked book, but it looks like it would probably be a good source. VictorD7 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, but since all this stuff is basic and verifiable, I figured we'd agree on text first and then worry about sourcing if necessary. The more pertinent question is whether it's too long. VictorD7 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and add the first sentence. I don't have time to dig up sources now, and don't have access to TVH's source, but if he or someone else wants to add some variation of the additional segment I'd likely support it. We should revisit this at some point since Washington deserves more mention than simply being the "first", but right now it's important to at least get the mention in. VictorD7 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I added it before the Bill of Rights sentence for chronological reasons. VictorD7 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Health by political preference
Consensus is firmly against using the material in question. --j⚛e decker 02:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are the graphics at correct representations of ? EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's one of the lamer cherry-picked political talking points you've tried to insert into the article (unless you're not proposing that, and are just shooting the breeze). First, it's not by "political preference", but state. A breakdown of health (or obesity, or many other metrics) by political affiliation would look a lot different. The leftist study authors assign political labels to the states. They claim that liberal states are "healthier" (according to subjective self reporting and average sick days taken) and assume this is because those state governments spend more money than "conservative" states. The conclusion's absurdity is illustrated by a glance at your liberal blog's own pictures, which show a huge spread among "conservative" states, with ones like Utah and Wyoming among the healthiest in the country. Going by your blog and the portion of the study I bothered to read, they apparently gave no consideration to variables like race (huge metric disparities within every state, but very different racial population ratios in different states, especially between New England and the Deep South), immigration status, or cultural aspects like....say...regional diet (minor details, I know). The "liberal" states only consist of New England and a couple of others, including New Mexico, which, geographically separated and ethnically different from the other liberal states, ranks much lower. I was amused to see states like Alaska and the Dakotas, which rank high in health, classified as "moderate". I was also amused to see states like California, which ranks relatively low, labeled "moderate". Nothing much to see here. VictorD7 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is already corroborated, and the source starts with a literature review. The review in the popular science press by a noted authority in the field was professionally edited by a staff with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The treatise states that it is preliminary only and that its limitations mean that it is not definitive in any way at this point. By the time we add all the "limitations" specified, I suspect it is of exceedingly limited utility here. The next part is that the MotherJones graphics elide the other likely bases for people's view of their own health -- such as climate, unemployment etc. NM and AZ are quite different politically, similar climatologically, and similar in view of health (in fact AZ outranks NM on that basis). On a statistically significant basis for assertion of any single reason for views of health, it fails. It is of anecdotal value only, and epidemiologists tend not to try making "correlation equals causation" arguments in any event. Were I to hazard a guess, the healthiest states all have relatively high hospital availability density (and doctor availability density) (that is percentage of population within 15 minutes of a hospital, and 15 minutes of a doctor). CDC has lots of stats onthat sort of stuff. Collect (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which specific passage in the text are you referring to, in relation to the literature review WP:SECONDARY introduction, and which example CDC statistics do you have? EllenCT (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I copied this to Talk:Politics_of_the_United_States#Health_by_political_preference for discussion of corresponding improvements there. EllenCT (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Inadequate and non-utile. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I am also interested in opinions which address the central point of the demography with specific reasons. EllenCT (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree with the opinions expressed above, more than one of which does not characterize the findings or their significance correctly. But some of them do have merit. Therefore I am going to try another RFC. Maybe it will work better this time than it has at Talk:Progressive tax.
How should and/or be summarized? EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- No use of them is needed hence no need to specify how they should be "summarized." The question presupposes a WP:consensus to use those sources. I note "motherjones.com" is not generally accepted as a source for claims of fact on Misplaced Pages, but only for opinions cited as opinions. The journal article is complex, and makes specific statements about its own limitations. And its conclusion section makes this abundantly clear - that there are several models which would cover the findings. Collect (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you say that Mother Jones is not generally accepted for claims of fact? They have a decades-long history of fact checking and editorial supervision, the reporter in question is a widely acknowledged expert on the subject matter, and both have a reputation for accuracy. The paper has a secondary literature review which does not agree with your characterization of it above. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I usually disagree with Collect, but this time I have to agree that these sources are a bridge too far for this article. Isn't there some other article where they'd be more topical? Homunq (࿓) 20:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs such as this one.
- Yes, there are several which have been suggested, but this is the only place where there has been any discussion forthcoming. The question was about how to summarize, but I am also interested in opinions about where to summarize. Thank you for the pointer. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, to, too, two far. The article has 3 paragraphs on health & healthcare in the US. They present a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE overview. The weeds of politics, as it impacts health & healthcare, are much too complex for a general overview article such as this one. – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Even if, as a risk factor, the magnitude is confirmed greater than obesity? EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- No Agree with Srich, Homunq, and Collect. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- No Not in this article. Rich and Collect have it right regarding Summary style and also the reliability of Mother Jones. AIRcorn (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, per Collect, et al. I've no real objection to Mother Jones depending, just not in this instance. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- They shouldn't be summarized I would support including a sentence or two about this topic of "who's healthier/happier/etc?" in the Politics of the United States article, but not here. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: As this thread opened on 1 April, we are approaching the 30 day default closure time. So far little/no support has been generated for using the material. Oftentimes the WP:SNOWBALL clause will allow for early closures, but this may not be a good thread for such a closure. With these factors in mind, EllenCT (as the original poster) may want to publicize this RFC on some WikiProject talk pages & generate more commentary. (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy is one such project page where a notice might be helpful.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: I have removed the rfc template – overall the discussion is now 30 days old; there is no support to use (other than from OP). Nor was there any effort to publicize this discussion/rfc as I had suggested. 17:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- None of the respondents answered the question. EllenCT (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- In terms of article improvement, the question is "do we want to use this particular material, and if so, how?" The answer so far is "No". – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the suggestions for WP:SUMMARY style articles. EllenCT (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- In terms of article improvement, the question is "do we want to use this particular material, and if so, how?" The answer so far is "No". – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
GA status removed
I find it appalling that this article has not reached the GA status on the English WP. May be a collaboration problem between editors? I am ready to contribute to the economy and technology sections but someone new should take the lead and make an updated "do-list" to get the USA article featured. See WP:FA for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're not the only one; the article was GA until mid-2012. Over the years it has just become gradually filled with tons of unsourced info and irrelevant details through incremental edits by various editors (something that plagues many former GA's/FA's), and had to be brought back to a better place. Collaboration between me and a few others has resulted in great progress in terms of streamlining and improving the content of various sections over the past few months, especially History, but we still have a ways to go. Right now we are not focused on expanding content nearly as much as we are focused on making everything clean and well-sourced. At our current relatively slow rate of progress I have a goal of submitting it for GA review by the middle or end of this summer. As for FA, that may be a less realistic goal as this article has failed several FA nominations for the past 8 years. Cadiomals (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It would help if editors would stop trying to push pseudo-centrist points of view between two manufactured positions, 1+1=3 and 1+1=4, when the reliable sources support 1+1=2. In such cases, WP:NPOV does not mandate 1+1=3, it mandates 1+1=2 featured prominently as a controversy, including citing the reliable sources and citing the organizations paying for the views opposed to the reliable sources as such. EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Time to start working towards GA again, and eventually to FA. We need to make sure that all the images have context, proper license and adhere to image use policy. references need to be checked and redundant mentions removed. Much work and we may not all agree on exactly how to best work towards GA but I am beginning and will attempt to collaborate with others even if we disagree on points.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article is no where near being GA. I will not support a GA review and the stability of the article would certainly gain a quick decline at this time. Far too many violations of policy and guideline for reasons that do not improve the article. This article is a horrible mess and barely meets the current rating.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's funny you should say this article is a "horrible mess" considering the state it was in just last October, shortly before I came around and pushed for its shortening and streamlining. As you can see for yourself, many sections bloated with excessive detail by tendentious editors, non-stop content disputes and more cluttered images. A few of the editors that had bloated the article over that past year fought me tooth and nail to keep all that content in. Since then I and just a few others have made huge progress overall, and you have pranced in at a time when the article is at its best in probably 2 years. This is not to say the article doesn't still have a long way to go or is anywhere near Good status, just thought you could use some perspective since you only just got here. Progress has already been made, and when work is done incrementally, section by section, over the next several months, the article will only get better over time. But there are absolutely no plans to submit it for GA review at this time. Cadiomals (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article is no where near being GA. I will not support a GA review and the stability of the article would certainly gain a quick decline at this time. Far too many violations of policy and guideline for reasons that do not improve the article. This article is a horrible mess and barely meets the current rating.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Time to start working towards GA again, and eventually to FA. We need to make sure that all the images have context, proper license and adhere to image use policy. references need to be checked and redundant mentions removed. Much work and we may not all agree on exactly how to best work towards GA but I am beginning and will attempt to collaborate with others even if we disagree on points.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Cadiomals, EllenCT and all other regular editors: please make a list of the sentences that need to be reviewed if you can and I am sure there are many competent editors here who are ready to help you get this article to GA status quickly (including myself may be). 67.87.50.54 (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest to list below some sentences that are controversial according to editors:
If not I will nominate this article for GA review in a month. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please definitely don't nominate it for anything. This article is no where near being done, let alone in a month. Cadiomals (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Images that lack relevance to the section or article
I replaced a number of images in preparation for GA review per Misplaced Pages:Image use policy "Content" (bolding for emphasis): " should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article."
General discussion
- For evaluation: Tesla-Soyuz in the context of the article victor falk 19:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's already being discussed below. By far the best new picture proposed for the Science section is a spaceship photo. Do we really want two spaceship section images? It's more appropriate there than here, plus it's a much better image. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't want two spaceship pictures; I propose Tesla-Soyuz. victor falk 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's already being discussed below. By far the best new picture proposed for the Science section is a spaceship photo. Do we really want two spaceship section images? It's more appropriate there than here, plus it's a much better image. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (cold war)
in the "Cold War and Civil Rights era" section there is no mention of Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev or Geneva in the article.
- (edtit for clarity) Ronald Reagan is mentioned in the prose with:"President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free-market oriented reforms.". So an image of Reagan would have context if it were attempting to illustrate that concept. But this simply added an image of Reagan with a different subject matter not discussed in the article. it would still appear that the bases of the argument to illustrate the article with images directly relevant still holds but that an image of Reagan, just to have an image of Reagan in some other manner wouldn't be acceptable and I still strongly feel that image is not relevant. But an image of Reagan in context to the mention would be fine and I would support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually that's still wrong. The following sentence reads Following the collapse of détente, he abandoned "containment" and initiated the more aggressive "rollback" strategy towards the USSR. That and the economic segment were one sentence, but victor falk split it up. A couple of lines later we have....The late 1980s brought a "thaw" in relations with the USSR, and its collapse in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. So the current picture is perfectly in context. In fact it represents the section better than anything else proposed. VictorD7 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, but....wasn't that added recently by another editor?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. You have me there. I don't know why I didn't catch that but I did not. You are 100% correct and I will strike out my comments. I owe you an apology VictorD7. You were right and I was very wrong on that part. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the image with one that has direct relevance to the article and section:
Support the removal, but the new pic is too small to really add any value. Suggest either
this image of two famous civil rights leaders or
an image of the March on Washington. Gamaliel (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh my....I could go for either of those images suggested by Gamaliel but if I had to choose I suppose the MLK and Malcolm X image has the better encyclopedic value....but then the other is pretty darn good as well. either would work for me though.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with the Warsaw Pact image is that it is a meeting of Warsaw Pact nations and thus has much less relevance to images directly pertaining to the US, such as the one with Reagan. I added a third image of MLK Jr., one which I remember being in the article for quite some time before being replaced. The image with Malcolm X is unfit for inclusion based on Mark's criteria because Malcolm X is not specifically mentioned in the body of the section. Cadiomals (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ronald Reagan is explicitly mentioned in the section. Did you not even read it? The late 1980s "thaw" in US/Soviet relations is also mentioned, so the current picture is perfectly in context. If we can only have one picture per section it should be Cold War related since the section spends more time on that than civil rights, and since that had more global impact than the domestic civil rights movements. VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I feel like I'm talking to myself. HELLO....HEllo...hello....ECHO...ECho...echo....Can I at least get someone to acknowledge that the section op's claim and premise is factually inaccurate? VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- LOL! No VictorD7, I have been trying to disengage from the dispute, but caught your comment below in the science section. If Reagan was mentioned I missed that and went over the section a number of times to find it. I will look again.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you had an image of Reagan, like a portrait and just captioned it with his name that would be fine, but mentioning Reagan is not license to stick in an image with different concepts not mentioned. But what still holds true is that we can add the context but just using any image because we feel it fits is not right. There has to be direct context, so...no, I wasn't entirely wrong with removing the image and replacing it with something that does have a direct mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- LOL! No VictorD7, I have been trying to disengage from the dispute, but caught your comment below in the science section. If Reagan was mentioned I missed that and went over the section a number of times to find it. I will look again.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I feel like I'm talking to myself. HELLO....HEllo...hello....ECHO...ECho...echo....Can I at least get someone to acknowledge that the section op's claim and premise is factually inaccurate? VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest the following Apollo-Soyouz picture:
File:Astp-S75-25823.jpg See better alternative below victor falk 00:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The 1970s are given very short shrift in the section, almost to the point of wp:undue. This picture restores the balance somewhat.
- It is hugely emblematic of both the Cold War and the Space Race and how those two things were tightly intertwined.
- It depicts an actual historical event, the first international space rendez-vous.
- It more than compensates for the removal of Armstrong's portrait in representing space exploration, which is by far the worst alternative for the science section.
- victor falk 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would argue that this image is of lower quality than the more profound images above. Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- victor falk 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer king and X. It really is an iconic image. If we go with Apollo–Soyuz, I would prefer a picture of a spacecraft, not of astronauts. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest we use a map of the Cold War to depict the overall situation described in the text by showing the truly global nature of the conflict:
-
This map shows the situation of the Cold War in 1959
-
This map is similar to the one to the left, except it is for 1980
-
This map also shows the Cold War in 1980, but gives China its own color, as well as some other differences
There are many maps of the Cold War on Commons, but I felt that these three were the best candidates. I would have to say the middle one is my favorite, as it depicts the situation with the guerrilla warfare and general competition in the third world (which is directly mentioned in the text) unlike the map to the left, and I generally like its color scheme more than the map to the right. Please give your opinion about whether a map would be the best image option for this subsection, and which map appeals to you the most. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly I think it's a bad idea to include a world map in a history of the United States. These would be much more relevant in a section which covers global/international history, not one on the United States. There's a broad variety of images we could include, but let's focus on what kind of image it ought to be, such as a photograph of persons, to narrow our focus. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Version of Apollo-Soyuz
- The 1970s are given very short shrift in the section, almost to the point of wp:undue. This picture restores the balance somewhat.
- It is hugely emblematic of both the Cold War and the Space Race and how those two things were tightly intertwined.
- It depicts an actual historical event, the first international space rendez-vous.
- It more than compensates for the removal of Armstrong's portrait in representing space exploration, which is by far the worst alternative for the science section.
- As User talk:Guy Macon points out, a spacecraft picture is better.
- It has historical artistic value, being painted in a typical 1970s style.
- Being a work of art, it makes for a more diverse and varied visual representation.
I like it. Relevant to both détente and the Space Race, and quite a unique image. Perhaps we should mention détente in the caption, such that it reads "The Apollo-Soyuz space rendezvous, one of the attempts to defuse tensions between the USA and the USSR during détente". --Philpill691 (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The détente is already mentioned in the body text, but would could pipe-link to it like this: The Apollo-Soyuz space rendez-vous, one of the attempts to defuse tensions between the USA and the USSR. victor falk 03:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, especially since we're probably going to end up with a (better) spaceship picture for the science section. Detente was a burp in Cold War history that turned out to be a mirage, but it's already been added to the text, which, along with the stagflation and Vietnam mentions, give the decade adequate coverage. Plus it's a freaking painting. VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- If we're going to get rid of "freaking paintings", there won't be much to illustrate anything before the Civil war. It being a painting is exactly the point, as it illustrates a period of modern art history in addition to its other merits. victor falk 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- We don't have good photos pre-Civil War, and I don't necessarily see being a specimen of modern art history as a plus. Since the section op failed to read the section and got his facts wrong, no reason has been presented to change from the current picture. VictorD7 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Strong support for Apollo-Soyuz painting It is difficult to pick an image that says "cold war", but I think this one nails it, plus it illustrates the space race and the 70s-style art illustrates the period of time we are talking about , which are nice bonuses. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Would you rather have a spaceship image here or in the science section? And how does a joint space photo op in the 1970s "nail" the Cold War? Seems more like a temporary exception. VictorD7 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose World maps For this kind of article, I don't like images that make no sense without looking at the key, I don't like having to compare multiple images, and it emphasizes the wrong thing - we need to show the US-USSR cold war, not something that happened in Africa --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion: How about we use one of the various images available of ICBMs? I would probably say either this or this would be the best option for this article. The constant threat of nuclear warfare was no doubt an important aspect of the Cold War, which is illustrated with either of these images. Thoughts? --Philpill691 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why is there an idea that we have to change the image of Reagan and Gorbachev in the first place when almost no one has actually complained about it? No one believes in "if it ain't broke don't fix it?" Not only is it relevant and violates nothing, it clearly portrays the major relationship between the two superpowers in the Cold War as the two heads of state sitting opposite each other, and the fact that it was never changed in a highly visible article is implicit approval. Remember we could potentially add any one of an endless variety of Cold War images but we have to narrow our focus lest we prolong this discussion indefinitely with endless suggestions. Cadiomals (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- As another editor has pointed out, it doesn't matter how we got to discussing this, what is important is that we are discussing it. Seeing that others do support the replacement...we should replace it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- It certainly does matter if the discussion started and occurred under false pretenses until now, though I appreciate you striking the claim at the top and admitting it was wrong. There's certainly no consensus for changing the status quo here. Best to move on and focus on other issues. VictorD7 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- As another editor has pointed out, it doesn't matter how we got to discussing this, what is important is that we are discussing it. Seeing that others do support the replacement...we should replace it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think an image of two politicians sitting with each other near the end of the Cold War is the most representative image we could use. I've disliked the present image for a while now but have't mentioned it until now. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just "two politicians sitting", it's iconic leaders of each side in a high stakes diplomatic give and take at the Cold War's climax. And I agree with Cadiomals. The picture is perfectly fine, so spending time, space, and energy on this is a waste when there's so much else going on here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Philpill691: If you did not like the current image and bit your tongue until now, that's perfectly fine. But suggesting more and more kinds of images we could add will not help us reach a consensus at all, it will prolong this discussion indefinitely. We now have everything from politicians to political meetings to civil rights leaders to space missions to maps and now to ICBM's. Cadiomals (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I like the painting and I could support it as well. You seem pretty keen on adding images but sure like to bitch when others do the same as you. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In short, I’m for the Reagan-Gorbachev photo for the Cold War, MLK and Malcolm X photo for Civil Rights, oppose Apollo-Soyuz space rendezvous for the Cold War, oppose use of multiple world maps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: The "painting" was used for a joint US-USSR postage stamp issue, and thus has particular significance for US-USSR co-operation. Collect (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- And such "cooperation" does not have much significance to the section. Plus it looks like the Science section is likely headed in a spaceship photo direction. VictorD7 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (income, wealth & poverty)
I removed an image from the "Income, poverty and wealth" section that had absolutely no releveance in anyway. Just a n image of random tract houses in San Jose.
]
- Remove,not illustrative of subject, poor esthetic quality. victor falk 05:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- This image is an attempt to portray how the American "middle class" generally lives, so loosely relevant to the Income, poverty and wealth section, but since it shows generic homes it wouldn't take away much if it was removed. Cadiomals (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The current picture is very long standing and was recently supported by consensus when someone tried to replace it. If we remove anything from the section it should be the stupid "productivity" graph that was added as a misguided political talking point before the section said anything at all about productivity when most responsible article stewards weren't paying attention, the lone productivity sentence now present and sourced to an obscure partisan think tank being added later as a lame ex post facto justification. I could live with both images being removed, though I don't see anything wrong with the housing picture as it illustrates a home type uniquely common to US society. VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Getting a better picture of how you make decisions with the partisan remark but if there is truly a consensus for the image just link the discussion here and I will accept that for the moment, but I will be adding the content to any image that remains to get over the hurdles needed for GA review.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I edit with neutrality in mind. Given your behavior here you're the last person who should be leveling ad hominem attacks. I said it was supported over a proposed replacement, most recently in a section that's still on the page and that you voted in, so I won't bother linking to that. Here was where it survived the previous attempt at replacement. I'm sure there have been others. VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not buying your neutrality with such remarks but if you can link one you can link the other.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not buying your good faith since the lie you led the Cold War section off with has been pointed out to you multiple times now and you've refused to retract it or even acknowledge the correction. VictorD7 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt your neutrality as your bias shows clearly but I still assume good faith and have not lied about anything and if anyone should retract something you need to retract that personal attack. Just point out what it is you want retracted and why as I disengaged as much as possible on this discussion and haven't been reading all the comments. If I erred, I will retract.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Being so quick to attack my neutrality isn't doing a very good job of assuming good faith. Regardless, your Cold War section lede, your entire rationale for trying to remove the image, claimed that Reagan isn't mentioned in the article, which he clearly is. Here are three different corrective comments: , , . The first two were direct responses to you; I even bolded key portions of the first in a later edit. VictorD7 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, now...we can't be arguing in a circle like this, because I could surely just say that your quick assumption of bad faith didn't give me faith in your neutrality. Lets move on. I believe you think you are being neutral, even if I don't see the same things as you.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Except I made no quick assumption, as my first unheeded link shows, but alright. Let's move on.VictorD7 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, now...we can't be arguing in a circle like this, because I could surely just say that your quick assumption of bad faith didn't give me faith in your neutrality. Lets move on. I believe you think you are being neutral, even if I don't see the same things as you.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Being so quick to attack my neutrality isn't doing a very good job of assuming good faith. Regardless, your Cold War section lede, your entire rationale for trying to remove the image, claimed that Reagan isn't mentioned in the article, which he clearly is. Here are three different corrective comments: , , . The first two were direct responses to you; I even bolded key portions of the first in a later edit. VictorD7 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Like the tract housing image until a graph on income distribution/disparity can be found, which seems to be the point of most of the narrative. The section would support one image in my view, unless our consensus is in these economics-financially related sections to allow one image and one graph per section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll note that this section still has issues and is likely to be further streamlined in the coming months. VictorD7 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- As TheVirginiaHistorian says, the section need picture illustrating disparity. I propose the pie chart to the left as a replacement image, as it complements the graph showing income development by showing wealth distribution. victor falk 01:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- This works for me as a replacement to tract housing. Again, the question arises whether these sections merit two images or one. One is my preference.
- This editorial choice for streamlining has particular relevance in the Geography section, or "spectacular geological feature" section showcasing remote terrain unrelated to political geography, depending on how it is to be rewritten with multiple (3+) images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I also share the opinion that the section should only have one image. The wealth concentration chart is pertinent, but we should probably find a more up-to-date one rather than one from 2007. Cadiomals (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- And it is a wealth chart, not an "income" chart. Wealth is notoriously even harder to measure than things like income or tax incidence, and this chart comes from one guy's calculations based on what he admits is his own methodology (there are alternative methods). In general we should avoid relying on a single study, much less a single author's calculations, for information purporting to be precise, much less give that info the elevated status and implied authority of a visual image. For those reasons I oppose this image, especially if it's to replace the perfectly fine current image. VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- The values of the pie chart correspond completely with the body text: Wealth, like income and taxes, is highly concentrated; the richest 10% of the adult population possesses 72% of the country's household wealth, while the bottom half claim only 2%. So we know now have two independent sources establishing that. victor falk 02:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's not an exact match, especially for the bottom 40%, which your chart only gives 0.2% to. But that text line probably shouldn't be there either. The section was greatly expanded and screwed up by a couple of posters a while back and now has all sorts of undue emphasis and source quality issues. Much of it needs to be deleted and/or rewritten for neutrality. Quick examples - the "inequality" growth since 1976 omits the pertinent fact that the starting date was the record low for "inequality". The "household income had been increasing" sentence needs rewriting to more accurately reflect the source's data, particularly to capture the mid 2000s rise sandwiched by recession dips currently misleadingly labeled "flat". It's questionable why the "inequality" adjusted HDI is emphasized in the article rather than the primary HDI (whether either merits the focus the index gets on Misplaced Pages is yet another discussion). I've already discussed the "productivity" graph, which was nothing more than a poorly conceived POV attempt at a political talking point designed more for emotive than rational impact. If we replaced any current image with a distribution chart, it should be that one. The section currently pounds the "inequality" theme hard, but there are other things we could add. We could add info on how historically climbs in the top 1%'s share of income have been associated with stronger economic growth and climbs in everyone's income in absolute terms (the 1970s weren't exactly an economic glory period), the past few years being an aberrational departure from that pattern (due to the combination of rising stock market and falling median income). We could restore material on how the US went from a higher unemployment rate than the EU during the postwar period to a lower unemployment rate since the 1980s. We could restore even more pertinent facts about how the US has the highest number of millionaires and billionaires in the world (and by some measures the most millionaires per capita), which seems like a basic, appropriate thing for the article to mention in a section with "wealth" in the title. We could restore the long standing description of living standards for American "poor" that cited Census data on things like home ownership, car ownership, and household appliances. Etc.. Or we could streamline things further. Since North Korea having a lower Gini rate than the US (meaning North Korea has more "equality") shows the limitations of focusing on relative equality over absolute living standards ("2%" goes a lot further in the US than in other countries, including most European ones), we could drop most of it, including the skewed historical trend presentation, and just spend a sentence or two pointing out that the US has a wider income distribution than typical European countries (mostly because it has more successful people stretching out the top; less quintile squishing). That would fairly cover what makes the US distinctive on that front without pounding the "inequality" theme to an undue, campaign like level. Replacing the current mainstream housing image with a "wealth distribution" chart would make the emphasis even more undue, particularly when it's been ripped from what amounts to some guy's glorified blog. VictorD7 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- And it is a wealth chart, not an "income" chart. Wealth is notoriously even harder to measure than things like income or tax incidence, and this chart comes from one guy's calculations based on what he admits is his own methodology (there are alternative methods). In general we should avoid relying on a single study, much less a single author's calculations, for information purporting to be precise, much less give that info the elevated status and implied authority of a visual image. For those reasons I oppose this image, especially if it's to replace the perfectly fine current image. VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I also share the opinion that the section should only have one image. The wealth concentration chart is pertinent, but we should probably find a more up-to-date one rather than one from 2007. Cadiomals (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- This editorial choice for streamlining has particular relevance in the Geography section, or "spectacular geological feature" section showcasing remote terrain unrelated to political geography, depending on how it is to be rewritten with multiple (3+) images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- And even if we did add a distribution chart, it should be income, not "wealth", since at least relatively more established, better known, less partisan outfits like the CBO do income distribution calculations. VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have no strong views on what should be included in this section, and obviously from your account different editors have very different views on what should. I just think that graphs and charts are more appropriate for a section on the economy than an example of typical American architecture. As far as I can make out the pie chart I found is correct and accurate enough, and having an illustration of wealth distribution seems adequate in a section titled "Wealth income & poverty". Now if this section was to be eliminated altogether, as I gather from what you're saying would be the wish of some involved editors, well that's another matter, and the illustrations would go away with it of course if consensus was reached for that. But as long as it's there, one cannot say "let's not include pictures in this part that we want to remove anyway", that could be considered disruptive editing. I just want to point one more thing: the 40% poorest have 0.2% and 50% have 2%, meaning the decile between 40 and 50 has 1.8%. victor falk 08:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't address any of my points, but I'm glad you don't have strong views on the matter. I'll just point out that the current picture doesn't so much represent "architecture" in style as much as typical home type, which is uniquely American, dovetails with the text segment on international comparative home size, and has educational value for international readers. By contrast a relative "wealth" chart, aside from its other deficiencies, can be misleading in an international context as it's devoid of absolute measures of wealth. Since the "inequality" campaign theme is already pounded to an undue degree in the section, let's not make it worse. I could think of countless other topics we could potentially display in chart form that don't reinforce the "inequality" theme (e.g. home size, millionaires/billionaires, living standards for US "poor", middle class living standards, caloric intake, entrepreneurial startups, international productivity, small business job creation, etc.). VictorD7 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have no strong views on what should be included in this section, and obviously from your account different editors have very different views on what should. I just think that graphs and charts are more appropriate for a section on the economy than an example of typical American architecture. As far as I can make out the pie chart I found is correct and accurate enough, and having an illustration of wealth distribution seems adequate in a section titled "Wealth income & poverty". Now if this section was to be eliminated altogether, as I gather from what you're saying would be the wish of some involved editors, well that's another matter, and the illustrations would go away with it of course if consensus was reached for that. But as long as it's there, one cannot say "let's not include pictures in this part that we want to remove anyway", that could be considered disruptive editing. I just want to point one more thing: the 40% poorest have 0.2% and 50% have 2%, meaning the decile between 40 and 50 has 1.8%. victor falk 08:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- And even if we did add a distribution chart, it should be income, not "wealth", since at least relatively more established, better known, less partisan outfits like the CBO do income distribution calculations. VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (science)
NO ACTION Agreement to use the luna-tics (Moon landing)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the "Science and technology" section I replaced an image with no relevance:
]
The above image was replaced with an image that has relevance:
thumb|left|American inventor Thomas Edison
- I have no feelings toward either image though I still prefer color. Both figures are prominent for their contribution to scientific achievements/milestones in American history. Cadiomals (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Neil Armstrong is not mentioned nor the fact that he was the first person to walk on the moon and I also feel his contribution is not actually so much a science feat but of human endurance. Neil Armstrong was not a scientist or even an inventor. He has almost no relevance to science or technology as he didn't build the rocket, he flew in it. He was an astronaut. A great man (I actually got to wave to him and the others still in their containment chamber as they passed by my house near the flight line in Hawaii when they were being transported back to the states after the splashdown), but of no relevance to the science and technology section. I have no opinion as to color or black and white images. It isn't a matter of what I like, but what has the most relevance to the section or article.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
]
- It illustrates
SCIENCE!!science, and not only a scientist. - The legend has links to important scientific concepts and inventions.
- By being an idiosyncratic immigrant Serbian American inventor, Nikola Tesla is a nice illustration of the US national character at its best.
- In contrast to most of the pictures that are mostly sedate, this image has a dynamism that is refreshing.
- It illustrates
- Tesla I prefer the Tesla picture to the others. Tesla's story is equal in prestige to the other presented options. Armstrong is notable primarily as a figurehead of something much bigger than he himself, and there is negative controversy around Edison for his bad attitude. I think Tesla is a more well-liked figure, plus as Victor falk says he represents the US immigration culture, plus the picture is much different from any other used in the article which is another positive factor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly support the status quo Armstrong photo. The section isn't a list of US scientists, it's a section about USA science and technology. Putting a man on the moon was an event of world shaking importance and scientific achievement, and the American who took those first steps is extremely notable. A US article would be deficient if he's not mentioned by name. That societal achievement is certainly more important than a drawing of a Tesla coil, and the picture is more informative than a mere personal portrait of Edison. The space race is explicitly mentioned in the section so the picture is perfectly in context. There is no rule that says every name and detail about a picture has to be in the text. VictorD7 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer Tesla over Armstrong or Edison, but better than any of them would be a picture of the LEM on the moon or of a Saturn 5 lifting off. More emphasis on the accomplishment, less on one of the men. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Per Guy's suggestion, I suggest this image. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about how certain readers may perceive this image. Tesla invented in the US but he was born to Serbian parents in Croatia. I can imagine some IP or other user coming on here and saying the image should be removed because Tesla was foreign-born and arguing that he is therefore not "American" because he wasn't American-born. I've encountered many people who can't grasp America's immigrant culture/history. Should "Serbian-American" be mentioned in the caption? Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Coverage of space is covered by Apollo-Soyuz image in the cold war section. @user:Cadiomals: I think you didn't read the caption correctly, it is not mentioned there that he is Serbian American (not that such a relatively minor detail should be either in this context). victor falk 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I know it isn't, that's why I asked if it should be mentioned based on my reasoning above. Cadiomals (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, there's sure as hell no consensus for making the Apollo-Soyuz painting the Cold War image. At best you're jumping the gun, falk. I like this Apollo 16 picture for the Science section. For one thing it's an actual photo, and not a drawing of a light show. It would be a shame to lose the first human to walk on the moon, but if we're going to change this image for whatever reason (I guess the heck of it), it's better to stick with the Apollo theme since that perhaps best illustrates a singular US high tech achievement. The manned space program represents a huge array of skill and knowledge from many different fields, so the picture illustrates a societal scientific achievement. VictorD7 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Holy crap on a stick! I didn't know we had that image. I !vote for the tesla image! Very much...er...or uh,...per Guy!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- In what universe is a partially fake black and white photo of a largely useless Tesla coil better for this section than a clear, beautiful color photograph of an Apollo lander sitting on the moon, especially when Tesla isn't mentioned in the section and the space program very appropriately is? VictorD7 (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand that either. Mark has repeatedly insisted that the subjects of images within sections be directly referenced in some way within the body and he has used that justification when he attempted to change or remove several images. But neither Tesla nor developments in electricity are mentioned in the section at all, and he is enthusiastically supporting that image? How can he just change his tune like that when he was trying to force others to abide by his narrow interpretation of the image guidelines in the first place? Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- My interpretation? No...the community consensus as to image use policy...yes. Now, I read that caption and wgree the image has been manipulated and will have to reverse my !vote on that based on the fact that the image is not real.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also still waiting for him to retract his false claim at the top of the Cold War section. VictorD7 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand that either. Mark has repeatedly insisted that the subjects of images within sections be directly referenced in some way within the body and he has used that justification when he attempted to change or remove several images. But neither Tesla nor developments in electricity are mentioned in the section at all, and he is enthusiastically supporting that image? How can he just change his tune like that when he was trying to force others to abide by his narrow interpretation of the image guidelines in the first place? Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- In what universe is a partially fake black and white photo of a largely useless Tesla coil better for this section than a clear, beautiful color photograph of an Apollo lander sitting on the moon, especially when Tesla isn't mentioned in the section and the space program very appropriately is? VictorD7 (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I know it isn't, that's why I asked if it should be mentioned based on my reasoning above. Cadiomals (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- While I am not directly opposed to the Tesla image itself, there is still no clear consensus for its inclusion. Tesla or electricity is not mentioned at all in the section. Neither the image or section explains how Tesla's experiments contributed to advances in understanding of electricity or electrical engineering (This image is also semi-fake since it is multiple exposure and these arcs did not all exist at the same time, but that is the least of it). Given Mark Miller's enthusiastic support for this image, he has yet to explain this apparent contradiction/inconsistency in his reasoning. So far there are 3 people in support of the Tesla image, 1 weak/lukewarm with support for an alternative, 2 not supporting it and 1 proposing an alternative. Given that the Armstrong image has existed here for over 1 1/2 years, retaining the status-quo is the norm so long as there is no agreement that it ought to be changed and what it ought to be changed to. Cadiomals (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- If anything, there might be more support for the Apollo 16 picture, though most haven't clearly weighed in yet.VictorD7 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Addition: In looking through the history of the article, I found that Tesla was mentioned in the section back in 2012 but some time later was removed altogether (But given that a mention of Tesla doesn't exist now and hasn't for a while Mark is still contradicting himself). Finding the specific diff would be like finding a needle in a haystack. I have no proof of this, but I have a feeling a user removed mention of him because he was foreign-born and not all his work was done in America. Tesla later gained citizenship and I don't agree with that mindset, but still, why add an image that would potentially cause that kind of disagreement? Cadiomals (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I find it slightly shocking that only pure-breed natural-born Americans are allowed in this article, I say. victor falk 20:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe that only natural-born Americans are allowed in this article. But that is the only reason I can really see for why someone would have removed that mention of Tesla when it used to be there. Cadiomals (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was pretty disgusting but coming from Cadiomals it isn't that shocking to me. The dude still can't shut up about me and even he has admitted over and over that we can add the context. He just doesn't like it I guess. I am seeing some owner ship issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Way to make it seem like I held those views when I clearly stated I didn't. I brought up the fact that Tesla was mentioned in the section some time ago but somewhere along the line was removed by someone, not me, and gave reasons as to why it could have possibly been taken out. If the Tesla image is added (still no consensus for it) then that sentence mentioning him should be re-added too, but it still doesn't change your contradiction regarding your requirements for context. Cadiomals (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The lunar module picture is an improvement over the Armstrong portrait, but it's not as good as the Tesla picture, as it is not as illustrative of fundamental scientific concepts. The Tesla image also has the advantage of extending the coverage of science in the section, while mentions of the moon landing are already made both in this and the cold war section, which makes it repetitive and redundant. victor falk 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be opposed to adding the lunar lander though I agree that with the space image you already proposed adding to History it would give a bit too much weight to space exploration, so it ought to be one or the other. So no one wants to add an image of Thomas Edison? At least a numbskull wouldn't be able to argue that Edison "isn't American" because he was born here and he has always been mentioned in that section from the beginning. Cadiomals (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is highly offensive.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's superior to the Tesla image because it represents a societal achievement rather than one man's. It also looks better, and isn't fabricated like the Tesla image. I'm not sure either really illustrate "fundamental scientific concepts", but at least the lunar landing really happened. Also, the Science section just mentions the "space race", not the moon landing. The History section mentions the moon landing but doesn't go into any detail. That's not much of a redundancy. You're allowed to mention something important in more than one section if it's pertinent. Having two spaceship images, on the other hand, would be a little much. Since this is a high tech feat it would be better to choose the clear photo over the kitschy 1970s painting. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be opposed to adding the lunar lander though I agree that with the space image you already proposed adding to History it would give a bit too much weight to space exploration, so it ought to be one or the other. So no one wants to add an image of Thomas Edison? At least a numbskull wouldn't be able to argue that Edison "isn't American" because he was born here and he has always been mentioned in that section from the beginning. Cadiomals (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I like space as a theme for the science section, man and mission is pictured at this Apollo 15 image. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I created a cropped version of this picture that looks better as a thumbnail. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's an even better one. I could live with that. Others should weigh in with what they think.VictorD7 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Science pic survey #1
- Agree to Apollo 15 thumbnail. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support, though I could live with the current Armstrong picture or either lander photo. VictorD7 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support as it depicts an actual scientific achievement, not just an individual who accomplished one. And I definitely think this article should have at least one space-related image. Not to mention it's a great looking photo. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Apollo 15 image. The cropped one looks better within the section in default thumbnail size. Cadiomals (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support (because i am a sheeple!:)...& because technology is better represented with an object or machine (not just persons.) 67.87.50.54 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a general consensus to use the Apollo 15 photo. All we need now is a caption. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Discussion (education)
NO ACTION Consensus to keep UV Rotunda imageThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the "Education" section I replaced an image with no relevance:
]
The above image was replaced with one that has relevance:
thumb|left|The united States Department of Education
- Oppose replacement. The USDoE is a generic image of a generic building, the UoV is significant for historical, educational, and architectural reasons. Gamaliel (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Now on this image there is actually a pretty easy solution but then just being easy doesn't mean it will gain consensus. What I would do if this image were to remain by the choice of editors would be to take the caption and add it to the prose in either the exact manner and then replace the caption with something more straight forward or leave the caption and add something similar and perhaps extended for relevance, to the section.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do whatever you want to the caption or body as long as the current image of (quoting from Gamaliel) "historical, educational, and architectural" significance is kept over that utterly bland image of a generic building which teaches the reader absolutely nothing about this country's educational heritage. Cadiomals (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Artistic opinion about the second image is irrelevant, however the "historical, educational, and architectural" significance is pretty relevant to our project goals so, rescuing
thisthe original image should have some importance per Gamaliel.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Artistic opinion about the second image is irrelevant, however the "historical, educational, and architectural" significance is pretty relevant to our project goals so, rescuing
- Do whatever you want to the caption or body as long as the current image of (quoting from Gamaliel) "historical, educational, and architectural" significance is kept over that utterly bland image of a generic building which teaches the reader absolutely nothing about this country's educational heritage. Cadiomals (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Whatever generic office building the Dept of Education is currently in has essentially no relevance to the state of education in the U.S. --Jleon (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose replacement because the current picture clearly does have relevance. VictorD7 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose replacement. Education happens in schools, not regulatory agencies. Putting the emphasis on a government building is like illustrating farming with the office building holding the department of agriculture or illustrating space exploration with the office building holding NASA, or Wall Street with the office building holding the commerce department. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Guy has this down pretty well.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose replacement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose replacement A picture of a unniversity is relevant in an education section. victor falk 13:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (health)
In the "Health" section I removed an image with no relevance to the article or section:
- What sort of "context" would you need for this image to be acceptable to you? I and others already consider it relevant since it is a Health center within the Health section, the largest in the world mind you, but of course you need some sort of specific mention. What should be added to the body or the caption? Cadiomals (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again...this isn't about me or "others". I am not convinced this image is needed at all and that we should worry about adding any context for it. Its just the aerial view of a building that could be a library, an arena or anything really. What the section needs is something with direct relevance to the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Its just the aerial view of a building that could be a library, an arena or anything really."
- But it isn't, is it? It specifically states in the caption that the image is of the Texas Medical Center, the world's largest medical center, a crown jewel of America's (however imperfect) healthcare system, and portraying its degree of sophistication. Would the Dept. of Education building which you proposed adding, not look like any old office building if it wasn't specified in the caption? And what, if anything, would that image teach the readers about the state of education in the US? I'm trying to only discuss content here but I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your view of "relevance". Cadiomals (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, it has no relevance to the article. This medical center is not mentioned, nor is downtown Houston.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with user:Cadiomals, I think user:Mark Miller is basing his strict understanding of "relevant" upon the criteria for using copyrighted pictures, that must be critically discussed in conjunction with the text in order to pass fair use (since we're using public domain picture those guidelines obviously don't apply). victor falk 06:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why would you think that? You asked on my talk page and I answered with the same policy as I placed at the beginning of this thread. Image use policy does state that images should reflect the content. I am fully aware of the differences btween NFCC and image use policy and have been good enough to explain it. So I have no idea why you just ignored that and continue to accuse me of using NFCC.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the reply on your talk page. Glad that's cleared up though. victor falk 07:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again...this isn't about me or "others". I am not convinced this image is needed at all and that we should worry about adding any context for it. Its just the aerial view of a building that could be a library, an arena or anything really. What the section needs is something with direct relevance to the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. Medical centers are relevant to the topic of health, and this one is the largest. Enough said. --Jleon (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal. This is a pretty generic image. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose removal for reasons given. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support the removal as the nominator.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose removal, alternate Texas Medical Center image is too dark. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for this section. There are some disadvantages to this image, in that Jonas Salk is not yet mentioned in the text, so we'd have to update it, and it does feature a single person, but I suggest it because Salk is one of the most representative figures of American health innovation and because the polio vaccine and vaccinations in general are one of the great achievements of the American health system. Gamaliel (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- This proposal is in the right direction. "Salk" does not have to be explicitly named in the body text, it is sufficient that the image is clearly related to health care. victor falk 15:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- While Salk is a notable health figure from the past, the Texas medical center image is also notable as it is the largest in the world and does a good job of portraying the sophistication and advancement of the US health system today. There are many users already in favor of keeping the current image, but I agree that Jonas Salk is very notable, there does not need to be a specific mention of him in the body for it to be relevant, and I certainly won't fight it if a consensus builds to include that image. The only concern I have is that the Health section mostly talks about the state of health in the US today. Cadiomals (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (statue of liberty)
In the "Culture" section I removed an image that had no relevance and also seemed to be a glittering generality out of place in that section:
- Put Statue of Liberty somewhere Culture seems not to be an inappropriate place. Americans themselves have talked about freedom without stopping since the founding of the country, and the Statue of Liberty is one of the best known symbols of the United States internationally. Any depiction of the Statue of Liberty is inherently descriptive of American culture perhaps more than any other symbol. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Find a place for the Statue of Liberty, but not here. I really doesn't relate to culture. Immigration maybe? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the problem is with the caption. As the body text says "Mainstream American culture is a Western culture largely derived from the traditions of European immigrants with influences from many other sources, such as traditions brought by slaves from Africa. More recent immigration...". The legend should reflect that, perhaps mentioning it is a gift from France and how it was the first sights of immigrants coming by boat. victor falk 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Find another location I would disagree that the caption is the issue as this was a gift to the US, designed and built in Paris, France and has little to noting to do with US culture. It was based on similar statues of Libertus from ancient Rome and really this is just in the wrong place.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with Blue Rasberry and victor falk. The United States admits more legal immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined. The greatest port of entry for over a century has been New York City. "The United States is home to many cultures and a wide variety of ethnic groups, traditions, and values." from all over the world. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants, the iconic representation of the United States and that port of entry is the Statue of Liberty as an exemplar to the world, the symbol of the liberty found in a welcoming America unavailable in so many home countries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (culture)
Closing per snowball. Maleko Mela (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a subsection of the "Culture" section, "Literature, philosophy, and the arts" I removed an image that had no relevance and was also making an innacurate claim. Times square is not the hub of the theatre district and it only depicts flashy billboard ads and no theatres from the actual theatre district:
]
- Though I wouldn't cry if it went away, instead of removing the image, how about changing the caption to "Broadway show billboards in Times Square" rather than the inaccurate claim that it is the "hub" of the Theater District? Or do you still not consider the image to be of any value? Cadiomals (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is not encyclopedic and what does not represent culture. If we are going to add an image that reflects theatre, then it should be an image of Broadway or even any regional theatre from across America. It isn't that hard. I can even supply an image from one of the United States largest and most important regional theatres. But what is important is to have an image that represents something from the article or section and this is just nothing but a random image used because it shows a billboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, many years ago, Times Square was lined with theatres. There are still two major historic ones on 42nd St. and several more on 44th and 46th Streets. Times Square comprises several blocks along Broadway and Seventh Avenue and is not just "the place with ads." Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. Times Square is the hub of the theater district, regardless of how many theaters are directly located on it. --Jleon (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Look at the advertisements. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mark was concerned about the "inaccurate" statement in the caption. I would change it to "Billboards for various Broadway shows in Times Square" if it is kept. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- It appears to show at least two theaters, by the way. Not "billboards" on their marquees. Collect (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Times square is not the hub of theatre in New York. it isn't a true depiction of theatrical culture. It actually does not show any theatre that I am aware of but if Collect can demonstrate that it would at least be appreciated.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- New York's theater district is centered around Times Square, and "Broadway" is a metonym for theater in the city, so if that doesn't qualify it as the "hub" then I'm not sure what would. Also, Collect is right, both the Palace and Sage theaters are visible in the photo. It's worth noting, however, that the photo is actually of Seventh Avenue, but it's near the very center of the Theater District. --Jleon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The image shows advertisements for the following Broadway plays:
- Shrek The Musical
- Jersey Boys
- Hair (musical)
- Rock of Ages (musical)
- Unknown (looks a lot like I Robot. does anyone recognize this?)
- South Pacific (musical)
- West Side Story
- Wicked (musical)
- The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)
- Our Theater District, Manhattan article says
- "New York City's Theater District (sometimes spelled Theatre District, and officially zoned as the "Theater Subdistrict") is an area in Midtown Manhattan where most Broadway theatres are located, as well as many other theaters, movie theaters, restaurants, hotels, and other places of entertainment. It extends from West 40th Street to West 54th Street, from west of Sixth Avenue to east of Eighth Avenue, and includes Times Square." (emphasis added). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like this long-standing (by several years) image will be kept as there is no consensus for its removal and clear opposition. The image is a fair representation of the richness and variety of American theater even if it doesn't show the inside of one. Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The image shows advertisements for the following Broadway plays:
- New York's theater district is centered around Times Square, and "Broadway" is a metonym for theater in the city, so if that doesn't qualify it as the "hub" then I'm not sure what would. Also, Collect is right, both the Palace and Sage theaters are visible in the photo. It's worth noting, however, that the photo is actually of Seventh Avenue, but it's near the very center of the Theater District. --Jleon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Times square is not the hub of theatre in New York. it isn't a true depiction of theatrical culture. It actually does not show any theatre that I am aware of but if Collect can demonstrate that it would at least be appreciated.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have seen the theaters there, IPOF, so was quite sure they were there <g>. And the northern end is properly "Duffy Square". Collect (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is Times Square the intersection (which is to the South of this) and then there is the Times Square district (of which this is a part). Therefore, the present caption is accurate, IMO. --Jleon (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. If the convention is to allow iconic personages, Twain is good here, Edison in Science section. If two images is not the consensus for these subsections, then remove Twain image here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (sport)
In the "Sports" section I did not have time to replace the image there that has no relevance But as Phelps is not mentioned it should be replaced, probably by a baseball pic: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talk • contribs)
Suggested replacement. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's actually funny because this was the image I was considering. I agree with this as a replacement.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The first image above was long-standing by a few years before it was replaced by the Michael Phelps image around 2 years ago, and it should pass Mark's narrow view of "relevance" since American football is specifically mentioned within the section. The second image preceded it back in 2008 when this was a "Good" article. There is no rule that says a specific famed sports figure must be showcased. This would be considered common knowledge to an American, but there are still plenty of sources which show that American football is deeply ingrained into modern American culture, nowadays even more so than baseball, so it would be a fair representation of American culture to re-add this. Cadiomals (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- You might want to stop misrepresenting me. Per WP:WIAPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.". So put up or shut up.
- Long standing or not I think the Babe Ruth image is iconic and a better image to use here.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I personally interpret this as saying that an image of a dead baseball player, however iconic and famous he was in the past, is more relevant to the Sports section than an image portraying a sport which is a huge part of modern American culture, and a billion dollar industry which tens of millions of Americans spectate, even more than baseball. Again, that is how I interpret it, feel free to correct me. But in any case I guess we'll just wait for others' input. At least here you can't argue that the subject of the image "lacks relevance" because it is not mentioned in the body, you simply don't prefer it. Cadiomals (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing to correct. Your interpretation here is merely an opinion. I don't have to argue against your suggestions, just the original image. Any of the new suggestions do have relevance...just as you stated.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I personally interpret this as saying that an image of a dead baseball player, however iconic and famous he was in the past, is more relevant to the Sports section than an image portraying a sport which is a huge part of modern American culture, and a billion dollar industry which tens of millions of Americans spectate, even more than baseball. Again, that is how I interpret it, feel free to correct me. But in any case I guess we'll just wait for others' input. At least here you can't argue that the subject of the image "lacks relevance" because it is not mentioned in the body, you simply don't prefer it. Cadiomals (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
--Mark Miller (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Prefer any contemporary image from a team sport The major impact of sports in America today is more as an entertainment industry than a personal experience of any single athlete. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer one of the football images. The fact is that today football is a more influential aspect of American culture than baseball, and certainly Olympic swimming. Of these two football images I would probably prefer the top one, as it is more clear what is happening without closer examination. --Philpill691 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll note that Olympic medals are specifically mentioned in the section too, so I don't see a basis for removing the current picture or how deleting the noteworthy fact that an American is the most decorated Olympian in history improves the article. Maybe someone can explain that to me. VictorD7 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with your general viewpoint, but would you be opposed to the current image's replacement by American football, the biggest spectator sport in the country and more representative of its sports culture? Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- At this point yes. I agree football is the most popular sport, but that would still be a more niche portrayal. The current picture deftly blends an informative specific name mention with a vagueness regarding specific sport that accurately captures the dominance resulting from America's long standing serious cultural emphasis on athletics generally. By replacing the picture we'd lose the noteworthy "most decorated Olympian" mention and create a new problem: Whose team do we show? Phelps represents the entire country, but football teams are sectional, and, as a rabid football fan myself, I'll warn you that choosing a particular team could lead to rivals seeking to replace the image with a preferred one. I think I remember seeing that happen when it's been a football picture before. Update - I see the caption does call him a swimmer (I was thinking it didn't; maybe I remembered an old version), but my point still stands that he represents the country rather than a region and the mention illustrates the USA's athletic emphasis discussed in the article. That said, if the picture is replaced, I'd prefer it be football than anything else. And between the two football proposals I prefer the first one, because, as Phil said, its action is clearer. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with your general viewpoint, but would you be opposed to the current image's replacement by American football, the biggest spectator sport in the country and more representative of its sports culture? Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Football. Pick a great-looking action shot. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I ain't a sports fan but I did some research and football has overtaken Baseball as the number 1 US sport, so I would support any one of these football images for the section.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Football for current events in this section for a one-image only policy, baseball if there were a history sports section. One of each, football and baseball, if these sections are to have two images. Americans are predominantly team sports players, individual sports such as swimming and wrestling are typically styled "minor sports" in collegiate athletic departments... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, noting the absence of blacks in the imagery of this article, why not Jackie Robinson? An extraordinary person on several levels. ( may be under copyright, but this is not a commercial use, is nice as showing him in a Negro League uniform)) (lots of images IIRC). I am pretty sure other images are available. Collect (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that most people here seem to prefer a football picture. Does anyone have a good reason not to use one of the football pictures? I'm of the opinion that football is much more relevant to American culture (the subject of this section) than any aspect of the Olympics. An individual earning the most medals in an international sporting event really isn't that relevant to a section on overall American culture. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Babe Ruth Greater enduring notability and educational value more fit for an encyclopedia. victor falk 23:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (Crime and Law enforcement)
This image:
was replaced with this one:
Cadiomals (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep the cop carSupportSFPDNYPD motorbikes, illustrative of law enforcement, good informative caption with link to important police department. victor falk 06:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Victor falk: You changed your mind, but kept the rest of your statement as if the SFPD image has a "good informative caption" with a link to an "important" police department. Why pick a random police force like the SFPD over one of the largest, most well funded and sophisticated municipal police departments in the world? I will see if I can find some good images in the Commons which include both NYPD officers and their vehicles if that is what's desired. Cadiomals (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The caption can be amended to SFPD: Law enforcement in the U.S. is maintained primarily by local police departments. The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is a large metropolitan one. victor falk 09:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- "The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is a large metropolitan one."– Mentioning and including a random PD like this is much less educational than mentioning the largest and most highly funded PD in the country. Doing so would also give random editors an opening to keep changing the image to one depicting a PD they prefer. Like I said, I will try to find better images of the NYPD tomorrow. Cadiomals (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Victor falk: You changed your mind, but kept the rest of your statement as if the SFPD image has a "good informative caption" with a link to an "important" police department. Why pick a random police force like the SFPD over one of the largest, most well funded and sophisticated municipal police departments in the world? I will see if I can find some good images in the Commons which include both NYPD officers and their vehicles if that is what's desired. Cadiomals (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is another one very similar to the SFPD one but more clear. Cadiomals (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the police car image. It is mentioned in the section that law enforcement is primarily handled by local departments, so there does seem to be enough context for the car image. Plus it seems far more relevant to crime and law enforcement overall than the seal of the FBI, which really gives nothing to the reader. --Philpill691 (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. A photograph of a police car or officers is far more appropriate than a law enforcement logo. --Jleon (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Police car. Either NYPD or LAPD. ==Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- It would have to be NYPD since it is the largest municipal police department in the nation and so has more significance. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- No it doesn't have to be anything. But if the police are to be the image used I would prefer an image of an officer not a car. I am going to suggest one of my images here:
- It would have to be NYPD since it is the largest municipal police department in the nation and so has more significance. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
At least this actually depicts real people in law enforcement.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You can barely see any detail in that image. But in these (just picked off the NYPD article) you can and it's still the largest city police department (over just picking some random city)... I'll see if I can't find more or better ones. Cadiomals (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
For a realistic take on everyday police work in the US, how about this one? Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Ha ha :) But no, seriously, it's annoying how we are now wasting time trying to figure out a replacement for a long-standing cop car image that was here for two years and no ever complained about because a single person wanted it to be changed. How are you feeling about that NYPD motorcycle one? Look okay? Cadiomals (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's a waste of time to worry about other editors or why we ended up at this point. I don't think there's anything wrong with reassessing the image use in one of Misplaced Pages's most important articles, regardless of how the discussion got started. That said, if we're all pretty much agreed on this particular one, maybe we can consider tabling this sub-discussion. I think using an example of every day police work for the image for this section is a good idea, but I'm pretty indifferent to which particular one is used. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Since there is clear consensus here that virtually no one wants the FBI seal and wants some sort of depiction of law enforcement vehicles/officers, the motorcycle NYPD image should be good at addressing everyone's concerns. We have to check something off the list eventually. Cadiomals (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's a waste of time to worry about other editors or why we ended up at this point. I don't think there's anything wrong with reassessing the image use in one of Misplaced Pages's most important articles, regardless of how the discussion got started. That said, if we're all pretty much agreed on this particular one, maybe we can consider tabling this sub-discussion. I think using an example of every day police work for the image for this section is a good idea, but I'm pretty indifferent to which particular one is used. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
[moved below to generate discussion ¨00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)~
- (@cadiomals 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)) *I don't see why it has to largest P.D. from an an encyclopedic point of view. But I understand and share your concern about attracting change if the picture is not special in some kind of way. A one thing that attracts that is blandness, therefore a picture of cool motorcycles is better, and that's why the SFPD is good, because it is interesting visually. I think I found the ideal picture, because it shows the NYPD interacting with the public naturally:
- victor falk 12:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)~
- This picture of a NYPD Motorcycle Police Officer shows an actual policeman doing actual police work. victor falk 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The image directly above looks somewhat blurry and washed out. Looking at the original source it an old image taken with a lower quality camera and scanned from a slide. The other image is crisp, Hi-def, and shows multiple officers. It addresses everyone's concerns. You don't really have a problem with it do you? Cadiomals (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which image do you mean, Cadiomals (please link to it like this to avoid any confusion & for reference; thx. )? victor falk 03:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- This one, sorry I didn't clarify earlier. To me it is not blurry and washed out like the single NYPD motorcycle image, and not too far away to make out any detail like the SFPD image. Cadiomals (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I could go with that one or the SF PD image, but I am still very concerned about undue weight to New York in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is not intentional, a lot of things significant to the US as a whole just happen to be found in New York. New York is the place where a national tragedy occurred, where the UN international headquarters is located, the Statue of Liberty is the national symbol for freedom (but that one is probably getting removed based on discussion here), and the city is arguably the center of American theater culture. I reason that a law enforcement image ought to be of the largest department because if the image isn't particularly noteworthy I can see random editors changing it to one of their preferred PD, but this is only a presumption of mine. Cadiomals (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I could go with that one or the SF PD image, but I am still very concerned about undue weight to New York in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- This one, sorry I didn't clarify earlier. To me it is not blurry and washed out like the single NYPD motorcycle image, and not too far away to make out any detail like the SFPD image. Cadiomals (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- We seem to have a clear consensus that the NYPD car is not flying, and the SF motorcycle division pic has gained some support.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree the car pic is not ideal, but the SF motorcycle brigade pic is not much better. The pic of the three officers is the best I've seen thus far. --Jleon (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- There was a desire expressed to include a picture of both law enforcement officers and vehicles, so I tried to satisfy this by finding the one below (moved down from above, not sure if you noticed it). Cadiomals (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- It was a good choice and I support that as well, but as I said....I am still concerned about the undue weight of New York being too much.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- There was a desire expressed to include a picture of both law enforcement officers and vehicles, so I tried to satisfy this by finding the one below (moved down from above, not sure if you noticed it). Cadiomals (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree the car pic is not ideal, but the SF motorcycle brigade pic is not much better. The pic of the three officers is the best I've seen thus far. --Jleon (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The image directly above looks somewhat blurry and washed out. Looking at the original source it an old image taken with a lower quality camera and scanned from a slide. The other image is crisp, Hi-def, and shows multiple officers. It addresses everyone's concerns. You don't really have a problem with it do you? Cadiomals (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support NYPD car Throughout the United States, most law enforcement interface with the public is by lone officers of local governmental jurisdictions in a marked police vehicle. Centralia, Missouri, is at the geographical center of the lower 48, if someone is looking for an alternative to NYPD, I suppose, but I think that is unnecessary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose FBI versus local police car, as FBI is a symbol of the national police forces, they are severely restricted in their jurisdiction, oppose --- unless the consensus for these sections allows for two images per section. Then an FBI illustration of some description would be appropriate alongside the first image representing local law enforcement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support NYPD Motorcycles Showing police officers actually on patrol. victor falk 01:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Question: I've only casually followed this discussion so far, haven't participated yet, and don't really oppose any of these pictures (maybe the doughnut one, lol), but what was the rationale for changing the picture again? Most cops around the country use cars, not motorcycles. Was it just that there were no people visible in the old picture? If so, are there no pictures of cops and cars in the commons? VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Cardiomals noted the NYPD cop car was replaced with the FBI shield. The current image shows a motorcycle cluster of policemen at a stop light, --- not representative of much of anything but a shift change at a downtown precinct in the rare jurisdiction which uses motorcycles rather than patrol cars. I don't believe motorcycles are even representative of NYPD patrols, they would be an arm of the traffic division. Motorcycles are cool, just not for this purpose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't particularly dislike the motorcycle pic, but I would prefer a car image for the reason Victor stated. If for whatever reason you don't like the original car image, alternatives can be found here, but I do think that a car image should be used, and that the original car image is about as good as we have. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I will restore the car image if nobody provides a good reason not to do so soon. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Done. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Illustrations for the geography section
We need more images to illustrate the beauty of the landscape in the US. Besides the US has a diversity of climates that is unique. This needs to be shown on the main article's page.
This is my choice so far but I welcome any proposition to add more (may be four in total?)
What say you?67.87.50.54 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is simply not enough room in this particular article to add that many images without overcrowding. We need to be selective and prioritize. At most one more could be squeezed in to the Geography section, and that is already much. Geography of the United States contains a rich variety of images and you can feel free to add more there. Cadiomals (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please look at Switzerland or other countries' articles. I don't think it is as cluttered as you suggest. Specially if you use a gallery format. Besides diversity of climate is more fundamental characteristic of a country than sport in my opinion. I am trying to accommodate both views here; may be by using a composite picture or only two pictures? Any more suggestions? Thanks. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Now here is where I would propose removing an image, namely that of the Grand Canyon. This is WP:UNDUE at its most extreme, because there are far too many diverse natural landscapes across the United States worthy of imaging in this article. I'm going to remove this for now because it really adds clutter, and there is no consensus to keep it. Castncoot (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- And I wouldn't use the Hawaii pic. It lacks too much information on the image page and may have copyright issues. Seems to have been uploaded by the copyright holder that is not exactly clear and if this has been previously published and may need OTRS for verification.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Of all three of these images I do prefer the Grand Canyon image and have no idea what Castncoot is talking about..--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, let me explain, Mark Miller. You see, there is no consensus for this particular image as of yet. I am therefore going to delete this image for now; however, if one develops, then that would be the way to go. How about the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee, the most-highly visited national park in the U.S.? Or how about the Olympic National Forest in Washington State? Oh, wait - how about the Everglades National Park in Florida? Does the Grand Canyon hold a more iconic status than these others? Let's get a consensus for which image to use here, if any. My preference would be not to put one here for this very reason of a WP:UNDUE conflict, compounded by the spatial limitation. Castncoot (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Castncoot thanks for replying. What I don't understand is the assumption that an image is "undue weight" or even the discussion or mention. To me, undue weight is seeing New York all over the page with excuses that it is the largest in the US. This isn't a book of national records or who is the biggest or the best. It should cover the subject broadly and to me the Grand Canyon has a good deal of history that shows that it could well be mentioned. We have already established in other discussions here that what is iconic is not necessarily the best choice or the first choice of editors. If we had to adhere to that then it would have to be an image of Yellowstone or Yosemite. See...I do know something about national park history. I lived in Yosemite Valley for nearly three years but my love and appreciation for Yosemite does not mean I should push that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I wonder which other park people might be interested in seeing displayed in that one spot, if any. My own second choice, after none, would be the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, specifically for the aforementioned reason. Castncoot (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Castncoot thanks for replying. What I don't understand is the assumption that an image is "undue weight" or even the discussion or mention. To me, undue weight is seeing New York all over the page with excuses that it is the largest in the US. This isn't a book of national records or who is the biggest or the best. It should cover the subject broadly and to me the Grand Canyon has a good deal of history that shows that it could well be mentioned. We have already established in other discussions here that what is iconic is not necessarily the best choice or the first choice of editors. If we had to adhere to that then it would have to be an image of Yellowstone or Yosemite. See...I do know something about national park history. I lived in Yosemite Valley for nearly three years but my love and appreciation for Yosemite does not mean I should push that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, let me explain, Mark Miller. You see, there is no consensus for this particular image as of yet. I am therefore going to delete this image for now; however, if one develops, then that would be the way to go. How about the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee, the most-highly visited national park in the U.S.? Or how about the Olympic National Forest in Washington State? Oh, wait - how about the Everglades National Park in Florida? Does the Grand Canyon hold a more iconic status than these others? Let's get a consensus for which image to use here, if any. My preference would be not to put one here for this very reason of a WP:UNDUE conflict, compounded by the spatial limitation. Castncoot (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Of all three of these images I do prefer the Grand Canyon image and have no idea what Castncoot is talking about..--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- And I wouldn't use the Hawaii pic. It lacks too much information on the image page and may have copyright issues. Seems to have been uploaded by the copyright holder that is not exactly clear and if this has been previously published and may need OTRS for verification.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Now here is where I would propose removing an image, namely that of the Grand Canyon. This is WP:UNDUE at its most extreme, because there are far too many diverse natural landscapes across the United States worthy of imaging in this article. I'm going to remove this for now because it really adds clutter, and there is no consensus to keep it. Castncoot (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I would agree that the Grand Canyon is a bit too facile and predictable, it would serve our users better if we came up with something a little odder yet encyclopedic. Since we have a picture of fauna in the form of the Bald Eagle, how about a flora image, like the giant sequoia, Sequoiadendron giganteum? victor falk 04:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why would we use a tourist snapshot of some dude between to big trees? Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose more than two images per section in these modern topical subsections. The satellite image is very good at illustrating the geographical diversity of the continental expanse, if there is to be only one image, that would be my pick. Most of the U.S. population is situated along coasts and rivers. Perhaps since the Hampton Roads combined ports in Virginia have exceeded the New York Ports Authority in shipping volume, it would be the best pictured.
- In any event, Mt. McKinley, a stretch of isolated volcanic island beach and the Grand Canyon are spectacular isolated geological features unrelated to the political geography of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 9:02 am, Today (UTC−4) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- This section would benefit from more images of nature beyond the satellite photo, which for all excellent that it is, is just merely a map. That's why the bald eagle, illustrating fauna, should be completed with a picture of flora or geographical/natural features. The section is long enough to have room for another picture. victor falk 13:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- As for nature, most live in coastal bands along the major oceans (though not on the beach), then the population can be found in uplands, rolling country of plateaus or piedmont. Nature is not only remote and isolated, --- and in any case there is a distinction between notable geological landmarks and the geography which is representative of the country and its inhabitants. The Shenandoah National Forest has both Northern and Southern forest varieties of flora and fauna.
- Indigenous flora would be a hard one to picture in that the continent is so diverse. although roses are pretty universal icons throughout the country around Valentine's Day -- probably there is a florist or gardening association which can tell us what the most popular flower is in America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently Reagan declared the rose to be the US national flower in 1986: National_flower#United_States. victor falk 07:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- TheVirgiaHistorian's picture is perfect for an illustration of rose as the national flower. victor falk 12:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Indigenous flora would be a hard one to picture in that the continent is so diverse. although roses are pretty universal icons throughout the country around Valentine's Day -- probably there is a florist or gardening association which can tell us what the most popular flower is in America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- May I suggest a photo-montage instead? I let you choose the pics (main thing: it has to be pretty and diverse). My 2 cents! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- @67.87.50.54:, discussion of another proposal of a photo-montage seems to indicate that photo-montages are not desirable. victor falk 14:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- May I suggest a photo-montage instead? I let you choose the pics (main thing: it has to be pretty and diverse). My 2 cents! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
First sentence text flow
The first sentence:
"The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), the States or simply "America"
Has been edited in a manner that does not flow well. The meaning of US is "United States", so the logical flow of the text should be "(U.S.), the States" and then a singular word would truly be "or simply "America".
Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC):
- Simple solution: Remove "the States" and end any conflict. AbelM7 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not as simple as you seem to think.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why would you remove "the States"? It's used widely enough to warrant addition in my opinion. I also want to inform both of you of nearly edit warring and WP:3RR. Bluefist 06:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Noted, but let me also remind you that reverting with no apparent reasoning is not acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- What is this in reference to? Bluefist 06:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- AbelM7's first change. It simply made no sense and goes against reasoning.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, it should be changed back to the previously agreed upon revision. I don't think you should do it though, if you do it again you might get reported to WP:AN3RR. Unless @AbelM7: could explain further why he felt it necessary to change it. Bluefist 06:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm...and this is an editor who recently tried lecturing me on breaking the "brightline" 3-revert rule and that I would get in trouble for it. Actions =/= words... but of course when Mark does it, it's completely justified. Ay ay ay... Cadiomals (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it is, and again, there are exemptions to the 3 RR, but of course what is most important to you is contantly bashing me. You are probably the most horrid editor I have encountered here Cadiomals, you don't understand how Misplaced Pages works and you pit editors against each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wont. Although it isn't like edit warring on this page seems to matter to anyone...but maybe me and you.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- United States and America are synonyms for United States of America. The States is just a simpler way to refer to the country. AbelM7 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The simplest, easiest end to this dispute would be to remove the word "simply" altogether. United States of America and United States are both the "official" names of the country, while America and the States are both simplified names. Cadiomals (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you can produce a reference for that I might be inclined to support that. Right now I agree with Bluefist.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- You agree with Bluefist because he/she doesn't realize it was your edit on April 3 that changed the long-standing status quo of "or simply the States" in the first place and others simply ignored it because it was so minor. And I don't care about such a petty change either, so whatever. Cadiomals (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Cadiomals: In that case, should we just revert it to "or simply the States"? Bluefist 16:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agreed with Bluefist because they were correct and not because of some fantasy of what they may or may not have realized. I, unlike you don't make personal attacks.
- "I, unlike you don't make personal attacks" - Cadiomals (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a fucking message board, facebook or a political forum. You have been violating NPA since this entire situation began. You started a thread naming me as the subject which is a clear violation of NPA. Look, you don't like me. Cool. I am not 3 years old. I don't care who likes me or not. But if you cannot cut this shit out.....I won't be standing for it much longer.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- "I, unlike you don't make personal attacks" - Cadiomals (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agreed with Bluefist because they were correct and not because of some fantasy of what they may or may not have realized. I, unlike you don't make personal attacks.
- @Bluefist: If that is what you feel should be done as a neutral third-party, sure. That is how it was for several months after it was first added. Cadiomals (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The official name is the United States of America and is shorten to United States, America, US, and USA. The article had "or simply the States" before. It didn't even had "the States" at first. AbelM7 (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The colloquial expressions, "America", "the States" or even "Norteamerica" among a substantial Spanish-speaking minority can be be admitted as such in the introduction, as a matter of convention in country articles, right? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why not. Thanks for your input TheVirginiaHistorian nice to see you back!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- How about this as suggested by Cadiomals above? "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America or the States—" Bluefist 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- My objection is the text flow. USA stands for "The united States of America". The most common way to follow that would then be to mention the abbreviated version of that and than the "simple" version would be a singular name of "America". But I support the consensus, whatever that may be.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- How about this as suggested by Cadiomals above? "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America or the States—" Bluefist 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why not. Thanks for your input TheVirginiaHistorian nice to see you back!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The colloquial expressions, "America", "the States" or even "Norteamerica" among a substantial Spanish-speaking minority can be be admitted as such in the introduction, as a matter of convention in country articles, right? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Cadiomals: In that case, should we just revert it to "or simply the States"? Bluefist 16:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- You agree with Bluefist because he/she doesn't realize it was your edit on April 3 that changed the long-standing status quo of "or simply the States" in the first place and others simply ignored it because it was so minor. And I don't care about such a petty change either, so whatever. Cadiomals (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you can produce a reference for that I might be inclined to support that. Right now I agree with Bluefist.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The simplest, easiest end to this dispute would be to remove the word "simply" altogether. United States of America and United States are both the "official" names of the country, while America and the States are both simplified names. Cadiomals (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- United States and America are synonyms for United States of America. The States is just a simpler way to refer to the country. AbelM7 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm...and this is an editor who recently tried lecturing me on breaking the "brightline" 3-revert rule and that I would get in trouble for it. Actions =/= words... but of course when Mark does it, it's completely justified. Ay ay ay... Cadiomals (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, it should be changed back to the previously agreed upon revision. I don't think you should do it though, if you do it again you might get reported to WP:AN3RR. Unless @AbelM7: could explain further why he felt it necessary to change it. Bluefist 06:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- AbelM7's first change. It simply made no sense and goes against reasoning.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- What is this in reference to? Bluefist 06:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Noted, but let me also remind you that reverting with no apparent reasoning is not acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The USA is not a superpower
It's not a superpower, take that part out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanxBorealis (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- DO you have reliable sources that claim that it is not? --Jayron32 18:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Let's just ignore the trolls so this can be archived in due time. Cadiomals (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Scientific Study that has determined the US is an oligarchy
Hello, there is this study that was posted on reddit that says the US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, I would like to know if this should be included in the article and within what context, keep in mind the study is not subjective, is scientific.
Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's subjective in construction, fringe in conclusion, and has no place in this country summary article. Plus, while not necessarily disqualifying, it's worth pointing out that the two authors are rabid partisans. For example, here's a column Page wrote for the far left blog alternet in early 2013 claiming that the impending sequester would lead to such a worsening in the economic crisis that "progressives" would have a golden opportunity in 2014 to "flush the GOP" out of majority status ("science"?). He's enthusiastic about this and encourages "progressives" to take out Republicans. His tone is that of an activist, and, if current trends persist, a deluded one on multiple levels. VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is actually a review study of papers that have discussed the topic and will be published in Perspectives on Politics, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University Press. I do not know how that equates to fringe. The Koch brothers and George Soros each have more political influence than the average guy sleeping in a homeless shelter. I just think it is too detailed analysis for the article. TFD (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's a fringe conclusion because most people wouldn't define "oligarchy" as a country where a billionaire has more political influence than a homeless guy. That's setting the bar in an interesting place. One can argue that a major network managing news editor has more influence than Soros and the Koch brothers combined. "Influence" is a slippery, subjective issue. Most people, even most political "scientists", describe the US as a "democracy", or at least a representative republic (a subset of democracy broadly defined) due to the electoral mechanics in place, regardless of the (sometimes paid) free speech people choose to consume or practice, or how much responsible diligence they apply when choosing whom to vote for or whether to run themselves. VictorD7 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any room for that kind of coverage in this particular article, which is meant to give an overview of everything including government; with the conventional wisdom being that the government of the United States is structured as a republic based on representative democracy because the people elect their representatives, who then make laws for them (theoretically) based on their interests and concerns. As such all republics are ruled by these "few" representatives and those who can successfully influence them, as our country was never meant by our Founding Fathers to be a direct democracy. There are plenty of decades-old opinions regarding who "really" has the power in America, there just isn't any room for them in this summary article, and the bottom line is that as long as Americans continue to have the ability to elect their representatives in free and fair elections, the country will remain explicitly labeled a democratic republic. Cadiomals (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- <Insert> Cadiomals, if you don't pitch in to help stop this the article will likely go down the toilet again. BTW, looks like my guess about MSNBC was right, lol. It got a media pop for a couple of days that brought the driveby propagandists and trolls out of the woodwork, but as long as we actively weather the storm it should fade away after a while. This one labeled the US transitioning from a representative democracy to an oligarchy a "minor" edit, so at least I guess he's not too broken up over it, though in fairness he's labeled all his edits that way.VictorD7 (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- You may recall that when the U.S. assumed some of the characteristics of an oligarchy in the Gilded Age, the lack of responsiveness in the republic at the Congressional level led to a majority of the people's representatives in three-fourths of the states to remove election of U.S. Senators from the corrupt state legislatures. They placed U.S. Senate election directly in the hands of the people voting in the states by the Seventeenth Amendment.
- This study is a useful wakeup call to expand the electorate and reform Congressional districting among corrupt state legislatures. It may not be appropriate to a summary conclusion in the sense of removing the characterization of the U.S. as a republic. But it might fit somewhere in "Parties and election". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's an interesting article, but as a primary source, difficult to incorporate into an encyclopedia that should defer more to secondary sources. In academia, there are all sorts of writing that can be pioneering and eventually become agreed upon, and other that fall by the wayside. It's probably too early to tell at this point whether the US is an oligarchy. Right now it's a democracy.Mattnad (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- This study is a useful wakeup call to expand the electorate and reform Congressional districting among corrupt state legislatures. It may not be appropriate to a summary conclusion in the sense of removing the characterization of the U.S. as a republic. But it might fit somewhere in "Parties and election". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Scientific study? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is actually a review of studies. I guess the fact scientists promote such theories as evolution, climate change, special relativity and smoking causing cancer discredits them. TFD (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay HiLo48, but it is a rigorous scholarly statistical study. I take it your objection is that significance is found at one standard deviation (64%) in the social sciences versus three standard deviations (99.5%) in the hard sciences? Nevertheless, mathematically rigorous statistical treatment of data have brought significant contributions to economics, political science, sociology and history (cliometrics). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- All of the studies' findings were shown to be significant at the p<0.001 level, including the main finding that the preferences of economic elite minorities are reflected above the demographic center of the same preference scales. If it passes peer review then I would be strongly in favor of inclusion, but at present I believe policy recommends including news media summaries of the story. EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay HiLo48, but it is a rigorous scholarly statistical study. I take it your objection is that significance is found at one standard deviation (64%) in the social sciences versus three standard deviations (99.5%) in the hard sciences? Nevertheless, mathematically rigorous statistical treatment of data have brought significant contributions to economics, political science, sociology and history (cliometrics). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Weinstein's use of "oligarchy" is far broader than most people understand the meaning. Here it is used to state that organized groups of people (corporations, special interests, unions etc.) wield more power than individuals - which is true in a d'oh way to just about every nation on earth. Normally, "oligarchy" implies power held by a small number of individuals, ho do not generally represent groups (here I note that corporations are "groups" as representing millions of shareholders as are special interest "groups.") Weinstein does not use the term in the traditional sense here, but notes something which is pretty obvious - groups wield more power than individuals, but using the term as a normal English word in Misplaced Pages's voice is simply misleading to readers. ( Most recently, Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of “Oligarchy,” in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection from Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizen) Some of that paper, in fact, appears to be opinion, such as its statement that pro-life and pro-gun groups favour policies opposed by average Americans, and that labour unions and the AARP favour policies favoured by average Americans, which would seem debatable.) All in all, I suggest we not use "oligarchy" as a term here as it appears to be used in a specific non-standard context. makes a leap asserting an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious “electoral” “democratic” countries which is a strong redefinition of a term which is not the meaning assigned in the actual source. I suggest globalresearch.ca is likely not a reliable source as it makes claims which are not found in the source. Collect (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
New edit uses sources and states what they say without using the term of art "oligarchy" and also note that we do not use Wikilinks within quotations. Collect (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Collect's new edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the segment because it's inappropriate in any form and there's certainly no consensus for adding it. It's absurd that we're even having to discuss this. Perspective, people. This is a summary country article, and the Gov. section gives the basic, undisputed outlines of the mechanics of American governance. It's not a place for avant-guarde political opinion papers on niche aspects of American society that happen to get a recent pop in a few media outlets (Telegraph, maybe MSNBC?). Such opinions (which are totally wrong regarding the 2nd Amendment and pro life sentiment, not just debatable, and omit countless other issues and formulations of the issues they do cover) would be out of place and would open up the flood gates for counterpoints and commentary on other topics throughout the page. "Peer review" doesn't mean a conclusion is endorsed, particularly a highly subjective one contingent on contrived definitions. This is just a political opinion piece, not a claim about the atomic weight of chromium. It might merit a mention in more topically dedicated articles and sections, along with opinions on media/entertainment bias, the impact of ideology on the education system, and countless other topics inappropriate for this article.
- While we're at it the segment on the so called "Democracy" and "Corruption" indices should be removed too (though I haven't done so since it was added a few months ago), for being a waste of space that transmits no useful information to the reader, using an opaque, highly subjective methodology (which includes secret judges), representing an obscure outfit's personal opinions, not appearing in most country articles I've seen, and other reasons I laid out here back when other responsible page stewards unfortunately weren't paying attention to the article getting wrecked. Such removal would certainly be more in line with the general sentiment in favor of streamlining than expansion and opening the floodgates to random political opinions would be.VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
| Off-topic remarks |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Aside from the personal attacks, Collect fairly represented mainstream scholarship which documents organized interest groups effect political activity and legislative results in the United States. Even the recent study shows two-thirds of interest group activity aligns with majority views in the nation, so most are mostly benign by the analysis of both the majoritarian and special interest schools of political science thought. It is not only the left that says activists capture innovative legislation. FOX news suggests there may be something amiss with the Affordable Care Act based on their polling of the general population's understanding of it, and their "pop" reactions to it before implementation.
- The idea is to fairly represent undisputed outlines of the mechanics of American governance, as you say, and voluntary organizations of various interest groups have had a say in that arena, at least since the observations of de Tocqueville in the 1830s. The reason that there is no formal oligarchy is because there is no permanent ruling group, there is not only upward mobility in America, there is downward mobility. But it is fair to say at any given time that various interest groups influence legislative outcomes in an activist way independent of majoritarian views at any given point. That is why Collect's rewrite is appropriate.
- The beauty of a democratic republic over time, which is outside the scope of the study under discussion, is that the people can bring their own independent judgment on the consequences of innovative legislation, --- regardless of its genesis ---, by choosing a new government through frequent elections, which can then determine to extend beneficial innovations or to curb any untoward developments --- say deregulation of financial institutions in the 1990s, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Collect's rewrite would be preferable to the original version, but neither is necessary, and I suspect he added it as a last resort since at the time no one was helping him revert. The situation you describe exists to varying degrees in all free nations, so it would be frivolous to add to this already long summary article, especially since it doesn't optimally fit topically in the section and would invite similar niche opinion commentary on countless other issues in that section and elsewhere. VictorD7 (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Denmark is a free nation with effective public campaign finance and political preferences of leadership much closer to the demographic center of opinion. In that sense, they are more free than the US. EllenCT (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- In your opinion maybe, but opinions about the most "effective" campaign finance laws are beyond the scope of this country summary article. VictorD7 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This has been added back into the article apparently against the consensus--71.170.100.11 (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- It should be removed. Jansenlee has just added back a comment about the U.S. being an oligarchy which is not exactly what the study says. I merely observed in the discussion that we can take from it, that interest groups have influence at the initiation of legislation apart from the majority one-third of the time, which is what the study says.
- The study is narrowly focused on decision making surrounding innovative legislation at the enactment of law, without any consideration of how unfolding regulations, administration or subsequent modification of the legislation takes place.
- The consensus on Talk is clearly against adding the study at all -- just on technical or editorial grounds, -- never mind adding a misleading synopsis of it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I see no such consensus. Here is how the mainstream media has summarized the study:
- "The wealthy move national policy, and average Americans are effectively powerless." -- US News& World Report
- "policies supported by economic elites and business interest groups were far more likely to become law than those they opposed.... Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and the more recent McCutcheon v. FEC have made it easier for corporations and wealthy individuals to spend money for political purposes, which could increase their influence over elections and eventually policy decisions." MSNBC
- "There can be no doubt that economic élites have a disproportionate influence in Washington, or that their views and interests distort policy in ways that don’t necessarily benefit the majority: the politicians all know this, and we know it, too. The only debate is about how far this process has gone, and whether we should refer to it as oligarchy or as something else." The New Yorker
- "Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it. In contrast, the preferences of economic elites and interest groups — especially economic elites — are each quite influential, when the preferences of the other two groups are held constant." Vox
- "the U.S. government represents not the interests of the majority of citizens but those of the rich and powerful." UPI
- Any objections to those summaries? EllenCT (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have already expressed my opinion on this above and won't repeat it again, but I second this. It is inappropriate to reassign such a label when the government's structure has not fundamentally changed at all. There is clearly consensus with several people against it and only 1 or 2 for these changes. Cadiomals (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Several"? "1 or 2"? You can't count any better than you can follow WP:TALK re chronological ordering of comments. EllenCT (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter what you say, the contentious source and its POV misrepresentation by editors within the article will not be re-added as long as several (at least six as of this comment) are opposed and there is no agreement as to how the source would even be accurately summarized/interpreted within the article. Cadiomals (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Several"? "1 or 2"? You can't count any better than you can follow WP:TALK re chronological ordering of comments. EllenCT (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I see no such consensus. Here is how the mainstream media has summarized the study:
- I'm opposed to including this. Aside from issues with the POV of this "study's" authors, it would be undo weight to include it an article that is supposed to present a broad overview of the topic. Calidum 02:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposed inclusion as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Governance
I object to this deletion because the facts are corroborated and it is in VictorD7's interest to suppress them in order to add a false veneer of respectability to his pattern trying to suppress the topic. EllenCT (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NPA and WP:AOBF.. Again Morphh 01:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would normally refer to the very poor quality of the content, not the contributor, but in this case the pattern is clear and if VictorD7 wishes to seek dispute resolution because of my assertion, his recent edits to my talk page leave no doubt as to the outcome. EllenCT (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I object to the attempt to hat this section, because in this case, failing to communicate about the contributor's pattern and practice of poor contributions is likely to harm the article more than merely failing to revert him. EllenCT (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I gave clear, rational reasons in the appropriate section for my opposition to including the frivolous editorializing. This section is just a personal attack devoid of facts or merit, and should be closed or deleted. Your op isn't even a coherent sentence. I don't recall addressing this "topic" before (though I haven't gone back and checked), much less enough to establish a "pattern" of "suppress(ion)", and I won't bother asking how such suppression would enhance my alleged "veneer of respectability". VictorD7 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Charts
How do people feel about these charts? EllenCT (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
How do these charts relate to the first theme of this thread? (E.g., "Scientific Study that has determined the US is an oligarchy".) With WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in mind, how might they be used? – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- To illustrate the subject matter you quoted. Are you able to read the legends and axis labels? Someone reduced their size considerably so please have another look. EllenCT (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, it is absolutely fascinating stuff. --- I am currently reading "The American Senate: an insiders history" 2013 by Neil MacNeil (PBS, Washington Week) and Richard A. Baker (U.S. Senate historian, retired). --- but,
- Oppose --- the charts are too deep into the weeds for here in a summary article. Where does the "Oligarchy" study and these charts belong? in a new section in United States Senate? The two charts now appear in Politics of the United States#Political pressure groups and the subsidiary article has a hat note link at "Parties and elections" in this article as it is. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - reading the actual study for the fists, high income is defined as $40K+ (about $60K in today's dollars which is close to the median income) and middle income is $20 to $40K. Plus, the charts are completely unclear on what's being measured which are results of regression analysis that need detailed explanation. On the low income columns, the confidence level is such that they could just as well be similar to middle income as not. They are confusing and misleading for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not helpful – the threshold question (should portions of the article discuss oligarchy in the US) is difficult enough, and the paper presented (Gilens & Page) had little discussion about oligarchy per se.. Even if they did, seeking to describe the US as an oligarchy is fraught with problems. (Oligarchy implies corrupt and selfish governance.) This is a broad summary article about the US, not a platform. Also, including the charts presents SYNTH problems. (e.g. A = Gilens & Page say elites & business groups have influence; B = the charts show senators pay more attention to wealthy people; therefore C = the US is an oligarchy. (PS: clicking images allows for easy viewing.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I am opposed to the inclusion of these vague, poorly-constructed charts from obscure sources which do not relay any actual concrete data, but that doesn't matter because there wouldn't even be any place in this summary article for these charts to be relevant enough to fit in anyway. I am at least glad discussion mostly remains on proposed content and not getting too far into a political forum, and that other editors are able to spot poor attempts at POV pushing and soapboxing; but it all still results in a waste of people's time. Cadiomals (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- 'Murica is an oligarchy' http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is-america-an-oligarchy.html --173.76.108.247 (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- – S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Does the study have any scholarly citations in the citations indexes? It may be too recent for proper consideration. Has the study been incorporated in a scholarly, peer reviewed publication which can be used as a secondary source? The critique may be too new to be placed in proper context.
- – S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I still think a scholarly reliable source reference to influence of interest groups apart from the majoritarian view is appropriate, just not the 'oligarchy' term of art for innovative legislative "action" which does not take into account subsequent regulation, administration or succeeding corrective legislation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Deletion would have been more appropriate for obvious trolling, unless the IP address was looking for the "Murica" article and landed here by mistake. VictorD7 (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- We learn from the unscholarly "New Yorker", a) "The paper is a provocative one, and there’s sure to be a lot of debate among political scientists about whether it wholly supports the authors’ claims. One issue is that their survey data is pretty old" during a Republican administration. b) "Another issue is that, in a statistical sense, the explanatory power of some of the equations that Gilens and Page use is weak." even for a study such as this one. --- The upshot is that this 'oligarchy' study, from yet another source, does NOT meet the requirement at WP for an exceptional claim to have multiple reliable sources before it is introduced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
What EllenCT did not mention is that I had removed these charts from Income in Equality in the United States for the various reasons people have opposed them here, which she then reinserted with large expansion relating to the recent Princeton paper. I imagine she was trying to create an informal RFC to justify her edits on other articles. Since this is topical, I encourage other editors to take a look at these other recent edits by EllenCT in Oligarchy, Plutocracy, and Politics of the United StatesMattnad (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Adding the same material to as many articles as possible is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, and contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. She well ought to initiate an RfC at the single article she finds most important, and abide by that consensus. This bit of using as many articles as possible in hopes that one set may "stick" is abhorrent. That she believes in BRRD for the exact same material in multiple articles may end up at AN/I. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- is there any reason to believe that the charts or text are inaccurate or inappropriate for a summary? EllenCT (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. They are a) primary research, b) non-notable, c) unclear in what they are really measuring (ie, High income, when examined, represents households with $40K+ income - not high income by most measures), d) partially dated, e) overweight POV.Mattnad (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Guess what the secondary reviews on the subject say. You've already read some of them, over at Talk:Government spending or Talk:Progressive tax. Better yet, look it up. EllenCT (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. They are a) primary research, b) non-notable, c) unclear in what they are really measuring (ie, High income, when examined, represents households with $40K+ income - not high income by most measures), d) partially dated, e) overweight POV.Mattnad (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- is there any reason to believe that the charts or text are inaccurate or inappropriate for a summary? EllenCT (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a minor mistake in content
Under the "Government and Politics" section, the last sentence of the second paragraph says that there is no proportional representation at the federal level. This is wrong, and I want to edit it for a class I am taking as homework assignment. The problem is that I am not confirmed and this page is semi-protected. Check my source. <http://www.house.gov/content/learn/>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickipedia (talk • contribs)
- You appear to confuse the fact that districts of roughly equal populations each get one member of the House of Representatives with the concept of "proportional representation" where multiple candidates are elected, more or less, in proportion to the vote their party receives in an election. The two uses are different in nature, which can be confusing to those in Europe who are used to having a arty which receives 5% of the vote being guaranteed some representation, while in the US this is not the case. Collect (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe we should consider ways to tweak it for clarity, since the Euro-centric political science buzzword can be confusing and since Americans are proportionally represented in the House, even if the parties aren't. The election winner doesn't just represent those who voted for him, but his district. Also, we should consider whether it might be best to move the sentences in question......In almost all cases, executive and legislative officials are elected by a plurality vote of citizens by district. There is no proportional representation at the federal level, and it is very rare at lower levels..........from the Government intro to the Parties and elections subsection, where it would fit nicely after the second sentence: The United States has operated under a two-party system for most of its history. For elective offices at most levels, state-administered primary elections choose the major party nominees for subsequent general elections. <insert here> Since the general election of 1856, the major parties have been the Democratic Party, founded in 1824, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- VictorD7's proposal is promising. The tweak for clarity revolves around the difference between a) proportionate party scheme representing parties in the nation versus b) single member district scheme representing people in places, first the states, then communities in each state.
- The Founders did not want to promote parties, as parties were seen as the principle means of corrupting the British constitutional forms of government. But in our day, parties have corrupted redistricting procedures in the states so that Congressional and state legislature districts reflect parties, not places, creating "safe seats" apart from places of community in traditional county boundaries, watersheds or along interstates which bind people into communities.
- The key modifier for clarification would concern the places still apportioned by community, "among the states". Stated positively, the distinction is drawn by saying, "The American people are represented proportionately among the states in the House of Representatives by a decennial reapportionment according to population. In the Senate, two senators are elected from each state for six-year terms, their terms are staggered to reelect a third of their number every two years to coincide with the House elections." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think the article should reflect the extent to which US election outcomes are influenced by gerrymandering? EllenCT (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- As there is no actual definition of what "gerrymandering" is -- and a great number of odd-shaped districts are court-mandated, what would you use as an excuse for such a claim? Collect (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do any dictionaries agree with your premise? In any case, my question was to User:TheVirginiaHistorian. EllenCT (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Um -- posts on an article talk page may be answered by anyone -- you do not get to choose who will respond to your posts. And I am surprised you were not aware of mandates for "minority control districts" which are generally ill-configured. The sources for such court mandates are not dictionaries but learned treatises, which I trust you will accept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is too much detail to mention. The U.S. is an extremely complex subject and we only have a short page. TFD (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article Gerrymandering in the United States rates a top hat note See also. Many attribute the partisan "gridlock" nationally and in the states to gerrymandering crafting only single interest or party voting bases --- voters who then elect extremist representatives voting "no" on everything but their favorite hobbyhorse, regardless of the general interest or of the long term interest of each community, state or national. The anomaly, not to say perversion, results in representatives who refuse to deliberate with other representatives so as to accommodate the interests of any citizens unlike their narrow gerrymandered base.
- Do any dictionaries agree with your premise? In any case, my question was to User:TheVirginiaHistorian. EllenCT (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- As there is no actual definition of what "gerrymandering" is -- and a great number of odd-shaped districts are court-mandated, what would you use as an excuse for such a claim? Collect (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think the article should reflect the extent to which US election outcomes are influenced by gerrymandering? EllenCT (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- The key modifier for clarification would concern the places still apportioned by community, "among the states". Stated positively, the distinction is drawn by saying, "The American people are represented proportionately among the states in the House of Representatives by a decennial reapportionment according to population. In the Senate, two senators are elected from each state for six-year terms, their terms are staggered to reelect a third of their number every two years to coincide with the House elections." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- I propose that the article Gerrymandering in the United States rates a top-hat note in the section as a "See also" just below the "Main article" top hats in the in the section Parties and elections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
US – in decline
This is in desperate need of incorporation in to the article:
86.180.45.65 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Every time someone reads some single opinion piece or article that says "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT THE US IS WRONG" we don't have to incorporate it. Instead, we need to use only those sources which have widespread acceptance in mainstream scholarship, not singular studies or the dubious conclusions of a single journalist based on those studies. --Jayron32 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is it an opinion piece or a WP:SECONDARY summary of this primary research? Do you have any reason to believe that the authors lack widespread acceptance in mainstream scholarship in any way? EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't the requirement of anyone to prove the negative. If you want to include the information, you need to establish consensus that it is both based on reliable, mainstream scholarship (and this is also important) relevant, appropriate, and correct to put in this specific article (as opposed to another article, such as Economy of the United States. I don't see where either condition has been met yet. Even if I were to concede the first (I'm not saying I do, but I'm also not saying I don't), but the second condition doesn't seem likely. This is an overview article which doesn't need this level of detail. --Jayron32 23:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking for proof, I was asking whether you have any reason to think, believe, or even suspect what you implied by what you wrote when dismissing the source. And why is the middle class loss of dominance not appropriate for an overview? I am also curious why you would suggest that anyone would think this falls under the category of "everything you know about the US is wrong." Are there any sources which say that the US middle class is the world's richest? EllenCT (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't the requirement of anyone to prove the negative. If you want to include the information, you need to establish consensus that it is both based on reliable, mainstream scholarship (and this is also important) relevant, appropriate, and correct to put in this specific article (as opposed to another article, such as Economy of the United States. I don't see where either condition has been met yet. Even if I were to concede the first (I'm not saying I do, but I'm also not saying I don't), but the second condition doesn't seem likely. This is an overview article which doesn't need this level of detail. --Jayron32 23:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is it an opinion piece or a WP:SECONDARY summary of this primary research? Do you have any reason to believe that the authors lack widespread acceptance in mainstream scholarship in any way? EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the Income, poverty, and wealth section already has almost the same info regarding income and wealth distribution at a reasonable level of detail; there is no need for even more elaboration in this article as we have plans to streamline sections, not make them more bloated. Cadiomals (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- No. I read this NY Times "analysis" when it first came out and wondered how many days it would take for someone to post it here. The piece's easily spotted flaws include things like not mentioning immigration's impact, the impact of countries aging at different rates (older people almost invariably earn more money; the US has retained a higher birth rate than Europe), unemployment rate trends, other bias through omission (e.g. Sweden is singled out for praise and described as a "welfare state", with no mention of its center-right government engaging in multiple rounds of tax cuts and deregulation in recent years), cherry-picked dates, disingenuous peak to trough comparisons that skew trends and hide intervening growth, etc., and I haven't even yet examined it closely enough to judge whether its treatment of benefits like social security and medicare is internationally consistent (sometimes in these studies it's not), but Cadiomals is right. Its salient, most legitimate info is already covered in the article. Its own data shows that the US has a relatively high median income; higher than every European nation studied and even with Canada. That's already represented in the article more comprehensibly by the more reliable OECD source. The other point is that US median income has fallen dramatically in recent years, which is also already covered. Even the "inequality" theme is hammered hard more than enough in the section. Jayron32 is also right. We don't "desperately need" to rush to add every fresh headline. This isn't a breaking news page. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not from the NYT, it's from Harvard demographers in Luxembourg. EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- The original story was a NY Times analysis of LIS data, the latter compiled specifically for the story in a manner requested by the NY Times. Not that it matters. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not from the NYT, it's from Harvard demographers in Luxembourg. EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Including a "US is in decline" subsection, even as a small part of the broad description of the US economy, is fraught with problems. Mainly, we'd get POV pushing, soapboxing, and UNDUE, as editors fought over "is/isn't" & "why/why-not" issues. Moreover, such sub-sections do no fit in with suggested article layout guidelines found here. IMO no consensus is possible. Accordingly, arguing about sources, etc., is a waste of time. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that we are not allowed to report on recessions or recession-like dips in other measurements than economic growth? EllenCT (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me that as a recession is published in reliable scholarly secondary sources a summary country article should include it, such as the most recent Great Recession in the United States.
- But since first figures are often revised 3-6 months after regardless of party in power, this article should not be disrupted by news reports parroting press releases -- they are without any scholarly citations in peer reviewed books or journals to their credit. Weekly current events reports are not substantial, high quality sources for use in a summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- What claims from the proposed source are you suggesting might not be corroborated in your preferred high quality sources? EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am for including something concerning inequality, gaps among the American population having grown wildly since the WWII generation began turning over the reins...attributed in part to the deregulation of the financial system and global financial trading, which is opposed altogether by some, said to be already accounted for by Cardiomals.
- What claims from the proposed source are you suggesting might not be corroborated in your preferred high quality sources? EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- But since first figures are often revised 3-6 months after regardless of party in power, this article should not be disrupted by news reports parroting press releases -- they are without any scholarly citations in peer reviewed books or journals to their credit. Weekly current events reports are not substantial, high quality sources for use in a summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- My point here and elsewhere is that I am for using a high quality source, one which has been used as a citation by more than one peer reviewed scholarly source such as a book or journal, versus more than one newspaper account uncritically reporting the study exists. Does this inequality study meet such a test? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, but other sources that do agree with it. Take the median individual or family income or asset values in Australia compared to the US since the 1970s, for example. There is nothing in the source which isn't in complete agreement with any mainstream summary of those statistics, including the highest quality sources available. EllenCT (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- My point here and elsewhere is that I am for using a high quality source, one which has been used as a citation by more than one peer reviewed scholarly source such as a book or journal, versus more than one newspaper account uncritically reporting the study exists. Does this inequality study meet such a test? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources for the exceptional
Exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. Both in 'Oligarchy' and 'Decline' above, there is a reliance on single, recent, primary research or news sources.
I propose an editorial bias here towards books of WP:scholarship as a standard for high-quality sources. a) secondary sources rather than primary research b) vetted by the scholarly community rather than news organizations. c) multiple scholarly citations in citation indexes rather than newly published papers. d) multiple high-quality sources for exceptional claims.
For a summary, country article, at the minimum, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, not merely the most recent news cycle media frenzy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. The article and Talk are disrupted by various forms of recentism. Too many short-term or incidental aspects of United States social, economic and political life are promoted in the country-summary level article. Without some sort of procedural guideline agreed to by community consensus they will continue to have the effect of disruption. Recent development updates of a characteristic which is substantiated in the literature is appropriate, such as GDP, but an innovative index without any scholarly citations is not appropriate, however promising it may be. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Those are all decades-long studies. What do you mean by recentism? EllenCT (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- No claims require more than one source. Using more than one source is a form of fact-checking. We use reliable sources that have already been fact-checked. While this may be a minor issue, lets avoid having multiple sources posted, when the real issue is not whether the claims are correct but whether they are of significance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- If a study has been around for decades, there should be some trace of it in scholarly citation indexes. If no scholarly publication picks up the claim, it probably is unreliable.
- Multiple sources need not be posted, there just needs to be more than one author who has ever made the same claim. The media cycle echo-chamber is still reflecting only one study. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are there any such sources supporting the idea that the US middle class has not declined from their previous dominance, or contrary to the #Charts supporting the oligarchy claims? Why is either claim exceptional? EllenCT (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- The substantial sources previously attributed the United States with a substantial middle class superseding other national economies, do they not? If they do not, the discussion about the middle class should be removed. Until then, the assertion that the middle class has declined from that international status, based on one study unreferenced in the scholarly community, is exceptional.
- The substantial sources previously attributed the United States with a democratic republican form of governance, do they not? If they do not, the discussion about the form of government should be removed. Until then, the assertion that the U.S. is now an oligarchy, based on one study unreferenced in the scholarly community, is exceptional. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- TVH, sometimes sources are wrong, but the way to prove that is to find subsequent sources that come to different conclusions. That a fact reported in one source has never been repeated may however mean that it is not significant. This "study" btw has not "been around for decades", it is being published in Fall 2014. And it is a review study, not a primary study. IOW it summarizes studies that have been carried out over the decades. TFD (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- A related but important theme - there's a reason that wikipedia guideline recommend using verifiable secondary sources. Primary research, including those summarizing other research to argue a new finding, should be used with caution. This Princeton study is a good example - it draws certain conclusions that have not yet had time to be evaluated by other experts.Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- TVH, sometimes sources are wrong, but the way to prove that is to find subsequent sources that come to different conclusions. That a fact reported in one source has never been repeated may however mean that it is not significant. This "study" btw has not "been around for decades", it is being published in Fall 2014. And it is a review study, not a primary study. IOW it summarizes studies that have been carried out over the decades. TFD (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, they do not. See pp. 93-96 here for example. But why does that mean the discussion of the middle class must be removed? If the US middle class isn't the richest and hasn't been getting richer, then we aren't allowed to write about it? That is unbalanced in the extreme. Similarly the #Charts corroborate the findings of oligarchy. EllenCT (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Responding to your original question (decline of the middle class or oligarchy), the income of the middle class has certainly plateaued, and even declined in recent history. That can be readily demonstrated with reliable sources. What does not follow is that the middle class not longer dominant, or the US is an oligarchy which is really the issue that we are advising caution about adding based on a few, unconnected charts or the single Princeton paper. To summarize:
- The Princeton paper is exceptional and it remains to be seen whether its conclusions are embraced by others (news coverage of same source does not count). It could be used in other articles such as Oligarchy, sparingly, as part of discussion that notes it's academic theory and not the conventional meaning of the term.
- The charts are primary research, cover different periods and topics, and should be use with caution, if at all. My conclusion after reading the sources is that they are esoteric primary research and not appropriate for most articles except possibly small mention in prose when combined with corroborating secondary reliable sources.
- Combining the Princeton paper with the charts to make the case that the US is an oligarchy is a perfect example of WP:SYN (once again) since no reliable source has made this same point, using the same or similar material.Mattnad (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, the sources all reached the same conclusion. What are you saying has been synthesized? Can you find a source which says that the wealthy do not have more political power than the middle class in America? EllenCT (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Responding to your original question (decline of the middle class or oligarchy), the income of the middle class has certainly plateaued, and even declined in recent history. That can be readily demonstrated with reliable sources. What does not follow is that the middle class not longer dominant, or the US is an oligarchy which is really the issue that we are advising caution about adding based on a few, unconnected charts or the single Princeton paper. To summarize:
- No, they do not. See pp. 93-96 here for example. But why does that mean the discussion of the middle class must be removed? If the US middle class isn't the richest and hasn't been getting richer, then we aren't allowed to write about it? That is unbalanced in the extreme. Similarly the #Charts corroborate the findings of oligarchy. EllenCT (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not needed – our editorial bias regarding exceptional claims is already covered by WP policy. See: WP:REDFLAG. And consensus cannot trump policy. With these factors in mind, the editing analysis must turn on RS and DUE/UNDUE factors. If there is particular material that supports our WP:SUMMARYSTYLE presentation, then let's look at it in context. (Also, "exceptional" in the WP sense has fringe aspects to it (as per the See also.) In this case we do not have fringe claims to deal with, much less WP:FRINGE claims.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- A review study that summarizes the findings of other reports is not considered a primary source. See "Scholarship": "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." The view that we need to await a review study that reviews the review studies is disingenuous. Because then one could argue that one needs to await a review study of the review studies of the review studies. TFD (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources, the point of this thread. The unpublished study must have at a minimum one other concurring reliable scholarly source using it as a citation, before it is used here. Which is not to take away from the need to relate something in the narrative, properly sourced, about interest group influence, in my opinion.
- From the New Yorker article we learned to take this particular study cautiously. a) "The paper is a provocative one, and there’s sure to be a lot of debate among political scientists about whether it wholly supports the authors’ claims. One issue is that their survey data is pretty old" during a Republican administration. b) "Another issue is that, in a statistical sense, the explanatory power of some of the equations that Gilens and Page use is weak." even for a study such as this one. --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are those supposed to be reasons that the claim that the American middle class has been losing out to the rich politicaly and economically relative to Australia or Scandinavia is "exceptional"? It's been getting worse along a trend line far steeper than the tax code changes since 2009 has made it better. How many decades before it isn't recentism anymore? How many mainstream sources reporting on mutually corroborating peer reviewed studies before it's not exceptional or a red flag? EllenCT (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, concerned editors – how about suggesting edits along with supporting references. Then we can evaluate in context. These discussions about the tax code, middle classes, rich classes, oligarchy, etc. are interesting, but they should focus on article improvement. Right now it's impossible to get consensus because there is no issue to determine. – S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I just suggested an edit below. Please take your own advice and suggest an edit which would accurately reflect the decline in economic power and political influence of the American middle class since WWII. Incessantly trying to boss others around about policy while ignoring it yourself seems very much like intentional disruption to make a point of attempting to shout down other editors. I continue to await User:TheVirginiaHistorian's answer to my questions. EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your "oligarchy" study wasn't internationally comparative and your NY Times income analysis shows Americans with a higher median income than Scandinavians. It didn't give the Australian figure. VictorD7 (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The oligarchy peer reviewed studies (plural) are all US-specific, and thus appropriate for this article, showing comparisons over time instead of with other countries, as exemplified by the #Charts above. Which NY Times source are you referring to? on pp. 93-96 says median wealth in the US is $40K, compared to $194K for middle class Australians, $120K for Belgians, $82K for Canadians, $87K for Danes, $73K for Finns, $141K for Japanese, $62K for Dutch, $63K for New Zealanders, $79K for Norwegians, $41K for Swedes, and $115K for Brits. EllenCT (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was addressing your "political influence" comments, which, unlike the source, were internationally comparative. My median income sentences referenced the NY Times income analysis behind the "Decline" proposal you've been supporting and commented on. Your Us Against Greed blog link here was to the half assed Credit Suisse "wealth" report, which is basically cheap advertising for the company, the many flaws of which I patiently explained to you months ago. Among other things it doesn't even adjust for PPP, the norm in international analyses. VictorD7 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which source are you referring to as "the source" and "the NY Times income analysis"? And which developed countries have PPP coefficients of more than 10%? EllenCT (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- <Insert> Context clues. Try rereading my comments before asking me to repeat myself. VictorD7 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which source are you referring to as "the source" and "the NY Times income analysis"? And which developed countries have PPP coefficients of more than 10%? EllenCT (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was addressing your "political influence" comments, which, unlike the source, were internationally comparative. My median income sentences referenced the NY Times income analysis behind the "Decline" proposal you've been supporting and commented on. Your Us Against Greed blog link here was to the half assed Credit Suisse "wealth" report, which is basically cheap advertising for the company, the many flaws of which I patiently explained to you months ago. Among other things it doesn't even adjust for PPP, the norm in international analyses. VictorD7 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The oligarchy peer reviewed studies (plural) are all US-specific, and thus appropriate for this article, showing comparisons over time instead of with other countries, as exemplified by the #Charts above. Which NY Times source are you referring to? on pp. 93-96 says median wealth in the US is $40K, compared to $194K for middle class Australians, $120K for Belgians, $82K for Canadians, $87K for Danes, $73K for Finns, $141K for Japanese, $62K for Dutch, $63K for New Zealanders, $79K for Norwegians, $41K for Swedes, and $115K for Brits. EllenCT (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, concerned editors – how about suggesting edits along with supporting references. Then we can evaluate in context. These discussions about the tax code, middle classes, rich classes, oligarchy, etc. are interesting, but they should focus on article improvement. Right now it's impossible to get consensus because there is no issue to determine. – S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are those supposed to be reasons that the claim that the American middle class has been losing out to the rich politicaly and economically relative to Australia or Scandinavia is "exceptional"? It's been getting worse along a trend line far steeper than the tax code changes since 2009 has made it better. How many decades before it isn't recentism anymore? How many mainstream sources reporting on mutually corroborating peer reviewed studies before it's not exceptional or a red flag? EllenCT (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- From the New Yorker article we learned to take this particular study cautiously. a) "The paper is a provocative one, and there’s sure to be a lot of debate among political scientists about whether it wholly supports the authors’ claims. One issue is that their survey data is pretty old" during a Republican administration. b) "Another issue is that, in a statistical sense, the explanatory power of some of the equations that Gilens and Page use is weak." even for a study such as this one. --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Good mawnin all. On my last with @EllenCT:, (we have two strands going now in this one, harder to follow). So, relative to the New Yorker piece brought forward by the IP, it was pointing out two reasons for not using the unpublished "oligarchy" study: a) it's provocative and its sampling old and truncated, and b) it's statistically weak, even for political science. I'm with Ellen and TFD that something on non-majoritarian influence, including finance, regulated corporations, unions, ought to mentioned, --- but with reliable scholarly sources, not so much media echo chamber.
Economic inequality and the middle class: Googling books, ‘decline of the middle class' brings at the bottom of the first screen, “Income inequality in the United States, 1947-1985”, asking the question, is the middle class declining, (it is declining as of 1990) because of a) transitory aging of the baby boom or b) permanent changes in industrial-occupational employment? Nan Maxwell answered both economic and demographic factors play a part. Is that 1990 volume substantial, and is there anything else later over the last twenty years of comparable scope and multidisciplinary study? and do the two books align in their conclusions? Inquiring minds want to know. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I still think the #Charts do a good job of measuring oligarchy. And I agree we need better sources about the median individual wealth of all countries over time. EllenCT (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"Creed"
"Americans have traditionally been characterized by a strong work ethic, competitiveness, and individualism, as well as a unifying belief in an 'American Creed' emphasizing liberty, equality, private property, democracy, rule of law, and a preference for limited government," is sourced to a 2004 unreviewed monograph about "challenges to national identity." Since the peer reviewed secondary sources disagree with multiple aspects including equality and democracy, the so-called creed is itself an exceptional WP:REDFLAG claim which should be removed. The "preference for limited government" is particularly suspect because private sector rent seeking is enabled by special interest laws and regulations, which the US has in greater abundance than any other nation. EllenCT (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Would you specify what are the 'multiple aspects' please. And who are the sources that say Americans do not have a belief in equality, democracy, etc.? Who are the sources that say Americans do not prefer limited government? The passage you quote talks about what Americans believe and prefer, not about what actually exists. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC) PS: Ah, yes. It was Simon & Schuster the published the 2004 monograph by Samuel P. Huntington. A bloody flag to be sure. 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the fact that Huntington was one of the nation's most prominent political scientists for several decades (not that it matters; the claim is as pervasive and mainstream as it's possible to get in political science), actually isn't your study premised on the same assumptions, that Americans believe in equality and democracy, hence the point of doing the study? VictorD7 (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Victor, when you say "your study", what are you referring to? If you mean something that Ellen has in mind, it will help to see her cite the peer reviewed secondary sources. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to the only source on the matter I've seen her produce, the "oligarchy" study above. VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The peer reviewed #Charts corroborate the Princeton study. Do you know of any reliable sources suggesting that the American middle class has as much political power as the top 1%, or anything even vaguely similar? EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sidestepping your irrelevant question, I'll again remind you that your study doesn't address this issue. You're confusing the topic about principles that are traditionally widely embraced and celebrated in American culture with the topic of how a political system should be described. VictorD7 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The peer reviewed #Charts corroborate the Princeton study. Do you know of any reliable sources suggesting that the American middle class has as much political power as the top 1%, or anything even vaguely similar? EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to the only source on the matter I've seen her produce, the "oligarchy" study above. VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Victor, when you say "your study", what are you referring to? If you mean something that Ellen has in mind, it will help to see her cite the peer reviewed secondary sources. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Many Americans believe in democracy the same way that people at the poles believe in sunlight for half the year. EllenCT (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Arctic dwellers didn't invent the sun for the modern world, and aren't traditionally associated with it by themselves and others. The sun isn't considered a major part of Arctic culture. VictorD7 (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jeez! The thread was opened and titled "Creed". The initial indication is that the sourced material about what Americans believe in is not based on RS. (E.g. Ellen seems to say that Americans do not have some general belief in these different aspects of American democracy and/or culture.) So, what is the RS to the contrary? Posting a link to charts or to a Princeton study or posting hypothetical questions as to what people believe about sunshine at the poles does not, DOES NOT, DOES NOT enhance article improvement with regard to the "Creed" that Americans believe (or don't believe) in. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that an unreviewed monograph can not be challenged unless there is a reliable source to the contrary? It's jingoism and biased as such. It is the burden of those who wish to include challenged statements to find support for them. I don't need to find sources contrary to such nationalistic jingoism. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest you look at Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity and consider whether it is a "monograph". With this in mind, your characterization of the 448 page book is not on target. You brought up this thread with the heading "Creed" and you suggested that the support for the line (about what American believe) was not RS. Now, without counter-RS, coming here to characterize the book as jingoism & biased is not helpful. Please post RS that says that American do not believe in such & such, and then the thread can move forward. IOT, challenging a statement does not work unless you have something to back up your challenge. – S. Rich (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- How is it not a monograph? The "creed" it suggests isn't rooted in research, it's just one author's opinion without any relation or substantial correspondence to the official creed approved by Congress which says nothing about democracy or preference for limited government. You know what is even less helpful? Failing to produce a reliable source supporting challenged text. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest you look at Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity and consider whether it is a "monograph". With this in mind, your characterization of the 448 page book is not on target. You brought up this thread with the heading "Creed" and you suggested that the support for the line (about what American believe) was not RS. Now, without counter-RS, coming here to characterize the book as jingoism & biased is not helpful. Please post RS that says that American do not believe in such & such, and then the thread can move forward. IOT, challenging a statement does not work unless you have something to back up your challenge. – S. Rich (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that an unreviewed monograph can not be challenged unless there is a reliable source to the contrary? It's jingoism and biased as such. It is the burden of those who wish to include challenged statements to find support for them. I don't need to find sources contrary to such nationalistic jingoism. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jeez! The thread was opened and titled "Creed". The initial indication is that the sourced material about what Americans believe in is not based on RS. (E.g. Ellen seems to say that Americans do not have some general belief in these different aspects of American democracy and/or culture.) So, what is the RS to the contrary? Posting a link to charts or to a Princeton study or posting hypothetical questions as to what people believe about sunshine at the poles does not, DOES NOT, DOES NOT enhance article improvement with regard to the "Creed" that Americans believe (or don't believe) in. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I like multiple quality sources generally, when something is challenged, it needs corroboration.
- Alexander Keyssar in "The Right to Vote: the contested history of Democracy in the United States" (2009) suggests the ideals of voting expansion to universal adult suffrage are realized as a result of party competition, increasing and decreasing over time, that however well received it is at this modern day, democracy is a project which "has never been unanimously embraced in the United States, but it has animated and shaped a great deal of our history.”
- The ideal continues to inspire as it is the U.S. chosen mechanism for ensuring individual rights, equal opportunity and a federal republic, sort of like it says in the official creed approved by Congress, belief in a "United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic". --- That surely says something "about democracy" in the American creed to be included in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to American's Creed. Please see the article improvements made incorporating that link. (BTW, if you are going to object to text supported by sourced material (such as the Huntington book), you've got to come up with other RS that supports the objection.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- What does it even mean to say that Americans believe in democracy but not astroturf or gerrymandering? Clearly the Americans who brought about the latter believe in them enough to have voted, spent, or lobbied for them. If the House of Representatives says that Americans believe in declining economic growth, wasteful insurance spending, infrastructure neglect, and an uneducated workforce, would that be suitable for inclusion? Do any of our other articles about political geographic divisions assign a single creed to hundreds of millions of people at a time? It is unwarranted article bloat and should be removed in favor of a one sentence #Health by political preference summary. EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- You started this thread with the title "Creed". And you quoted the one sentence that mentions creed. One sentence, supported by RS, is not bloat. That one sentence is important to the article and your comments have prompted improvements. If there are other sentences that need improvement – such as those dealing with astroturf, gerrymandering, economic growth, etc., then please make improvements and/or raise them as topics for discussion. (Tying these topics into the American creed topic is not helpful.) But I do not think you will find much community support to remove that one sentence about the American creed. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why is a subjective creed more worthy of inclusion than objective health outcomes by political preference? EllenCT (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because unlike other nations bound by race, religion or repression, the United States is the idea of a federal republic …which is held substantially in common among the population. Where is it not?
- Why is a subjective creed more worthy of inclusion than objective health outcomes by political preference? EllenCT (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- You started this thread with the title "Creed". And you quoted the one sentence that mentions creed. One sentence, supported by RS, is not bloat. That one sentence is important to the article and your comments have prompted improvements. If there are other sentences that need improvement – such as those dealing with astroturf, gerrymandering, economic growth, etc., then please make improvements and/or raise them as topics for discussion. (Tying these topics into the American creed topic is not helpful.) But I do not think you will find much community support to remove that one sentence about the American creed. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- The ideal continues to inspire as it is the U.S. chosen mechanism for ensuring individual rights, equal opportunity and a federal republic, sort of like it says in the official creed approved by Congress, belief in a "United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic". --- That surely says something "about democracy" in the American creed to be included in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct it does not apply to extralegal “militia” interfering by force of arms with punitive collections by the federal government. Recently an individual who has not paid millions in grazing fees owed, insists on not paying the outrageously below-market fees for grazing on federal lands. He sees grazing without pay -- literally feeding at the public trough -- as a God-given right higher than the Constitution, because he does not choose to recognize the legitimacy of the United States Government.
- But likeminded WP:FRINGE outliers should not dictate editorial policy here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not anywhere near what I asked. It's inaccurate to say all Americans believe the Creed because the House of Representatives said so. They don't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It would be much better to describe objective health outcomes by political preference. EllenCT (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- What on earth is the connection between objective health outcomes by political preference and "Creed"? Posting the motherjones & researchgate links does nothing to clarify the issue. You seemed to say there were "multiple aspects" about the creed that differed from what Huntington said. These two links do not address the subject of the American Creed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @EllenCT: The House of Representatives is noted in the citation, it represents the people of the United States, unless you are a Nevada militiaman denying USG legitimacy. Okay. Never mind the fundamental question whether a republic is legitimate merely on a widely-held conception of liberty, equality and self-determination, apart from most of the world's state-sponsored religion, ethnicity or repression.
- It may help if you think of Congressional Joint Resolutions as a two-tiered stratified random sampling of the population, with the House stratified by equal population segments, and the Senate stratified by meaningful political communities of people (states). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- If the French legislature resolved in 1920 that the French enjoy wine and cheese, we would include objective measurements of the amount of actual economic outcomes, i.e., how many euros were spent on how much of which kinds of cheese, in preference to reiterating the subjective resolution of beliefs from decades ago which may have been representative then but isn't today. Actions speak louder than words. Whether there is a more direct conection between a declared creed and objective health outcomes does not change the fact that subjective creed resolutions are not noteworthy compared to objective data pertinent to the subject of the article. EllenCT (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- This stuff about French wine & cheese and health outcomes and NV militia wackos and whatever have nothing to do with the "American Creed" or the "American's Creed". If there were some focused concern about the paragraph which contains the Creed material, then please discuss it. E.g., if there is material which explicitly and directly contradicts the American Creed description, then that material with backup from reliable sources should be discussed, Without such material and sources that can be discussed from editing perspectives (and not other perspectives), then this thread is disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- If the French legislature resolved in 1920 that the French enjoy wine and cheese, we would include objective measurements of the amount of actual economic outcomes, i.e., how many euros were spent on how much of which kinds of cheese, in preference to reiterating the subjective resolution of beliefs from decades ago which may have been representative then but isn't today. Actions speak louder than words. Whether there is a more direct conection between a declared creed and objective health outcomes does not change the fact that subjective creed resolutions are not noteworthy compared to objective data pertinent to the subject of the article. EllenCT (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- It may help if you think of Congressional Joint Resolutions as a two-tiered stratified random sampling of the population, with the House stratified by equal population segments, and the Senate stratified by meaningful political communities of people (states). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree that the American creed is an exceptional WP:REDFLAG claim, it is rather an enduring theme in American history despite episodic ebbs and flows, tending towards expanding democracy. See Alexander Keyssar in "The Right to Vote: the contested history of Democracy in the United States" (2009). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
World's largest economy
Within the observed error of measurement, it's already inaccurate to say that the US economy is the world's largest. EllenCT (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Aren't you in a hurry. Eventually China might overtake the US, but that's still a forecast.Mattnad (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The extrapolation uses a very strong "purchasing power" multiplier as well and is not "GDP in dollars" which most people use as an economic measure. "When, for example, we measure international purchasing power expressed in dollars, which matters in international trade, the U.S., Europe and Japan continue to be the dominate economies in the world." Collect (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The new data for China are "extrapolated from 2011 onwards" -- does that mean it is three year's old data, if the trend three years ago is extrapolated... but I thought there was a slowdown in Chinese productivity over the last two years...growth off by a third? The extrapolation curve shows asymptotically increasing rather than a straight line or with little two-year bumps up and down, solid line implying data versus dotted line to denote extrapolation...is this what my old college professor called How to Lie with Statistics?
- The extrapolation uses a very strong "purchasing power" multiplier as well and is not "GDP in dollars" which most people use as an economic measure. "When, for example, we measure international purchasing power expressed in dollars, which matters in international trade, the U.S., Europe and Japan continue to be the dominate economies in the world." Collect (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- But it is well that a world population four times greater than the U.S. approaches its GDP, the U.S. cannot shoulder the world's economy, we learned that in the Great Depression. For half a century U.S. policy has conscientiously fostered world economic development, and China has been perhaps the biggest beneficiary, including open oceans commerce.
- Mission accomplished, or one-quarter of the way there, depending on how you look at it, maybe by the end of this year if China recovers successfully in a pivot to a consumer economy ... and that recovery shows in updated data from reliable scholarly sources, we could reflect any change in national GDP rankings here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- As Mattnad said, no need to rush. It's an extrapolation based on an old future estimate. And that is a big increase. The World Bank's latest figures, released this past April 9, show the US with a PPP GDP of $16,244,600 to China's $12,268,638. The IMF has it in the same ballpark. This current revision would boost China's 2011 GDP to $13,495.9 trillion, an increase of well over $2 trillion from its previous 2011 figure. Let's wait and see how the actual published numbers play out for 2013 and 2014. VictorD7 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the European Union is the world's largest economy, the discussion above more properly addresses the world's largest national economies. Canada Jack (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- By that logic the global economy is the world's largest, though NAFTA and various other entities outrank the EU. But of course we're obviously talking about national rankings, per the article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The EU is often described now as being "the world's largest economy" as, unlike any other trade aggregate, it acts as a unified economy. Nafta or the world is never described in that way, so it's not a matter of "logic," it's a matter of how its economy is frequently described. The EU is a sui generis entity which has no current or historical parallel. NAFTA, for example, doesn't have a flag, an anthem, a parliament or a common currency. The EU has all of these. And, when the United States enters into trade negotiations, they typically do so with other countries, like Canada, Mexico, Israel, South Korea. But not so with Europe. They didn't go to Paris or London - but to Brussels. While it suffices to stick to "world's largest economy" in terms of the article as we understand that to mean America (or China), increasingly, the EU is given that mantle so there will come a point soon that we'll need to clarify we mean "national" economies. Soon, "world's largest economy" will be understood to mean the EU, and "world's largest national economy" will mean America (or China). (Though China will pass the EU too!) Canada Jack (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Properly informed people don't describe the EU that way. Yeah, the EU has a blue flag, like NATO and the UN, both of which significantly outrank the EU in GDP. But having a distinct governmental body seems like a bizarre and arbitrary place to draw the line when defining an "economy" when you're already in an international context. People speak about the "North American economy" (or "free trade zone") or the "global economy" all the time. As for currency, almost half the EU, including the UK and Sweden, don't use the Euro, while widespread casual use of the US dollar in Mexico and Canada makes that a wash at best from a European common economy standpoint. Actually, according to the IMF's recently published figures for 2013, the USA by itself has already surpassed the entire EU in GDP, $16.8 trillion to $16.3 trillion, and even other sources that don't say that yet show that the US has been gaining for a long time. But this is tangential at best, so maybe we should end this discussion before S. Rich lectures us. VictorD7 (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The EU is often described now as being "the world's largest economy" as, unlike any other trade aggregate, it acts as a unified economy. Nafta or the world is never described in that way, so it's not a matter of "logic," it's a matter of how its economy is frequently described. The EU is a sui generis entity which has no current or historical parallel. NAFTA, for example, doesn't have a flag, an anthem, a parliament or a common currency. The EU has all of these. And, when the United States enters into trade negotiations, they typically do so with other countries, like Canada, Mexico, Israel, South Korea. But not so with Europe. They didn't go to Paris or London - but to Brussels. While it suffices to stick to "world's largest economy" in terms of the article as we understand that to mean America (or China), increasingly, the EU is given that mantle so there will come a point soon that we'll need to clarify we mean "national" economies. Soon, "world's largest economy" will be understood to mean the EU, and "world's largest national economy" will mean America (or China). (Though China will pass the EU too!) Canada Jack (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- By that logic the global economy is the world's largest, though NAFTA and various other entities outrank the EU. But of course we're obviously talking about national rankings, per the article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- World's largest economies and China poised to overtake US as world's largest economy, research shows Economists previously expected the US – number 1 since the 19th century – to keep the top spot until 2019 -- Moxy (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the European Union is the world's largest economy, the discussion above more properly addresses the world's largest national economies. Canada Jack (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Properly informed people don't describe the EU that way. Sure they do. Indeed, your very source shows the EU as a single economic unit! They don't put Nafta or NATO on that list. Making specious comparisons to NATO or the UN miss the point: multiple sources routinely describe the EU as the "world's biggest economy," (subject to year-to year fluctuation as you point out) no one describes those other bodies as a single economy. For the purposes of this page, while I agree that while it is understood that "world's biggest economy" refers to the United States - or China - that is no longer strictly accurate as the European Union is routinely described that way, and as per the strictures of wikipedia, we go by our reliable sources. Maybe we don't need to make that distinction yet, i.e., specify "national," but we may down the road. Canada Jack (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- You replied in the wrong place since you're quoting me, not Moxy, but did you miss the part where I observed that the IMF figures for 2013 show the USA has already passed the EU in GDP? No, the EU having the "world's biggest economy" talking point was never legitimate for reasons I laid out, but it will be increasingly even less valid as time goes on and more individual nations surpass the EU. The EU is losing its contrived "#1 economy" status (if you ignore the other transnational economies) even sooner than China's long forecast passing of the US. And what "source" are you referring to? The Wiki page I linked to? Misplaced Pages isn't a legitimate source, by its own rules. I only linked to it because it had the IMF list I described, along with a link to that source. I figure the EU is included on that Wiki page because there are a lot of aggressive, parochial European editors on Misplaced Pages, some of whom embrace a sort of continental nationalism, or maybe it was added by one of the even more numerous Commonwealth types who see it as their mission to take Americans down a peg, and who are misguided in seeing that EU/"largest economy" proclamation (back when it was true that it was least larger than the US economy) as somehow doing so. Regardless, the IMF source itself doesn't just list the EU, but many aggregate groupings, including "Advanced Economies", "Euro Area", the G7, "Emerging market and developing economies", and "Emerging and developing Asia", all of which, except for "Euro Area", have a larger GDP than the EU. VictorD7 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Properly informed people don't describe the EU that way. Sure they do. Indeed, your very source shows the EU as a single economic unit! They don't put Nafta or NATO on that list. Making specious comparisons to NATO or the UN miss the point: multiple sources routinely describe the EU as the "world's biggest economy," (subject to year-to year fluctuation as you point out) no one describes those other bodies as a single economy. For the purposes of this page, while I agree that while it is understood that "world's biggest economy" refers to the United States - or China - that is no longer strictly accurate as the European Union is routinely described that way, and as per the strictures of wikipedia, we go by our reliable sources. Maybe we don't need to make that distinction yet, i.e., specify "national," but we may down the road. Canada Jack (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I like the style “one of the largest economies” tried out by Victor falk earlier., or perhaps “one of the top three world economies by any measure”.
- It avoids economic data base controversies which are fleeting, often amending previous reports and which often contradict one another. It would thus stabilize the article. How the U.S. may be the largest economy by which metric in what context over what period of time, can be sorted out in subsidiary articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I figure the EU is included on that Wiki page because there are a lot of aggressive, parochial European editors on Misplaced Pages, some of whom embrace a sort of continental nationalism, or maybe it was added by one of the even more numerous Commonwealth types who see it as their mission to take Americans down a peg... The EU is on the lists because the sources put it on the lists. Actually, the most cogent argument for inclusion of the EU, notwithstanding your rather paranoid "Take Americans down a peg" argument, comes from that noted America-basher, the CIA, who, it should be noted, currently lists the EU as the world's largest economy on their country list, as does the World Bank, and your IMF measure only works against the EU if you measure by PPP. But, whatever, Victor. My point is not to argue who is the largest economy, it is to point out, whatever the merits, the EU is often called "the world's largest economy." As I said, I don't see it as a pressing issue currently and as other economies grow, the issue may become moot anyway as you note, though the other economies which realistically pass that size of an economy are China (soon) and India (a decade or two down the road). Canada Jack (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- <Insert>Actually the World Bank source page only lists nations, Canada Jack, though elsewhere the site includes nation groupings like the EU, OECD, etc.. The CIA also has an article on the United States Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges. PPP is the norm for international analyses, though the US (and other nations) will likely pass the EU in nominal terms at some point too. And no paranoia, just an educated speculation based on years of amused observation. VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Since an Economy can have differing boundaries, depending on the definition, there's no harm in either qualifying the statement to include "national economy" or "one of x largest economies". Europe is very much an economic union with a single currency and free movement of labor and capital. So we really should be precise here.Mattnad (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- This entire tangent is pointless since the article's lede already says "world's largest national economy". There's even already a (increasingly out of date) US/EU GDP comparison later in the Economy section: Though larger than any other nation's, its national GDP was about 5% smaller at PPP in 2011 than the European Union's, whose population is around 62% higher. Everything's alright. This was just a Talk Page side discussion initiated by Canada Phil and indulged by me. VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Canada Jack: This article makes it very clear that the United States has the world's largest national economy, not that it has the largest overall economy over any economic union. The EU is an economic organization and not a single nation governed by one government. Therefore your point and everything you're saying to try to defend it is moot. Cadiomals (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I figure the EU is included on that Wiki page because there are a lot of aggressive, parochial European editors on Misplaced Pages, some of whom embrace a sort of continental nationalism, or maybe it was added by one of the even more numerous Commonwealth types who see it as their mission to take Americans down a peg... The EU is on the lists because the sources put it on the lists. Actually, the most cogent argument for inclusion of the EU, notwithstanding your rather paranoid "Take Americans down a peg" argument, comes from that noted America-basher, the CIA, who, it should be noted, currently lists the EU as the world's largest economy on their country list, as does the World Bank, and your IMF measure only works against the EU if you measure by PPP. But, whatever, Victor. My point is not to argue who is the largest economy, it is to point out, whatever the merits, the EU is often called "the world's largest economy." As I said, I don't see it as a pressing issue currently and as other economies grow, the issue may become moot anyway as you note, though the other economies which realistically pass that size of an economy are China (soon) and India (a decade or two down the road). Canada Jack (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Gee whiz -- the Soviet Union had a far larger "economy" than Russia has today -- but that does not mean much at all. For most real people and economists, per capita productivity is the yardstick to use -- otherwise just adding huge areas and vast numbers of people to any grouping results in a "larger economy." Collect (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- By that measure, Qatar is #1 List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita with the US much farther down the list, depending on the source.Mattnad (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Which seems to suggest that a list might reasonably be (say) "nations with over 1 million population" to avoid what appears anomalous otherwise. F'rinstance, if the US and Canada were to join economically, the "economy" would grow, but the per capita figure would not be higher then the current higher of the two values. I.e. annexing other countries does not intrinsically "improve the economy." Collect (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- GDP per capita is a good yardstick for economic health and other factors, but it is not a measure of outright economy size, which does have its own implications (power of the currency, whether otherwise will invest in that currency, etc.). It may very well be proper to say that the Soviet Union had a larger economy than modern Russia. If that is a true statement, then you still have to be careful what you conclude from it. It may not mean that the USSR economy was healthier, but just that it was bigger since it had more people/territory/industrial base. That doesn't change the absolute size of the economy, though. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think this is complicated. The disputed sentence already makes it clear that the US has the largest economy of any nation which based on this thread, is still the case.Mattnad (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- When China finally passes the US GDP either in PPP or nominal terms, and all/most mainstream sources affirm it with certainty, we will modify the statement that the US has the world's largest national economy. Predictions are predictions are predictions. Cadiomals (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Misleading Gini figures
The United States wiki page is the only country profile to show before taxes and transfers gini figures. All other countries show post-tax figures. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/19/global-inequality-how-the-u-s-compares/
You can compare them to the above data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I have updated the United States' gini figures to keep in line with how other countries' gini figures are reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Census report source says 2011 (and is dated 2012). The Pew Report says the data is 2010, even though it is dated later. The Census reference is restored. (Also, if you are going to change the links & titles of references, please change the dates in the citation.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- But it looks like he's right, though I've only had time to take a quick glance at it. If the Gini index is to be in the info box at all (which I'd argue against) it should be at least somewhat comparable to the other country articles, because readers will assume it's comparable, rendering an apples and oranges situation misleading. Look how big the differences between those pre benefit/post benefit numbers are in that OECD data set in the Pew link. The small sample of foreign nation articles I've checked have been sourced by outfits like Eurostat or the CIA World Factbook. By contrast the Census reference looks to be a US only version of the term rather than an international comparison. We should probably replace it with the most up to date source that's international in scope regardless of the year. VictorD7 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The best place to handle this is at Template talk:Infobox country. That way we can get consistent guidance on what or which Gini figures to use. At present, the template parameter options for the Gini are not described. The example given simply uses the CIA Worldbook. But are there other sources? It seems so. NOTE: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries#To do list has a "Wikify Gini" on their to do list. (Note, the archive for the Template talk has some hits for Gini, but I have not examined the comments to see if they discuss the parameters & Gini possibilities.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- But in the meantime we should probably switch to the latest OECD figure to remain consistent with practice on other articles, maybe with the year parenthetically added. VictorD7 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Victor, your edit summary mentioned other methodologies. And I see there are "more than a dozen" variants of the Gini coefficient. That said, this is a Wiki-wide concern because the infobox (and Gini parameter) is used in a few hundred articles. I suggest we open a thread on the infobox template talk and advertise it in the Country & Economics WikiProjects. Can you assist in wording the issue? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to answer any questions I can and assist you in such an effort in whatever time I get to briefly check in, though I don't think what we do on this page as a stopgap should wait until if and when we get a resolution on the other page. I'll also note that it doesn't seem like that template page receives much traffic, so I'm not sure how much participation we'd get. Maybe it's about advertising in the right place. VictorD7 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- You could help by giving insight on what are the most likely candidates for Gini coefficient "variants" for use in the template. The Gini article itself is listed with 5 different WikiProjects, so posting a notice on their pages may get the notice we need. Also, an RfC might help. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've started an inquiry at Talk:Gini_coefficient#Gini_in_Template:infobox_country. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to answer any questions I can and assist you in such an effort in whatever time I get to briefly check in, though I don't think what we do on this page as a stopgap should wait until if and when we get a resolution on the other page. I'll also note that it doesn't seem like that template page receives much traffic, so I'm not sure how much participation we'd get. Maybe it's about advertising in the right place. VictorD7 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Victor, your edit summary mentioned other methodologies. And I see there are "more than a dozen" variants of the Gini coefficient. That said, this is a Wiki-wide concern because the infobox (and Gini parameter) is used in a few hundred articles. I suggest we open a thread on the infobox template talk and advertise it in the Country & Economics WikiProjects. Can you assist in wording the issue? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- But in the meantime we should probably switch to the latest OECD figure to remain consistent with practice on other articles, maybe with the year parenthetically added. VictorD7 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The best place to handle this is at Template talk:Infobox country. That way we can get consistent guidance on what or which Gini figures to use. At present, the template parameter options for the Gini are not described. The example given simply uses the CIA Worldbook. But are there other sources? It seems so. NOTE: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries#To do list has a "Wikify Gini" on their to do list. (Note, the archive for the Template talk has some hits for Gini, but I have not examined the comments to see if they discuss the parameters & Gini possibilities.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- But it looks like he's right, though I've only had time to take a quick glance at it. If the Gini index is to be in the info box at all (which I'd argue against) it should be at least somewhat comparable to the other country articles, because readers will assume it's comparable, rendering an apples and oranges situation misleading. Look how big the differences between those pre benefit/post benefit numbers are in that OECD data set in the Pew link. The small sample of foreign nation articles I've checked have been sourced by outfits like Eurostat or the CIA World Factbook. By contrast the Census reference looks to be a US only version of the term rather than an international comparison. We should probably replace it with the most up to date source that's international in scope regardless of the year. VictorD7 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Family Structures
Is there any good historical data that can be added for this section ? Can we find anything about average family size,relations, etc. I find it ridiculous that 90% of the info in the section is about gay marriage and abortion. What are they trying to say ? Scatach (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010
- Rosenstone, Steven J. (December 17, 2009). "Public Education for the Common Good". University of Minnesota. Retrieved March 6, 2009.
- "Statue of Liberty". World Heritage. UNESCO. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
- Based on Larry Bartels's study Economic Inequality and Political Representation, Table 1: Differential Responsiveness of Senators to Constituency Opinion.
- Hayes, Thomas J. (2011). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. SSRN 1900856.
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
- WikiProject United States articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class North America articles
- Top-importance North America articles
- WikiProject North America articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States Government articles with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English