Revision as of 08:13, 20 June 2008 editDCGeist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,204 edits rvv--Talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not to commandeer as a soapbox← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:48, 9 January 2025 edit undoMason.Jones (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,764 edits →Do we really need nominal and PPP GDP in the infobox? | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk header}} | |||
{| class="messagebox" style="background-color:#B0C3FB;padding:8px;border:3px solid #C91240;text-align:center;" | |||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} | |||
| Please consider reading the ''']''' before asking any questions on this talk page. | |||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|long}} | |||
|} | |||
{{American English|date=September 2011}} | |||
{| class="messagebox" | |||
{{Article history | |||
| Current population (]): {{uspop commas}} as of {{#time:F j, Y}} | |||
|} | |||
{{talkheader}} | |||
{{ArticleHistory | |||
|action1=GAN | |action1=GAN | ||
|action1date=02:27, 15 December 2005 | |action1date=02:27, 15 December 2005 | ||
Line 41: | Line 38: | ||
|action7=FAC | |action7=FAC | ||
|action7date= |
|action7date= 19 October 2006 | ||
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United States/archive4 | |action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United States/archive4 | ||
|action7result=not promoted | |action7result=not promoted | ||
|action7oldid=139239542 | |||
|action8=FAC | |||
|action8date=18:01, 19 June 2007 | |||
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United States/archive5 | |||
|action8result=not promoted | |||
|action8oldid=139239542 | |||
|action9=GAR | |||
|action9date=09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/United States/1 | |||
|action9result=kept | |||
|action9oldid=224506293 | |||
|action10=FAC | |||
|action10date=16:56, 27 June 2009 | |||
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United States/archive6 | |||
|action10result=not promoted | |||
|action10oldid=298963267 | |||
|action11=PR | |||
|action11date=03:25, 6 September 2009 | |||
|action11link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/United States/archive3 | |||
|action11result=reviewed | |||
|action11oldid=311950730 | |||
|action12=PR | |||
|action12date=20:57, 19 January 2011 | |||
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/United States/archive4 | |||
|action12result=reviewed | |||
|action12oldid=408843044 | |||
|action13=GAR | |||
|action13date=13:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
|action13link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/United States/2 | |||
|action13result=delisted | |||
|action13oldid=482121399 | |||
|action14=GAN | |||
|action14date=23:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
|action14link=Talk:United States/GA1 | |||
|action14result=not listed | |||
|action14oldid=506806669 | |||
|action15=GAN | |||
|action15date=16:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
|action15link=Talk:United States/GA2 | |||
|action15result= listed | |||
|action15oldid=506806669 | |||
|action16=GAR | |||
|action16date=19:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/United States/3 | |||
|action16result= delisted | |||
|action16oldid=974086316 | |||
|action17=PR | |||
|action17date=2020-12-19 | |||
|action17link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/United States/archive5 | |||
|action17result= reviewed | |||
|action17oldid=995167082 | |||
|currentstatus=DGA | |||
|topic=geography | |topic=geography | ||
|dykdate=3 February 2015 | |||
|currentstatus=GA | |||
|dykentry=... that the ''']''' accounts for 37% of all ]? | |||
|dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/United States | |||
|otd1date=2008-07-04|otd1oldid=223021097 | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |listas=United States |1= | |||
{{WPB | |||
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Top |past-collaboration=yes|USGov=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject North America |importance=Top}} | |||
|2={{WPCountries|class=A}} | |||
{{WikiProject Countries}} | |||
|3={{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=A|category=Geography|VA=yes|coresup=yes}} | |||
}} | |||
|4={{FAOL|Chinese|zh:美國|lang2=Malayalam|link2=ml:മലയാളം|small=yes}} | |||
{{Press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008|org='']''|title2=Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed|org2=]|url2=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613|date2=July 18, 2013|accessdate2=July 18, 2013}} | |||
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| | |||
{{Backwardscopy | |||
|author=Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. | |||
|year=2010 | |||
|title=Orson Scott Card: United States, author, critic, public speaking, activism, genre | |||
|org=Betascript Publishing | |||
|comments={{OCLC|636651797}}, {{ISBN|9786130336431}}. | |||
|author2=Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. | |||
|year2=2009 | |||
|title2=Biosphere 2: Biosphere 2, closed ecological system, Oracle, Arizona, Arizona, United States, Biome, space colonization, Biosphere, rainforest, Ed Bass, BIOS-3, Eden project | |||
|org2=Alphascript | |||
|comments2={{OCLC|699544461}}, {{ISBN|9786130219581}}. | |||
|author3=Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. | |||
|year3=2010 | |||
|title3=Military journalism: Combatant commander, psychological warfare, United States, public affairs (military), propaganda, journalist, Civil-military operations | |||
|org3=Alphascript Publishing | |||
|comments3={{OCLC|671248488}}, {{ISBN|9786130072650}}. | |||
|bot=LivingBot | |||
}} | |||
{{All time pageviews|237}} | |||
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}} | |||
{{Top 25 report|Apr 7 2013|Apr 28 2013|May 5 2013|Sep 8 2013|Oct 6 2013|until|Feb 23 2014|Mar 9 2014|until|Mar 30 2014|Apr 27 2014|May 4 2014|Sep 21 2014|Oct 12 2014|Nov 9 2014|Nov 16 2014|Nov 30 2014|until|Dec 14 2014|Jan 25 2015|Apr 19 2015|May 10 2015|Nov 8 2015|Mar 27 2016|Apr 10 2016|May 15 2016|May 22 2016}} | |||
{{Annual readership}} | |||
{{section sizes}} | |||
{{Xreadership|days=60}} | |||
}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{USold|August 14|2007}} | |||
{{selected anniversary|July 4}} | |||
{{maintained| ], ], ], ], ]}} | |||
{{/Archive Box}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:United States/Archive index|mask=Talk:United States/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader |
|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | ||
|maxarchivesize |
|maxarchivesize=50K | ||
|counter |
|counter=116 | ||
|minthreadsleft |
|minthreadsleft=2 | ||
|algo |
|algo=old(30d) | ||
|archive |
|archive=Talk:United States/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
<!-- Talk page begins here. --> | |||
== Not mention of slavery , inequality in lead ? == | |||
== Like terms == | |||
Why are Caucasians refered to as "Whites" but people of African descent are not refered to as "Blacks"? If you're going to label people, at least use like terms (Blacks, Whites, Browns, Yellows, etc...) or only use the more accurate description of origin of descent (Anglo, Afro, Asian, etc). Thanks. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I was reading about other country lead it had all the bad thing about that country in the lead but in usa case it only positive thing . Why ? ] (]) 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
The entire US census-demographics chart is quite below standards/inept when categorizing with race and ethnicity. | |||
ie. | |||
Middle Eastern & Asian ---> geographic designation | |||
black ---> color | |||
Caucasian ---> race | |||
Latino ---> race and/or ethnicity and/or hertiage | |||
] (]) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:The abolishment of slavery is mentioned. There has been some discussion about adding something about inequality but it hasn’t come to anything. | |||
:You appear to be looking at the wrong chart, since the word "Caucasian" does not appear in this article. --] (]) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:We follow ] and if they are mostly negative or positive we represent that. Which country articles did you feel are too negative? ] (]) 21:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I have not experience in wikipedia edit but i can provide you trusted ,reliable , well decumented , peer reviewed amd factual source that slavry is one biggest thing about usa as a country . | |||
::Lead only contain info about Abolishment and thats it . ] (]) 06:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Because it is abolished already. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::It was one biggest Part of history and what america is today . Simply not putting in lead shows it was not important enough to be included ? | |||
::::There is civil war in lead but not slavary .. ] (]) 21:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Slavery is mentioned in the civil war sentence. ] (]) 06:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::It is mention only 2 times only as reason for civil war and then it just abolised . | |||
::::::Whole american poltical , economical and social system Was shaped by this. ] (]) 12:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yeah it's pretty insane that the intro mentions something as detailed as Pearl Harbor but makes no mention of the forced migration of enslaved Africans. ] (]) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Also find it nuts that the slave trade isn’t mentioned in the ledes of loads of Caribbean countries like ] and ] ] (]) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Agreed. It irks me that editors continue to label topics such as African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body, has little to do with ideological bias; it’s about ensuring that article content reflects what is frequently mentioned in reliable sources (which these topics are). | |||
::::::::Additionally, if we shouldn’t mention slavery because it’s been abolished, why should we mention any of the other history either? The Confederate States are long gone, so why mention the American Civil War? Etc. ] (]) 00:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Again, slavery is mentioned. ] (]) 03:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Again there is difference between . | |||
::::::::::"mentioning slavery in the context of the Civil War and its abolition." | |||
::::::::::And | |||
::::::::::"mentioning slavery in the context of how it shaped american culture , economy , values , politics and how imprtant it was and it is now " ] (]) 09:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Neither of those quotes you cite appears to have been used in this discussion. The actual quote replied to was "...African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body". ] (]) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::I actually agree with the IP’s argument, but I understand where you are coming from as well. | |||
::::::::::::I’d like to reiterate that I am not attempting to make this article singularly focused on negative aspects and believed injustices. | |||
::::::::::::However, I must concur with the IP that mentioning African American slavery as an aspect of the American civil war doesn’t adequately represent its effects. | |||
::::::::::::I feel that a sentence along the lines of “The subjugation of native American peoples, along with the enslavement and discrimination of African Americans, has substantially shaped American governance, society, culture, and economics throughout the country’s past and present.” would do a great job (obviously not my exact wording). Not only would this satisfy the issues with adequately covering the topic, but it would also rid the lead of awkward attempts to include the topic via a more conventional historiography. | |||
::::::::::::But, there’s the potential issue of a lack of sources to support this (since examination of the aforementioned effects in a wide scope is a more recent phenomenon among academia). If so, I wouldn’t be opposed to more balanced wording. ] (]) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::Also, I was mistaken in claiming that slavery wasn’t mentioned at all. Apologies! ] (]) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::See my reply to CMD below, I’d appreciate your thoughts. ] (]) 03:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} In the body, {{tq|Along the eastern seaboard, settlers trafficked African slaves through the Atlantic slave trade.}} is a good opportunity for some African-American social history. | |||
Something like | |||
* {{tq|African slaves primarily worked on cash crop plantations.}} and a bit on culture/cultural diversion | |||
In the revolutionary war section: | |||
* {{tq|African American soldiers fought on both the British and the American sides.}} | |||
* Some description of the ] however unsure about placement. | |||
What are people’s thoughts on this? ] (]) 13:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Crime and Punishment Bias == | |||
Go over the crime and punishment section once again, my fellow wikipedians. tell me if you don't believe that to be a little slanted. the article mentions how high the crime rate is, but only compares it to western-europe natons--leaving out the fact that it is drastically lower than countries like russia, mexico, etc. im not asking to fill the article with some hot-air about how peaceful the south-chicago streets are at 2:00am, but i just don't belive it is written very free of opinion. let me know what yall think. ] (]) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not sure that I agree that it is as biased as you may think, although I do see what you mean. There ''is'' a graph that clearly shows that Russia is higher, and I think it's only fair that it is compared to other developed nations (says developed, not western, so we just need to make sure that it is truly comparing to all developed nations). One thing that I remember reading is that violent crime in the last decade decreased, so if that is true, maybe it's worth mentioning? ] (]) 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::The other problem is that data in ] for statistics on violence is weak or totally absent (they have some higher priorities). In countries with less open media and government transparency, the rates can't be verified and are of dubious value for comparison. Saying that the US is, in general, more violent than Western Europe is a valid claim, but I'd agree that it could be misleading and requires more discussion and perspective than can be included in a general article. I'm a rampant emo kid when it comes to this article (obsessed with cutting), so I won't bother stating my preference for what to do with the issue.] (]) 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I have no issues with these additions as long as they’re reliably sourced. They don’t seem inflammatory or undue to me, and this article absolutely needs more content on the subject. ] (]) 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Superpower == | |||
::Taking just these ideas in isolation is a perhaps a starting point for a discussion, but not a firm basis to build content on. As you mention sources would be helpful, and in particular sources that can help frame due weight in the context of the United States, or of the History of the United States. The History section is not short as it is, so discussions about more content being needed should also include what is in turn overrepresented. As an on-wiki example, it could be worth looking at the lead of ]. Within its four paragraphs, this mentions agricultural slave labor, controversy over the expansion of slavery, the civil war, and abolition. It also mentions Jim Crow in the post-abolition era. Is this a better balance of weight, and if so, what is this page currently doing differently? ] (]) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Great points! I agree that slapping on more content to an already bloated page shouldn’t be the route we focus on. | |||
:::However, I’m a little worried about making significant changes to the history section that center on negative events and outcomes, since many editors on this page will be diametrically opposed to anything of the sort. See the “Biased, contentious claims being written as uncontroversial assertions” discussion above, for example, where attempts to include more information on complex issues are aspersed as ideological attacks on the page. The discussing editor even goes as far as to say the only reason these aspects are being discussed is that democrats are bitter over Trump’s victory in the presidential election. :( ] (]) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Part of the reaction to perceived negative information is the process. If the argument is, the lead is positive, we should introduce slavery as a negative, then that's going to stymie the effort from the getgo. This is another reason why it's helpful to consider weight and impact rather than whether X or Y is positive or negative.{{pb}}As a start, one thing that could be reduced is the American Revolution and the early republic (1765–1800) subsection, particularly the first paragraph. All these names and events are important, but the detail is very undue at this level. The main article lead covers that entire period in a couple of sentences, and condensing this would mean topics such as the continued importance of slave labor during that time could be mentioned. ] (]) 05:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks for the advice, these proposals were from the lede of ] but I agree that ] and tertiary sources would be better places to look. | |||
:::* doesn't even mention African Americans, has a little on slavery | |||
:::* doesn't mention slavery until {{tq|The mid-19th century was dominated by a political crisis over slavery and states' rights}} and again doesn't mention African Americans | |||
:::* Britannica's article is long but says {{tq2|Part of that population growth was the result of the involuntary immigration of enslaved Africans. During the 17th century, enslaved persons remained a tiny minority of the population. By the mid-18th century, after Southern colonists discovered that the profits generated by their plantations could support the relatively large initial investments needed for slave labor, the volume of the slave trade increased markedly. In Virginia the enslaved population leaped from about 2,000 in 1670 to perhaps 23,000 in 1715 and reached 150,000 on the eve of the American Revolution. In South Carolina it was even more dramatic. In 1700 there were probably no more than 2,500 Blacks in the population; by 1765 there were 80,000–90,000, with Blacks outnumbering whites by about 2 to 1.}} | |||
:::] (]) 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:"I was reading about other country lead it had all the bad thing about that country in the lead but in usa case it only positive thing. Why?" Many editors are American and, being American, writing about the negative aspects of the United States is complicated; this could be the reason (I don't want to justify anyone). ] (]) 18:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I am not American, but my impression of American history is a long tale of ]s dominating the political system, the struggle for ] having meager results, and ] being surprisingly frequent. The phrase "hell on Earth" is never far from my mind when reading about the U.S. ] (]) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{Ping|Dimadick}} furthermore, American society is too consumerist; for example, regarding "]" (TRUE Italian cuisine is in Italy, it doesn't exist in the United States) there are multinationals and brands (e.g., ], which declared bankruptcy in 2022 in Italy, ],{{efn|I prefer not to comment...}} etc.) that sell a lot, but almost completely sacrificing culinary quality. ] (]) 12:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I was reading about China, and its introduction seems to have focused on all the negative aspects, such as the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" and how communism caused the "Great Chinese Famine." Then, I read about the USA to compare. The introduction to the USA, however, only included positive aspects and didn't even properly mention slavery. I would argue that we should include events like the "1985 MOVE bombing," the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male," U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, or the "Forever Wars" in the Middle East for resource ] (]) 12:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Unfortunately, many Americans don't like China, perhaps because it's the only country that could, in the future, economically surpass the United States; here's the possible reason. ] (]) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Notes === | |||
I've seen the new comments being made that Russia is a ''superpower'' and United States is no longer a superpower and stating Russia is far more powerful than the USA. ROFL in all the time I've been on Wikpedia I don't think I've ever heard something so crazy which someone seriously believed. This is not just a ridiculous Russian nationalist fantasy, it's sickening. Fanatical Russians clinging to the idea their finished state is actually still something for the world to fear because their country is only held together by the idea that it should wreak war on others, and America hating sympathisers who look for and support any possible states or entities that could rival the United States, no matter how brutal and disgusting they may be, whether it be such likes as China or Al-Quaeda. Russia is an absolutely finished state with a rapidly falling population that is now even smaller than Pakistan's, it's economy sits in a pathetic 11th position in the world which has been claimed many times is too low to be in the G8, its military spending in a poor 7th position with only a tiny number of its roting military still functioning, internal conflicts and borders falling apart with its regions such as Chechnya breaking away and technically became independent states with their own presidents. | |||
{{Notelist}} | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
How can Russia even for a second be seriously considered a superpower let alone be more powerful than the US when it can only just scrape in to claim to be a great power considering most other great powers such as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and China out perform Russia in economic rankings and military spending rankings. Infact all great powers mentioned above have larger economies than Russia and only Italy spends less on its military, and not by very much. | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Estados Unidos da América}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#米国}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Соединенные Штаты Америки}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Соединенные Штаты}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Les États Unis d'Amérique}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024 == | |||
Russia may very well have large reserves of oil and gas and tries to claim these make it oh so powerful of a country because it has reserves in similar size to that of Iran. Thing is reserves of oil and gas in similar size to that of Iran's have not made Iran a superpower, infact Iran isn't even a great power. Russia has a medium economic growth rate traditionally around 5% a year. The United States has an economic growth rate traditionally around 4% a year. When does Russia's economy expect to by pass America's? 2800? 5% economic growth is actually pretty poor for a developing economy, with such likes as China and India growing at around 9% or more, and it's only 1% higher than America's and America is fully developed. In fact how can the Russian economy even try to compare to the US economy when it's not even a developed economy? | |||
{{edit extended-protected|United States|answered=yes}} | |||
It gets even more ridiculous when you try to compare numbers between Russia and the United States. Russia's $1.2 trillion economy versus the United States $13.7 trillion economy. That's around 13 times larger. The US economy equals 25% of the world's GDP. Russia's $40 billion military spending versus the USA's $583 billion military spending. The USA's military spending is 50% of the world's military spending. Russia's rapidly declining population of 142 million people versus the USA's rapidly rising population of 304 million people. When Russia's economy equals 26% of the world's GDP, its military spending equals 51% of world military spending, and a rapidly growing population of 305 million people THEN AND ONLY THEN is it a superpower more powerful than the United States | |||
In the lead, convert the semicolon in “It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state” to a comma. When making a break in a sentence via a comma, such a break should end with another comma. ] (]) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}} – ] (]) 04:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
In case even all this still has't proved how pathetic Russian power is as of 2008 I've laid out Russia's rankings in important areas associated with power | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 16#الولايات المتحدة}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 12:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Two-Party system == | |||
*Economy | |||
{| | |||
|- | |||
| width="33%" align="center" | '''2007 List by the ]''' | |||
|- valign="top" | |||
| | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" | |||
! Rank !! Country !! GDP (millions of USD) | |||
|- | |||
|—||{{flagicon|World}} ''''']'''''||'''54,311,608''' | |||
|- | |||
|—||''{{flag|European Union}}''||16,830,100 | |||
|- | |||
|1||{{flag|United States}}||13,843,825 | |||
|- | |||
|2||{{flag|Japan}}||4,383,762 | |||
|- | |||
|3||{{flag|Germany}}||3,322,147 | |||
|- | |||
|4||{{flag|China}}||3,250,827 | |||
|- | |||
|5||{{flag|United Kingdom}}||2,772,570 | |||
|- | |||
|6||{{flag|France}}||2,560,255 | |||
|- | |||
|7||{{flag|Italy}}||2,104,666 | |||
|- | |||
|8||{{flag|Spain}}||1,438,959 | |||
|- | |||
|9||{{flag|Canada}}||1,432,140 | |||
|- | |||
|10||{{flag|Brazil}}||1,313,590 | |||
|- | |||
|11||{{flag|Russia}}||1,289,582 | |||
|- | |||
|12||{{flag|India}}||1,098,945 | |||
|- | |||
|13||{{flag|South Korea}}||957,053 | |||
|- | |||
|14||{{flag|Australia}}||908,826 | |||
|- | |||
|15||{{flag|Mexico}}||893,365 | |||
|} | |||
The US is de-facto dominated by two-party rule, which makes it de facto under a two-party system. Feel free to discuss your opinion as to whether this belongs in the infobox or not. Consensus is necessary in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Military | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
|- bgcolor="#ececec" | |||
! Rank !! colspan=2| Country !! Military expenditures (]) !! Date of information | |||
|- | |||
|—||{{flagicon|World}}|| ] '''Total''' || align=right| 1,200,000,000,000 || align=right| 2007 (projected est.)<ref>http://en.wikinews.org/Global_annual_military_spending_tops_$1.2_trillion </ref> | |||
|- | |||
|—|| || ] '''Total''' || align=right| 849,875,309,000 || align=right| | |||
|- | |||
| 1 || {{flagicon|United States}} || ] || align=right| 583,283,000,000 || align=right| 2008<ref>[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/defense.pdf Department Of Defense</ref> | |||
|- | |||
|—||{{flagicon|European Union}}|| ] '''Total''' || align=right| 311,920,000,000 || align=right| 2007<ref> {{cite paper | author = Sven Biscop | title = Ambiguous Ambition. Development of the EU security architecture; Paper presented at the colloquium The EC/EU: A World Security Actor? An Assessment after 50 Years of the External Actions of the EC/EU, Paris, EU Institute for Security Studies, 15 September 2006 | publisher = The Royal Institute for International Relations - EGMONT | date = 2006-09-15 | url = http://www.irri-kiib.be/papers/06/sec-gov/Chapter.Deigthon-Bossuat.htm | accessdate = 2008-04-27}} "a defence budget of over 200 billion euro" (converted into USD at the exchange rate current at end of April, 2008)</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 2 || {{flagicon|France}} || ] || align=right| 74,690,470,000 || align=right| 2008-2009 <ref>http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ministre/prises_de_parole/discours/projet_de_budget_2008_m_herve_morin_26_09_07 Conférence de presse de M. Hervé Morin, ministre de la Défense</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 3 || {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} || ] || align=right| 68,911,000,000 || align=right| ] 2008-09<ref></ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 4 || {{flagicon|China}} || ] || align=right| 59,000,000,000 || align=right| 2008<ref></ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 5 || {{flagicon|Germany}} || ] || align=right| 45,930,000,000 || align=right| 2008<ref> </ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 6 || {{flagicon|Japan}} || ] || align=right| 41,750,000,000 || align=right| 2007<ref></ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 7 || {{flagicon|Russia}} || ] || align=right| 40,000,000,000 || align=right| 2008<ref>Defense spending to grow 20% in 2008 - Deputy Defense Minister Lyubov Kudelina </ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 8 || {{flagicon|Italy}} || ] || align=right| 32,600,000,000 || align=right| 2008 (est.) {{Fact|date=February 2008}} | |||
|- | |||
| 9 || {{flagicon|Saudi Arabia}} || ] || align=right| 31,050,000,000 || align=right| 2008 <ref>Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: The fifteen major spenders in 2007.</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 10 || {{flagicon|South Korea}} || ] || align=right| 28,940,000,000 || align=right| 2008 <ref>.</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 11 || {{flagicon|India}} || ] || align=right| 26,500,000,000 || align=right| 2008-2009 | |||
|- | |||
| 12 || {{flagicon|Brazil}} || ] || align=right| 25,396,731,055 || align=right| 2008<ref>National Congress of Brazil. </ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 13 || {{flagicon|Australia}} || ] || align=right| 20,727,710,000 || align=right| 2008<ref>Australian Department of Defence (2006). Page 19.</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 14 || {{flagicon|Canada}} || ] || align=right| 17,150,002,540 || align=right| 2008<ref></ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 15 || {{flagicon|Spain}} || ] || align=right| 15,792,207,000 || align=right| 2007 | |||
|} | |||
:This is already in the article. ] (]) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Population | |||
::I meant including in the government section. ] (]) 15:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:right" | |||
:::That is where it is currently included, under the political parties subheader. ] (]) 15:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
::::I'm talking about the infobox. ] (]) 15:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
! Rank || Country/territory/entity || Population || Date || % of world population || Source | |||
:::::Please don't when they have already been replied to. ] (]) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
::::::Apologies for that, but please stay on topic. ] (]) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| — ||align=left| {{flagicon|World}} ] || '''6,671,226,000'''|| ], ]|| '''100%''' ||style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 1 ||align=left| {{flag|People's Republic of China}}<ref>] only</ref> || {{formatnum:{{#expr: 1323290000 + 18657.53434576 * {{Age in days|2008|1|1}}round -3}} }} <!--AUTOUPDATES DAILY at 00:00 UTC, uses 2008 data from page in Chinese, time zone difference not factored in; 18,657.534... people per day -->|| ] ] || {{#expr: (1323290000 + 18657.53434576 * {{Age in days|2008|1|1}}) / 66712260 round 2}}% ||style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 2 ||align=left| {{flag|India}} || {{formatnum:{{#expr: 1006360500 + 42197.260273969 * {{Age in days|2000|3|1}} round -3}} }} <!--AUTOUPDATES DAILY at 00:00 UTC, uses same data as India pop clock 42,197.26.. people per day -->|| ] ] || {{#expr:(1006360500 + 42197.260273969 * {{Age in days|2000|3|1}})/66712260 round 2}}%||style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 3 || align=left| {{flag|United States}} || {{formatnum:{{uspop}} }}<!--AUTOUPDATES DAILY at 00:00 UTC, uses same data as U.S. pop clock - 7,480 people per day (one every 11.55 seconds)--> | |||
|| ] ] || {{#expr: {{uspop}} / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 4 || align=left| {{flag|Indonesia}} || 231,627,000 || || {{#expr: 231627000 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| UN estimate | |||
|- | |||
| 5 || align=left| {{flag|Brazil}} || 186,917,074 || ], ] || {{#expr: 186917074 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 6 || align=left| {{flag|Pakistan}} || {{formatnum:{{#expr: 148160000 + 8500 * {{Age in days|2003|7|1}} round -3}} }} || ] ] || {{#expr: (148160000 + 8500 *{{Age in days|2003|7|1}}) / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 7 || align=left| {{flag|Bangladesh}} || 158,665,000 || || {{#expr: 158665000 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| UN estimate | |||
|- | |||
| 8 || align=left| {{flag|Nigeria}} || 148,093,000 || || {{#expr: 148093000 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| UN estimate | |||
|- | |||
| 9 || align=left| {{flag|Russia}} || 142,008,800 || ], ] || {{#expr: 141983200 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 10 || align=left| {{flag|Japan}} || 127,720,000 || ], ] || {{#expr: 127790000 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 11 || align=left| {{flag|Mexico}} || 106,535,000 || || {{#expr: 106535000 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| UN estimate | |||
|- | |||
| 12 || align=left| {{flag|Philippines}} || 88,574,614 || ], ] || {{#expr: 88574614 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 13 || align=left| {{flag|Vietnam}} || 87,375,000 || || {{#expr: 87375000 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
UN estimate | |||
|- | |||
| 14 || align=left| {{flag|Germany}} || 82,244,000 || ], ] || {{#expr: 82244000 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|- | |||
| 15 || align=left| {{flag|Ethiopia}} || 77,127,000 || July 2007 || {{#expr: 77127000 / 66712260 round 2}}% || style="font-size: 75%"| | |||
|} | |||
== Area of the United States == | |||
] (]) 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
The US has allegedly announced that it to its territory by annexing more of its EEZ last year, making its territory potentially the second largest country in the world at almost 11 million km. Some sources state that this is | |||
:I dont think its that much of a stretch to think that Russia can be considered a superpower, referring back to the soviet union, that was one of the only 2 in the world, but today it is hard to find similarities between the two, but Russia still has the same, if not larger stockpiles of nuclear weapons than the US, a good indicator in todays world of power status, economic power is also lacking but its oil and gas reserves are also important in these terms, but most importantly, the fact that russia is '''''by far''''' the largest country by land area in the world. but reflecting on history of Russia, like in world war I and II, the russian military or the "russian steamroller" (despite the fact that they were seriously underequipped and poorly managed) but still the sheer numbers of viable troops in russia also a key characteristic. | |||
However, government documents , with documents still putting the us at 9.8 million km. | |||
Furthermore, the topic of what constitutes as territory (where Britannica differs from Misplaced Pages) is a necessary issue to address. ] (]) 13:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
P.S. Mind the spelling and grammar mistakes ;)<font color="darkblue"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3.75"> ]] </font> </font> 09:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:The 9.8 million and similar figures do not include the EEZ. ] (]) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::"Blunt" may not be the right word, but long posts tend to sound like ranting and may be taken poorly. If you have a lot to say, try bulleted lists and similar formatting, it makes it a lot easier to read and might avoid confusion.] (]) 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
== IMPORTANT: Policy Proposal to establish a US research group to edit this article == | |||
:::Was that meant for me or 'Signsolid'? <font color="darkblue"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3.75"> ]] </font> </font> 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
{{archive top}} | |||
In order to have a more reliable and unbiased article about the United States, I believe it necessary to have a semi-exclusive body of editors focused on researching about the United States and ensuring the article is accurate and as neutral and unbiased as possible. | |||
I also '''propose''' that '''only this research group''' will be allowed to edit the article, with non-members being able to propose changes via RFCs. To join the research group, one must be extended confirmed and complete ''thorough training'' in the following areas | |||
::::Signsolid. Actually, it's a comment I already made further up the page, but it's just as applicable here.] (]) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
- Bias reduction and neutrality training. | |||
- Finding reliable sources and comparing sources. | |||
- Professional research. | |||
- Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
What do ye think of this proposal? Do you support or oppose? ] (]) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
This is just speculation on my part but does anybody else think that the Soviets never went away? I think they are holding to Lenin's advice, "one step backwards, two steps forward"? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:You'd have to find some sort of wider support in policy to make that work. There's no way that could be done with a local consensus. For the record, I don't think you will find wider support for this. ] (]) 14:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I could see Russia being a superpower mainly because of its large land size and strong military (even if it's declining), but economically, it doesn't compare to America. America is no doubt a superpower and I don't know where people get the idea America is weak in both military and economy. Russia has had a very rich military history especially in past dumb attempts to invade it during winter (Napoleon and Hitler), and to my knowledge, they have never been fully invaded by another country within the past 1000 years. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:The best place for this proposal is ]. The core of the issue is users not separating their own POV from their work. For a lot of people, that POV is a motivating factor, and we have to think about editor retention. Misplaced Pages is collaborative, and neutrality is approximately reached by editors with different POVs and biases collaborating. ] (]) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Last invasion of Iceland is also more than 1000 yrs ago. It is hardly a superpower though ;-) ] (]) 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Noted. I moved the discussion of this policy to ], which won't focus on the US topic alone. We can continue it there. ] (]) 15:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024 == | |||
How can Russia be a military superpower when its military is only the 7th strongest in the world? Does that mean France, United Kingdom, China, Germany, and Japan are also military superpowers because they all have more powerful militaries because they spend more on their militaries? Military strength is only determined by military spending. Also as for not being successfully invaded for 1000 years the UK hasn't been successfully invaded for 942 years as of 2008. Does that mean the UK can claim to be a superpower considering its not only not been successfully invaded for 1000 years its not even had any part of its territory occupied for 1000 years, unlike Russia which has had numerous countries occupy large amounts of it territory many times over tha past 1000 years, plus the UK spends a lot more on its military giving it arguably a more powerful military. So is the UK more of a military superpower than Russia? | |||
{{Edit extended-protected|United States|answered=yes}} | |||
== To whom this concerns == | |||
Change where it says "President: Joe Biden" to "President: Donald Trump" ] (]) 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{not done for now}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> Trump has been elected, but not officially inaugurated as president. That change will be applied on January 20th. ] (]) 18:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024 (2) == | |||
Several months ago I drew the ire of a few users by repeatedly attempting to insert and remove within one particular article several terms and statements which some identified as "vandalism" (even comparing it to some of the worst defacements committed on this site). I admit that while most of my content was legitimate and well-documented, the practice by which I was inserting it was less than professional. I ultimately issued an apology for this flawed method of editing as well as for several less-than-professional statements directed at a few other users. | |||
{{edit extended-protected|United States|answered=yes}} | |||
Still, I was also the target of several unnecessary threats and insults which have been seemingly ignored since then (an administrator at one point even defended the unorthodox statements of one user). Furthermore, the branding of a "troublemaker" resulted in the disregard and deletion of several of my contributions in other articles without any formal or legitimate reasoning for doing so. I agreed to apologize for the mistakes I made, now I am requesting the same from those who did wrong towards me. ] (]) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
rambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambograd | |||
May I fix some grammar issues? ] (]) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Typo edit request == | |||
::I am referring to ], ], and ]. Some of their actions were rational and well justified but most of their statements towards and concerning me were not. ] (]) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
"subrurban" appears in the third-to-last paragraph of the Transportation section, I believe this should be "suburban" ] (]) 17:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Its alright, i accept your apology. I am glad we cleared this up. ] <small>—Preceding ] was added at 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Done... - ] (]) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for pointing it out. ] (]) 02:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2024 == | |||
== hmmm... == | |||
{{Edit extended-protected|<span class="recent_addition">United States</span>|answered=yes}} | |||
wangdoodle! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I Request the President and vice president role to be changed because of recent election of Trump, pls change to "President:Donald Trump Vice President:JD Vance ] (]) 00:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] This will be done once they are inaugurated on January 20. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Low food control in the U.S. == | |||
:Offensive ASCII image boldly removed per ].] (]) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
"In the US, the FDA takes a notably more hands-off approach to testing and inspections, often allowing new food ingredients unless proven harmful. This includes ingredients, for example, GMOs, growth hormones and chemical preservatives.": ; very important information that should be added to the ] section. ] (]) 22:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The website (which is rather obscure) is comparing U.S. standards and practices to the well-known stringent standards of the EU. The detail "compared to the EU" should be part of any "very important information" added, as many other countries (including wealthy ones like Japan) have rules comparable to those in the U.S. ] (]) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{Ping|Mason.Jones}} that's fine. However, the part about Michelin star-rated restaurants should be contextualized; for example, Italy, a country with approximately 275 million fewer inhabitants than the U.S., has 175 more Michelin star-rated restaurants (total: 395) than the U.S. ] (]) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::France and Italy are culinary powerhouses, with a high number of Michelin-starred restaurants to be expected. The U.S. has no culinary history compared to France and Italy, so its total Michelin-starred restaurants are cited as a special achievement. Same with wine (total wine production or citing U.S. awards in international competition). ] (]) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Hatnotes == | ||
Seem to have hatnote spam all over the place. ], ], ] and example at ]. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
The Demographics section regarding race and ethnicity must be fixed. It is quite confusing, referring to black as a race and Latino as an ethnicity, and discounts Latinos when referencing the largest minority group. Even if this is according to the US census definitions on race & ethnicity, it would be better if that issue is resolved so there isn't any contradictions. | |||
:Agree and recently I tried to narrow down to the main topics for each section, ] (]) 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Furthermore, the chart on the same issue has to be fixed. It needs to distinguish whether it factors Caucasian-Latinos as Caucasian. Currently, the chart doesn't differentiate, and the percentages add up to over 100% | |||
::If these links are important enough to be at the top they should actually be incorporated into the pros text of the paragraph. Scrolling nightmare. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:It says 'of any race', how do you propose we cut it to 100%? I don't think it would make sense to have separate entries for 'caucasian', 'caucasian-latino', 'african-american', 'african-american-latino', et.al. --] (]) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Add a section for human rights == | |||
::Hispanic or Latino is not a race, but an ethnic group. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority, but they are not the largest racial minority. I'm not sure where the contradictions are. The only way to make the percent not be over 100% would be to report on race only and take out the Hispanic/Latino group, or have a different one for ethnicity and race. Do you think that it should be made more clearer that Hispanic is not a race? ] (]) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
I understand that Misplaced Pages editors are mostly Americans, but it seems like many of them are either American nationalists or hired by the American government to write these pages. I was reading the Misplaced Pages articles about some countries (not Western ones), and most of them had a special section dedicated to that nation's human rights violations. However, I don't see anything like that for the United States. The United States committed more human rights ] in the last two decades than any other nation, and its history and current system is filled with human rights violations against its own ], ], or against ]. ] (]) 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It's the census bureau's fault. "In the United States, the term is in official use in the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino, defined as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."" Many people, if you removed 'Hispanic' from the table, would come to the article and be confused - where's all the Latinos? They aren't white or black, they're Hispanic! And so on and so forth. It can be explained better, but I don't think it can be separated. --] (]) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:You're 100% right, unfortunately in this case the fact that many users are Americans doesn't help. ] (]) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
You're right that some people when they think of Hispanic are thinking of Mestizo (half white, half Amerindian), which isn't used very often in the U.S. The term was never meant to designate race, but when the news or police make a physical description of someone on television, they say white, African American, or Hispanic as if it were a race (but that doesn't make it correct). The U.S. Census definition of Hispanic is the correct definition. The other option would be to put a box about reported ethnic groups such as Hispanics, German, English, French, etc... to separate race from ethnic categories. I'm not confused by the information because I've always understood the correct definitions, but I can see how it would be confusing to have it add up to over 100%. I do object to separating Hispanics by race though in the info box. ] (]) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Atleast we need to discuss about it. Why this is not included . ] (]) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Discussion link? ] (]) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Dont think we should segregate info like this as outlined at ]...but would easy to do for USA as there is not much. | |||
::::"Discrimination and violence against LGBTI people, anti-LGBTI legislation, and limitations on abortion access are prevalent. Indigenous women faced gender-based violence disproportionately. Issues surrounding asylum seekers, the death penalty, and arbitrary detention at Guantánamo Bay were ongoing. Gun violence remained a major problem, and there were restrictions on the right to protest in multiple states. Excessive use of force by police disproportionately affected Black individuals".......one of many sources....{{cite web | title=Human rights in United States of America | website=Amnesty International | date=March 29, 2024 | url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/ }} <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::@] need more link ? ] (]) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
== "Modern Era" == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2#Соединенные Штаты Америки}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2#Соединенные Штаты}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2#米国}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865) == | |||
This section is nothing more than a left-wing Bush-bashing catharsis and not a history of the United States of America during the "Modern Era". Either make this section a proper history of the United States or delete it entirely. | |||
I've added several key events of the 1850s that helped draw the North and South into the Civil War, the greatest sectional conflict in U.S. history. The previous text was parsimonious and weak, and in no way does it help explain what "culminated" in the Civil War. I am proposing these few new sentences, plus an overall mention of the 1850s abolitionist movement. ] (]) 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
--ATS <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Trump 2025 == | |||
:Please point out any inaccuracys and I'm sure someone would be willing to change it for you! ] (]) 20:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Today he becomed president, change it ] (]) 06:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:He did not, he is scheduled to become President on January 20. ] (]) 08:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The 'Modern Era' in the US can be seen as post-WW II. For WW II, the country underwent an unprecedented militarization. The War was won by the US and Allies but the US never went back to a non-agressive stance and has since : | |||
== Do we really need nominal and PPP GDP in the infobox? == | |||
- Renamed the War Department the Department of Defense (although it is forbidden to operate on US soil, resulting in all of its activities being invasions) | |||
- Invaded the following coutries: Korea, Viet Nam, Falkland Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq, and it seems that the fecal-brained US president wants to 'pull a Bush' in Iran.... | |||
- Remained in a state of readiness for war. This is a complete change in US policy and has caused national leaders, like adolescents who recently discovered masturbation, to revel in what he can do.... | |||
= Supported "leaders" of brutal dictatorships for 'advantage' in an imaginary Cld War fueled by Mutual Assured paranoia (See 'Dr. Strangelove') <small>previous unsigned comment was added by</small> ] | |||
The infobox currently lists both ] and ]. Since PPP is adjusted into US dollars, we have the same numbers, twice. The only difference is that the US ranking differs ''slightly''. Would there be any way to merge the two? Or, since this is technically limited by being an infobox, could we find consensus to remove one outright? ] </span>]] 21:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:] ] (]) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:By "merge" I mean combining the parentheticals: (PPP, nominal), (2nd, 1st), and (8th, 6th) retaining the current links. ] </span>]] 21:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Can registered users add information to this section? There is much more information that needs to be filled in here as well as corrected. | |||
::It can and should be done. The current wording is jarring and unencyclopedic. ] (]) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Article title == | |||
If we cannot make changes, then how are updates or improvements made and who makes them? | |||
-MarkDalit <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Why is the article titled "United States" instead of "United States of America"? ] (]) 16:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:As a Misplaced Pages article, yes, ] may be edited by any reasonably established registered user (because of the high profile of the topic and a history of rampant vandalism, the article may not be edited by unregistered users and those who have just registered within the past few days). Please keep the following in mind, however. The article is ''very'' long as is. There is a general consensus that it should not get any longer except as necessary to keep pace with the most major developments (such as the results of the forthcoming elections). When you say that there "is much more information that needs to be filled in here," be aware that many will disagree with you; please consider adding the information you're interested in to the relevant topical articles if it does not already appear there. As far as information that needs to be "corrected," it might help if you explained what you had in mind first here on the Talk page. The article is very well cited, and a significant error has not been exposed in it for quite some time. All the best, Dan.—] (]) 20:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Consult the FAQ at the top of this Talk Page ] (]) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Thanks DCGeist. After how many days past registration may a new registered user make changes? -- MarkDalit <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Latest revision as of 16:48, 9 January 2025
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.
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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 level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not mention of slavery , inequality in lead ?
I was reading about other country lead it had all the bad thing about that country in the lead but in usa case it only positive thing . Why ? 103.165.29.134 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The abolishment of slavery is mentioned. There has been some discussion about adding something about inequality but it hasn’t come to anything.
- We follow WP:Reliable sources and if they are mostly negative or positive we represent that. Which country articles did you feel are too negative? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have not experience in wikipedia edit but i can provide you trusted ,reliable , well decumented , peer reviewed amd factual source that slavry is one biggest thing about usa as a country .
- Lead only contain info about Abolishment and thats it . 103.165.29.134 (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because it is abolished already. (CC) Tbhotch 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was one biggest Part of history and what america is today . Simply not putting in lead shows it was not important enough to be included ?
- There is civil war in lead but not slavary .. 103.165.29.189 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slavery is mentioned in the civil war sentence. CMD (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is mention only 2 times only as reason for civil war and then it just abolised .
- Whole american poltical , economical and social system Was shaped by this. 103.165.29.189 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it's pretty insane that the intro mentions something as detailed as Pearl Harbor but makes no mention of the forced migration of enslaved Africans. إيان (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also find it nuts that the slave trade isn’t mentioned in the ledes of loads of Caribbean countries like Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada Kowal2701 (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. It irks me that editors continue to label topics such as African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body, has little to do with ideological bias; it’s about ensuring that article content reflects what is frequently mentioned in reliable sources (which these topics are).
- Additionally, if we shouldn’t mention slavery because it’s been abolished, why should we mention any of the other history either? The Confederate States are long gone, so why mention the American Civil War? Etc. 296cherry (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, slavery is mentioned. CMD (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again there is difference between .
- "mentioning slavery in the context of the Civil War and its abolition."
- And
- "mentioning slavery in the context of how it shaped american culture , economy , values , politics and how imprtant it was and it is now " 103.165.29.189 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neither of those quotes you cite appears to have been used in this discussion. The actual quote replied to was "...African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body". CMD (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I actually agree with the IP’s argument, but I understand where you are coming from as well.
- I’d like to reiterate that I am not attempting to make this article singularly focused on negative aspects and believed injustices.
- However, I must concur with the IP that mentioning African American slavery as an aspect of the American civil war doesn’t adequately represent its effects.
- I feel that a sentence along the lines of “The subjugation of native American peoples, along with the enslavement and discrimination of African Americans, has substantially shaped American governance, society, culture, and economics throughout the country’s past and present.” would do a great job (obviously not my exact wording). Not only would this satisfy the issues with adequately covering the topic, but it would also rid the lead of awkward attempts to include the topic via a more conventional historiography.
- But, there’s the potential issue of a lack of sources to support this (since examination of the aforementioned effects in a wide scope is a more recent phenomenon among academia). If so, I wouldn’t be opposed to more balanced wording. 296cherry (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I was mistaken in claiming that slavery wasn’t mentioned at all. Apologies! 296cherry (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- See my reply to CMD below, I’d appreciate your thoughts. 296cherry (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neither of those quotes you cite appears to have been used in this discussion. The actual quote replied to was "...African American slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples as too “unimportant” to be mentioned. Mentioning these issues, whether in the lead or body". CMD (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, slavery is mentioned. CMD (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it's pretty insane that the intro mentions something as detailed as Pearl Harbor but makes no mention of the forced migration of enslaved Africans. إيان (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slavery is mentioned in the civil war sentence. CMD (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because it is abolished already. (CC) Tbhotch 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
In the body, Along the eastern seaboard, settlers trafficked African slaves through the Atlantic slave trade.
is a good opportunity for some African-American social history.
Something like
African slaves primarily worked on cash crop plantations.
and a bit on culture/cultural diversion
In the revolutionary war section:
African American soldiers fought on both the British and the American sides.
- Some description of the Underground Railroad however unsure about placement.
What are people’s thoughts on this? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no issues with these additions as long as they’re reliably sourced. They don’t seem inflammatory or undue to me, and this article absolutely needs more content on the subject. 296cherry (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Taking just these ideas in isolation is a perhaps a starting point for a discussion, but not a firm basis to build content on. As you mention sources would be helpful, and in particular sources that can help frame due weight in the context of the United States, or of the History of the United States. The History section is not short as it is, so discussions about more content being needed should also include what is in turn overrepresented. As an on-wiki example, it could be worth looking at the lead of History of the United States. Within its four paragraphs, this mentions agricultural slave labor, controversy over the expansion of slavery, the civil war, and abolition. It also mentions Jim Crow in the post-abolition era. Is this a better balance of weight, and if so, what is this page currently doing differently? CMD (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great points! I agree that slapping on more content to an already bloated page shouldn’t be the route we focus on.
- However, I’m a little worried about making significant changes to the history section that center on negative events and outcomes, since many editors on this page will be diametrically opposed to anything of the sort. See the “Biased, contentious claims being written as uncontroversial assertions” discussion above, for example, where attempts to include more information on complex issues are aspersed as ideological attacks on the page. The discussing editor even goes as far as to say the only reason these aspects are being discussed is that democrats are bitter over Trump’s victory in the presidential election. :( 296cherry (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Part of the reaction to perceived negative information is the process. If the argument is, the lead is positive, we should introduce slavery as a negative, then that's going to stymie the effort from the getgo. This is another reason why it's helpful to consider weight and impact rather than whether X or Y is positive or negative.As a start, one thing that could be reduced is the American Revolution and the early republic (1765–1800) subsection, particularly the first paragraph. All these names and events are important, but the detail is very undue at this level. The main article lead covers that entire period in a couple of sentences, and condensing this would mean topics such as the continued importance of slave labor during that time could be mentioned. CMD (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, these proposals were from the lede of History of African Americans but I agree that History of the United States and tertiary sources would be better places to look.
- World Encyclopedia: United States of America#History doesn't even mention African Americans, has a little on slavery
- A Dictionary of World History: United States of America#History doesn't mention slavery until
The mid-19th century was dominated by a political crisis over slavery and states' rights
and again doesn't mention African Americans - Britannica's article is long but says
Part of that population growth was the result of the involuntary immigration of enslaved Africans. During the 17th century, enslaved persons remained a tiny minority of the population. By the mid-18th century, after Southern colonists discovered that the profits generated by their plantations could support the relatively large initial investments needed for slave labor, the volume of the slave trade increased markedly. In Virginia the enslaved population leaped from about 2,000 in 1670 to perhaps 23,000 in 1715 and reached 150,000 on the eve of the American Revolution. In South Carolina it was even more dramatic. In 1700 there were probably no more than 2,500 Blacks in the population; by 1765 there were 80,000–90,000, with Blacks outnumbering whites by about 2 to 1.
- Kowal2701 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Taking just these ideas in isolation is a perhaps a starting point for a discussion, but not a firm basis to build content on. As you mention sources would be helpful, and in particular sources that can help frame due weight in the context of the United States, or of the History of the United States. The History section is not short as it is, so discussions about more content being needed should also include what is in turn overrepresented. As an on-wiki example, it could be worth looking at the lead of History of the United States. Within its four paragraphs, this mentions agricultural slave labor, controversy over the expansion of slavery, the civil war, and abolition. It also mentions Jim Crow in the post-abolition era. Is this a better balance of weight, and if so, what is this page currently doing differently? CMD (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "I was reading about other country lead it had all the bad thing about that country in the lead but in usa case it only positive thing. Why?" Many editors are American and, being American, writing about the negative aspects of the United States is complicated; this could be the reason (I don't want to justify anyone). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not American, but my impression of American history is a long tale of business oligarchs dominating the political system, the struggle for labor rights having meager results, and mass racial violence in the United States being surprisingly frequent. The phrase "hell on Earth" is never far from my mind when reading about the U.S. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Dimadick: furthermore, American society is too consumerist; for example, regarding "Italian cuisine" (TRUE Italian cuisine is in Italy, it doesn't exist in the United States) there are multinationals and brands (e.g., Domino's, which declared bankruptcy in 2022 in Italy, SpaghettiOs, etc.) that sell a lot, but almost completely sacrificing culinary quality. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was reading about China, and its introduction seems to have focused on all the negative aspects, such as the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" and how communism caused the "Great Chinese Famine." Then, I read about the USA to compare. The introduction to the USA, however, only included positive aspects and didn't even properly mention slavery. I would argue that we should include events like the "1985 MOVE bombing," the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male," U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, or the "Forever Wars" in the Middle East for resource 103.165.29.209 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, many Americans don't like China, perhaps because it's the only country that could, in the future, economically surpass the United States; here's the possible reason. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not American, but my impression of American history is a long tale of business oligarchs dominating the political system, the struggle for labor rights having meager results, and mass racial violence in the United States being surprisingly frequent. The phrase "hell on Earth" is never far from my mind when reading about the U.S. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Notes
- I prefer not to comment...
"Estados Unidos da América" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Estados Unidos da América has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Estados Unidos da América until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
"米国" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect 米国 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § 米国 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
"Соединенные Штаты Америки" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Соединенные Штаты Америки has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Соединенные Штаты Америки until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
"Соединенные Штаты" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Соединенные Штаты has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Соединенные Штаты until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
"Les États Unis d'Amérique" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Les États Unis d'Amérique has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Les États Unis d'Amérique until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
"Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, convert the semicolon in “It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state” to a comma. When making a break in a sentence via a comma, such a break should end with another comma. 296cherry (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done – Dhtwiki (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
"الولايات المتحدة" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect الولايات المتحدة has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 16 § الولايات المتحدة until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Two-Party system
The US is de-facto dominated by two-party rule, which makes it de facto under a two-party system. Feel free to discuss your opinion as to whether this belongs in the infobox or not. Consensus is necessary in Misplaced Pages. Cnscrptr (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is already in the article. CMD (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I meant including in the government section. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is where it is currently included, under the political parties subheader. CMD (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the infobox. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't change your messages when they have already been replied to. CMD (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for that, but please stay on topic. Cnscrptr (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't change your messages when they have already been replied to. CMD (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the infobox. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is where it is currently included, under the political parties subheader. CMD (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I meant including in the government section. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Area of the United States
The US has allegedly announced that it allows expansion up to 1,000,000 km to its territory by annexing more of its EEZ last year, making its territory potentially the second largest country in the world at almost 11 million km. Some sources state that this is already the case However, government documents haven't reflected this change, with documents still putting the us at 9.8 million km.
Furthermore, the topic of what constitutes as territory (where Britannica differs from Misplaced Pages) is a necessary issue to address. Cnscrptr (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The 9.8 million and similar figures do not include the EEZ. CMD (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
IMPORTANT: Policy Proposal to establish a US research group to edit this article
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 order to have a more reliable and unbiased article about the United States, I believe it necessary to have a semi-exclusive body of editors focused on researching about the United States and ensuring the article is accurate and as neutral and unbiased as possible.
I also propose that only this research group will be allowed to edit the article, with non-members being able to propose changes via RFCs. To join the research group, one must be extended confirmed and complete thorough training in the following areas - Bias reduction and neutrality training. - Finding reliable sources and comparing sources. - Professional research. - Misplaced Pages policy.
What do ye think of this proposal? Do you support or oppose? Cnscrptr (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- You'd have to find some sort of wider support in policy to make that work. There's no way that could be done with a local consensus. For the record, I don't think you will find wider support for this. CMD (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The best place for this proposal is Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab). The core of the issue is users not separating their own POV from their work. For a lot of people, that POV is a motivating factor, and we have to think about editor retention. Misplaced Pages is collaborative, and neutrality is approximately reached by editors with different POVs and biases collaborating. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Noted. I moved the discussion of this policy to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), which won't focus on the US topic alone. We can continue it there. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change where it says "President: Joe Biden" to "President: Donald Trump" Ruh Ro Raggy (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done for now: Trump has been elected, but not officially inaugurated as president. That change will be applied on January 20th. Tarlby (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
rambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambogradrambograd
May I fix some grammar issues? Loey4398 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Typo edit request
"subrurban" appears in the third-to-last paragraph of the Transportation section, I believe this should be "suburban" Totallyuneekname (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing it out. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I Request the President and vice president role to be changed because of recent election of Trump, pls change to "President:Donald Trump Vice President:JD Vance EmporerJax (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: Remsense ‥ 论 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @EmporerJax This will be done once they are inaugurated on January 20. Tarlby 00:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Low food control in the U.S.
"In the US, the FDA takes a notably more hands-off approach to testing and inspections, often allowing new food ingredients unless proven harmful. This includes ingredients, for example, GMOs, growth hormones and chemical preservatives.": ; very important information that should be added to the Cuisine section. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The website (which is rather obscure) is comparing U.S. standards and practices to the well-known stringent standards of the EU. The detail "compared to the EU" should be part of any "very important information" added, as many other countries (including wealthy ones like Japan) have rules comparable to those in the U.S. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Mason.Jones: that's fine. However, the part about Michelin star-rated restaurants should be contextualized; for example, Italy, a country with approximately 275 million fewer inhabitants than the U.S., has 175 more Michelin star-rated restaurants (total: 395) than the U.S. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- France and Italy are culinary powerhouses, with a high number of Michelin-starred restaurants to be expected. The U.S. has no culinary history compared to France and Italy, so its total Michelin-starred restaurants are cited as a special achievement. Same with wine (total wine production or citing U.S. awards in international competition). Mason.Jones (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Mason.Jones: that's fine. However, the part about Michelin star-rated restaurants should be contextualized; for example, Italy, a country with approximately 275 million fewer inhabitants than the U.S., has 175 more Michelin star-rated restaurants (total: 395) than the U.S. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Hatnotes
Seem to have hatnote spam all over the place. WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, WP:HATNOTERULES, WP:HATLENGTH and example at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries#Hatnote. Moxy🍁 20:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree and recently I tried to narrow down to the main topics for each section, Rjj (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If these links are important enough to be at the top they should actually be incorporated into the pros text of the paragraph. Scrolling nightmare. Moxy🍁 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Add a section for human rights
I understand that Misplaced Pages editors are mostly Americans, but it seems like many of them are either American nationalists or hired by the American government to write these pages. I was reading the Misplaced Pages articles about some countries (not Western ones), and most of them had a special section dedicated to that nation's human rights violations. However, I don't see anything like that for the United States. The United States committed more human rights violations in the last two decades than any other nation, and its history and current system is filled with human rights violations against its own citizens, against Black people, or against citizens of other countries. 103.165.29.160 (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're 100% right, unfortunately in this case the fact that many users are Americans doesn't help. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Atleast we need to discuss about it. Why this is not included . 103.165.29.209 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion link? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dont think we should segregate info like this as outlined at WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS...but would easy to do for USA as there is not much.
- "Discrimination and violence against LGBTI people, anti-LGBTI legislation, and limitations on abortion access are prevalent. Indigenous women faced gender-based violence disproportionately. Issues surrounding asylum seekers, the death penalty, and arbitrary detention at Guantánamo Bay were ongoing. Gun violence remained a major problem, and there were restrictions on the right to protest in multiple states. Excessive use of force by police disproportionately affected Black individuals".......one of many sources...."Human rights in United States of America". Amnesty International. March 29, 2024. Moxy🍁 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JacktheBrown need more link ? 103.165.29.214 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion link? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Atleast we need to discuss about it. Why this is not included . 103.165.29.209 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
"Соединенные Штаты Америки" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Соединенные Штаты Америки has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § Соединенные Штаты Америки until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"Соединенные Штаты" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Соединенные Штаты has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § Соединенные Штаты until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"米国" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect 米国 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 2 § 米国 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Westward expansion and Civil War (1800–1865)
I've added several key events of the 1850s that helped draw the North and South into the Civil War, the greatest sectional conflict in U.S. history. The previous text was parsimonious and weak, and in no way does it help explain what "culminated" in the Civil War. I am proposing these few new sentences, plus an overall mention of the 1850s abolitionist movement. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Trump 2025
Today he becomed president, change it Anthony J. Price (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- He did not, he is scheduled to become President on January 20. CMD (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Do we really need nominal and PPP GDP in the infobox?
The infobox currently lists both nominal GDP and GDP (PPP). Since PPP is adjusted into US dollars, we have the same numbers, twice. The only difference is that the US ranking differs slightly. Would there be any way to merge the two? Or, since this is technically limited by being an infobox, could we find consensus to remove one outright? Toadspike 21:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- By "merge" I mean combining the parentheticals: (PPP, nominal), (2nd, 1st), and (8th, 6th) retaining the current links. Toadspike 21:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It can and should be done. The current wording is jarring and unencyclopedic. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Article title
Why is the article titled "United States" instead of "United States of America"? 2001:A61:3038:1A01:790E:C174:6DF3:B418 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consult the FAQ at the top of this Talk Page CollinMadden (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Geography
- B-Class vital articles in Geography
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States Government articles with to-do lists
- Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class North America articles
- Top-importance North America articles
- WikiProject North America articles
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report