Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject United States: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:19, 21 July 2011 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 7.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:25, 8 January 2025 edit undoGGOTCC (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,401 edits →Order in the 'President of the Continental Congress' is fucked: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Talk header|WT:WPUS|search=yes|wp=yes}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage WPT|the United States}}
{{WikiProject United States}} {{WikiProject United States}}
{{Tmbox
| type = delete
| text = The ] and ] templates are used by ] on their project page. If you are planning to make major changes to this template or nominate it for deletion, please notify ] at ] as a courtesy. Thank You.
}} }}
<noinclude>
]
</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States/Tab header}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States/TOC}}
{{Old MfD |date=19 July 2022 |result='''no consensus''' |page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States/US related unreferenced BLPs |altpage=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/US related unreferenced BLPs}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States/Navigation}} {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States/Navigation}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=30|small=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|counter = 16
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 7 |algo = old(60d)
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|algo = old(30d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
__TOC__<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->


== Census boilerplate . . . ==


== ] ==
I really must protest the boilerplate being used to add information to U.S. communities. It is capitalizing white, which should be lower-cased, and it is giving the amount of the ocean or rivers or lakes or whatever to areas that are almost completely dry. Also it is using a percent symbol (%) in text when it should be in a word, ''percent.'' And it is substituting the governmental jargon "census-designated place" for the more normal and accepted "Unincorporated community." Now I have to go through all the articles I am watching and correct everything. I asked the operator of the bot how to protest this, but have received no reply. (I must say, though, that the boilerplate for 2010 is much better than the 2000 version.) Anyway, help, help and more help! is needed. Who decided on this boilerplate, and where is the ]? Sincerely, your pal, ] (]) 02:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
:Can we get a little more info? Can you provide a link to this boilerplate thats being added or the bot thats addign it? --] (]) 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
::Note that "census designated place" has actual boundaries. While it may contain "unincorporated communities" the exact population of those communities may be unknown or contained in the a higher level article on the CDP. But for the remainder of your statements, I have the same questions as Kumioko. ] (]) 01:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
:::I think that GeorgeLouis was concerned with edits like . That boilerplate is being used by one editor, not by an army. I have not seen discussion on any standardized way of adding US 2010 Census data. It's a worthwhile topic for this WikiProject to address.<br />I, too, am troubled when users delete all information about the unincorporated place and replace it with the ] designation. CDPs are statistical entities. CDPs are supposed to correspond to places that have real local meaning, but for a variety of reasons they may not do so. Additionally, I doubt that anyone in the U.S. introduces themselves as residents of a CDP; most people are unaware of the designation. Accordingly, most articles about CDPs should describe both the place (vaguely defined as it may be) and the CDP. The only times a CDP article should be only about the CDP are (1) when the only information in the article is census data and (2) when there is solid evidence that the place name is not used locally (as is the case with ]). <br />I also agree that "white" should not be capitalized. --] (]) 15:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the example of the situation. I also agree that replacing the verbiage of unincorporated community with CDP is not the best. IMO it would have been better to say something like it is an unincorporated community and census designated place. Because you can have one without the other AFAIK, it seems appropriate we would want to tell our readers it is both. I also agree with your assessment that this is a good place to discuss it. Not only is the Census data in use on thousands of articles it affects pretty much every US related project. I know you deal a lot in NRHP's so do you have any suggestions on how me might address this? --] (]) 15:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Please don't categorize me as someone who deals with NRHPs. I have far more interest in ''places'' than I have with NRHPs, but I found myself bumping into NRHP topics (including not only working on articles about them, but also contention over the relationship between places and historic districts) so often that I felt I had to join that WikiProject. <br /> ] and ] are articles that come to mind where distinctions have been made between the CDP and the place. Other interesting situations include that Oxoboxo River example (a CDP related to ] and ]) and ] (a CDP incorporating ] and ]). I have found that there are some editors who are purists about topics like CDPs and historic districts, wanting separate articles for (1) a CDP, (2) whatever non-incorporated community is the basis for the CDP, and (3) any associated historic district. ] is currently an example of an article that addresses both a village and the associated historic district (but not also the CDP, due to its different definition). ] is an example of an article that covers all three topics. (There has been fierce edit warring over these articles, so the possibility exists that their scope could change at any time. The history of edit warring on topics like article splits/mergers, how to describe CDPs in lead sentences, etc., is a good reason to discuss the situation on this Wikiproject.) --] (]) 16:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Lol, fair enough. I just noticed your name a lot in NRHP articles so I guess I didn't form a distinction. So not being that familiar with the developement of location articles on WP (other than knowing that ] is a rather beautiful place for a vacation and has a decent golf course) I'm still not quite sure how best to approach the topic or what the best course of action is yet. My gut instinct tells me we need to establish a standard of how to document these things that has some consensus but I'm not sure yet what that would be either. As I mentioned above I would lean towards clearly mentioning the different ways of classifying thge location (unincorporated community, CDP, etc) whenever possible. Since I also didn't participate in the previous discussions I don't know what the arguments and outcomes of those were either so if you had a couple links that would be great as well. Again, do you have any advice on what the best course of action is? --] (]) 16:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I'd like to discuss this, but my internet service has become "intermittent" at best. Later. --] (]) 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::No problem, anytime. --] (]) 22:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::My internet service is working again, so I'm starting a discussion. :-) --] (]) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Now that users are adding 2010 Census data to various articles, there are numerous specific issues needing resolution on how to document the 2010 Census. Because they affect a diverse range of United States articles, this seems like the ideal place to discuss them. I'll start a couple of discussions here as subtopics of this topic, and start inviting other participants. --] (]) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


Would appreciate some eyes on this. Pasting what I wrote there for context:
===Describing/naming census designated places===
{{Talk quote block|This article needs pruning, but I am unsure of where to begin, or what the end result should ultimately look like. If there is a policy for what "Political positions of ______" pages should look like, I am unaware of it (and would appreciate a link to). However, I think we can all agree that there is no reason why the article on Jeb Bush's political positions should be 605.99% larger than ].
The ] (CDP) is a unit that is, as far as I know, unique to the U.S. Census. The 2010 Census saw a great increase in the number of CDPs in some parts of the country. In some cases, there was an existing article about the populated place that has now been designated a CDP, but in other cases, new articles are being created for CDPs to hold the census statistical data for the newly designated entities. As alluded to above, there is a history of edit-warring over the terminology for CDPs. I hope we can prevent some future edit wars by adopting some semi-standard conventions regarding how to name, describe, and cross-reference CDPs. To get discussion started, I suggest the following typology and conventions for CDPs (numbered solely for convenience in discussion):
;Typology
*'''Type 1''': CDP is a populated place listed in ] (search page at ) as a "populated place" and as a CDP. This has two subtypes:
:*'''Type 1A''': The article contains sourced information about the populated place (for example, its history or the place name's association with an active zip code and postal address) that is independent of the census data.
:*'''Type 1B''': The only sources of information in the article are GNIS (including maps that are presumed to be related to GNIS) and the census (for example, ]). Type 1B status is presumed to be temporary, since these CDPs could become Type 1A in the future if additional sourced information is obtained.
*'''Type 2''': CDP name appears in GNIS as a CDP, but not also as a populated place.
:*'''Type 2A''': The article contains sourced information about the place that is independent of the census data and identifies it as a place that is recognized in some context other than the census.
:*'''Type 2B''': The CDP is documented to be a combination of two or more populated places that are covered in separate articles (for example, ], which consists of the villages of ] and ])
:*'''Type 2C''': The CDP has been found to correspond to a named populated place with some other name that is not covered in a separate article. (Example: Apparently this is the situation with ], which addresses a CDP within the town of ] that is listed in GNIS as "Chester Census Designated Place" and includes discrete places known as "Chester" and "Chester Depot".)
:*'''Type 2D''': The CDP is not a subdivision of any other populated place and has not been found to correspond to any populated place with another name.
:*'''Type 2E''': The CDP is an artificial subdivision of a populated place whose name is not used in any other context and that does not correspond to a populated place with another name (for example, ], which is a subpart of the legal town of ], includes discrete sections of that town including the historical village of ], but is not mentioned in the town's current comprehensive plan)
;Proposed conventions
*'''Type 1A''' - The article '''lead sentence''' should use one or more nouns to describe the primary nature of the place, followed by an indication that it is also a CDP. Some examples:
:*] is an unincorporated town and census-designated place (CDP) in Sullivan County, Tennessee, United States.
:*] is a hamlet and census-designated place (CDP) located in the town of Cortlandt, Westchester County, New York.
:*] is a resort community in Cumberland County, Tennessee, United States, recognized by the U.S. Census as a census-designated place (CDP).
:*] is an unincorporated community and a census-designated place (CDP) in Blount and Sevier counties in the U.S. state of Tennessee, United States.
:*] is an unincorporated village and census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Hartford in Windsor County, Vermont.
:The article '''title''' should be in the form "Placename, State" or "Placename, Countyname, State," if there are multiple instances of the place in the state. If it is necessary to disambiguate from another place of the same name in the same county and the place is identifiable as a hamlet, village, former incorporated place, etc., then names such as "Placename (village), State" are preferred over "Placename (CDP), State." When CDPs are associated with neighborhoods and places best described only as "unincorporated community," the articles should be titled as "Placename (CDP), State."
:Listings in county or state '''templates''' should identify the place by its given name, with parenthetical modifiers (as above) only when needed to distinguish from other entities in the same template.
*'''Type 1B''' - In general, the article '''lead sentence''' should identify the place as a CDP. Any needed '''title''' disambiguation should use forms such as "Placename (CDP), State," until such time as the article is expanded to Type 1A. Templates should list the name of the CDP as a placename.
*'''Type 2A''' - Handle like Type 1A.
*'''Type 2B''' - Article '''lead sentence''' should identify the place as a CDP and name (with links) the associated populated places. For example: "Wakefield-Peacedale is a census-designated place (CDP) in the town of South Kingstown in Washington County, Rhode Island, United States that includes the villages of Peace Dale and Wakefield."
:Title in the form "Placename, State." If title disambiguation is needed, use the form "Placename (CDP), State."
*'''Type 2C''' - If the CDP corresponds to multiple populated places, consider whether it would be appropriate to separate the place articles from the CDP article in order to handle this like Type 2B. If that is not feasible, the article lead sentence should separately name the populated place(s) and CDP, describing each with appropriate nouns (this would be a variant of Type 1A). Article title needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, with preference for the current ] for the place.
*'''Type 2D''' - Handle like Type 1B.
*'''Type 2E''' - Article '''lead sentence''' should identify the place as a CDP (like Type 1B).
:'''Title''' should correspond to the nomenclature found in GNIS and in Census data. For example, the Oxoboxo River CDP in Connecticut is listed in GNIS as "Oxoboxo River Census Designated Place" and in factfinder2.census.gov as "Oxoboxo River CDP," so the article title should be "Oxoboxo River CDP, Connecticut".
:'''Template''' entries under headings other than "CDPs" should include the word "CDP" (for example, "Oxoboxo River CDP"), but entries under the title "CDPs" should omit that element (for example, "Oxoboxo River").
--] (]) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


Jeb Bush hasn't been in a position to directly influence American policy since leaving gubernatorial office in 2007. Since then, he had an infamously unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, has been involved with a number of ] (e.g. ], ], the ]), and occasionally contributes to media outlets as an op-ed columnist. This article gives ] weight to his stated positions on the 2016 campaign trail; eight years down the line and three presidential elections later, it is safe to say that they ultimately fail the ].
Thanks for letting me know of this discussion. I dislike any title with "CDP" in it for a few reasons:
1. abbreviations should be avoided in titles
2. few people outside of those specifically attuned to the subject have any idea what CDP means
3. most people looking for a place may not know its status vis-a-vis the census (a status which may change each census)
4. it just lacks simplicity, elegance, and permanence


By the end of this discussion, I'd like to set up an outline for how the article should be restructured and discuss what should or should not remain. My immediate thoughts:
If the name is one that the Census folks pulled out of thin air, then there will be no confusion in calling it ]; if there is another Thin Air in that State, if it is the more prominent (or say, incorporated) then it gets ] and the other gets disambiguated; if neither is obviously the major use of the term, then ] can be a disambiguation page, and we then disambiguate articles the normal way (by county, parish in Louisiana, borough in Alaska), so ] vs. ].
* I'd like to avoid splitting the article into sub-subsections unless absolutely necessary to avoid ].
* I believe the most weight should be given to his political positions during his tenure as governor, followed by his post-gubernatorial career as a lobbyist and op-ed columnist, followed by comments made on the 2016 campaign trail.
* Anything that did not influence public policy probably does not deserve a section unto itself. For example, his opinion on the Confederate flag, the name of the Washington Commanders (né Redskins), or his comments about the "French workweek" seem particularly superfluous.
Discuss.|id=c-Kodiak Blackjack-20241109205200-UTC}}
— <span style="font-family:Oxygen">] (]) • (])</span> 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


:These seem like sound principles, although I don't think the size vis a vis his brother is that important. I found the International relations section the most unneeded, it seems mostly news-style reporting of specific statements. For what it's worth there is one relevant GA, ]. ] (]) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
If there was an unincorporated community that was made a CDP, it is handled in the same manner. For example: ] is the city in Los Angeles County - the primary use of the name, and ] is the CDP in Madera county, hatdabbed at the city article, but not ] because before 2010 it wasn't a CDP and may not be in 2020 (]).


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] (]) 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
::While the US Government is charged (constitutionally) with counting people, it is the individual states that charter or create municipalities, provide services or devolve them to counties or localities, etc. Let's look at the extreme, Orlady's category 2E. The existence of the article on Oxboxo River, to use the example in play, is kind of marginal. I won't argue that it should not exist, but rather that something like Orlady's description actually be the lead or second sentence: "''Oxboxo River is a census designated place, an artificial subdivision of a populated place whose name is not used in any other context than for statistical purposes by the US Census Bureau, and that does not correspond to a populated place with another name''" ] (]) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::LOL. I agree that the article ] seems pointless. However, I've long since learned that there are some dedicated Wikipedians who strongly believe that if a set of topics (such as CDPs) is regarded as notable, then all instances of that topic must be separately documented in the encyclopedia. --] (]) 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
:Reply to Carlossuarez46: I think I share your general dislike for calling things "CDPs", but I also dislike the idea of describing places as "census designated place" when they are known to exist as ''actual'' places. For example, I don't like the fact that the lead sentence of the ] article identifies that place only as a "census designated place." CDPs are primarily statistical constructs, while Hilo is a place that most people would consider to be a "city," but for the technicality that it is not an incorporated municipality. I think Misplaced Pages should follow the principle that other nouns besides "census designated place" should have primacy when other nouns are available to describe a place.
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:As for titles, there currently are numerous articles that use "CDP" as a disambiguation term. For example, ] has that title to disambiguate from the legal town of ] in which it is located. Under my proposal, it could be renamed to ], although since the article is almost entirely about the census data, the current title might be retained.
:Your solution to the hypothetical "Thin Air, State" may seem logical, but it would not resolve the ongoing edit warring at ]. One editor has been insisting there that the CDP named "Oxoboxo River" (not to be confused with ]) and another similar CDP must be treated as if they were normal populated places, while another editor has been trying to include "CDP" in the template to distinguish them from the normal populated places in the template.
:In parts of the country where I mostly work, CDPs seem to persist from one census to the next -- and new ones were added in 2010. Apparently, that's not the case in California. Could you elaborate on the California situation? --] (]) 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
::CDPs do come and go. In Michigan (and I expect elsewhere) in the 1990 and 2000 census some CDPs were no longer included in a subsequent census and new CDPs introduced in 2000 and 2010. A CDP is purely a statistical entity that might often, but not necessarily, have some correlation with an existing populated place name. The degree of correlation is variable. Even CDPs that persist from one census to the next may vary in the area covered to reflect changing population density or annexation by municipalities. I don't like using "CDP" as a disambiguating term in article titles precisely because it is rarely used outside of census products (or products derived from census data). I think I mostly agree with Carlossuarez46 approach to naming articles. But I also very much agree with Orlady that actual localities should be described first as such (whether unincorporated community, or hamlet or village -- whatever the local nomenclature) and only secondarily that it is also a CDP. ] ≠ ] 20:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The term "CDP" is currently used as a disambiguator in the names of some articles for the 6 New England states, New York, and New Jersey, as well as one article for Maryland. In some of these instances, the article could be renamed to identify the topic as a "village," "hamlet", or whatever. In most other instances, it probably would be logical to include the CDP census information in the article about the larger entity (typically a town) of which the CDP is a part. However, when that was done in the past, there have been objections from Wikipedians who feel that every CDP should have its own article. If the only purpose of the article is to provide census information for the CDP, I suppose there would not be much of a downside from calling the article "Anywhere (CDP), State," since it's likely that the only people interested in the article are people who know what CDPs are. --] (]) 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
::::If we are talking about not-real-places maybe it is worth reopening that discussion? Back to Oxoboxo River, Connecticut, it could redirect to Uncasville, where the CDP topic is already adequately covered (one sentence). ] (]) 02:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::In most, but probably not all, of the northeastern U.S. instances where a CDP and another entity have the same name, the CDP is a subarea of the other entity, which is a legally constituted local government. It would make good sense for the demographic data for the subarea to be included in the article about the legally constituted entity. Similarly, since Oxoboxo River is wholly contained in the legal town of Montville, it would be appropriate to include the CDP information in the Montville article. For various convoluted reasons, the Oxoboxo River page should not be redirected to Uncasville (an article I created very recently after realizing that there were hundreds of backlinks to Uncasville that were redirecting to the article about the Oxoboxo River CDP). --] (]) 04:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Perhaps rather than than naming an article X (Village/town/city/CDP), Y an article should be simply X, Y with whether it is incorporated, unincorporated, CDP, etc. in an entomology/terminology/designation section. --] (]) 17:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
::For the record, there are thin air places in California, but rarely are they duplicated in name with some on the ground place also in California, and in each of those cases, which appears to be different from the New England morass, they are in different counties, so can be easily dabbed that way. CDPs also exist which combine several real-world places, some of these are hyphenated (brilliance in the beltway), and some are not. And then, some CDPs take in any number of small unincorporated places that real world people never thought were amalgamated; and, of course, the CDPs still places people thought were unitary in nature. While "CDP" in the title is used in New England to disambiguate two places essentially in some Venn Diagram relationship with each other, such use while strictly not optimal may not be avoidable. That said, it needn't propagate into areas where it is avoidable (California, which I'm most familiar with, for example). Given New England's and some of the Mid Atlantic states' (NY, PA, NJ) use of hamlets, villages, townships, cities, towns, CDPs, which all overlap, form various subsets, supersets of territory, and complicated municipal structures, however disambiguation is done will be challenging. Western states rarely use townships (many were created in the railroad days, but often serve no modern function; many aren't even marked on modern maps, even detailed ones) and some of these problems don't occur. ] (]) 17:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
:::In New England the duplication of CDP and town names typically occurs when the Census Bureau wants to tabulate only the urbanized civic center of a town. In cases like these, any cultural or historical information would already be covered by the town article and the CDP article will basically end up as a placeholder for census data (Massachusetts currently has a whole bunch of these). In cases like these, I would suggest merging the census data for the town center as a subsection of the town article. This has already been mostly done for New Hampshire and Connecticut where the town center article has not been expanded for years. In cases where the CDP name corresponds to a village name with a different name from the town, the CDP aspect should be only secondary and CDPs should also not be separated in county navigation templates (they should be lumped with other unincorporated communities). There is still the problem of CDPs that correspond to multiple distinct villages. --] | ] 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Polaron's idea of including the CDP information in the town article should work when the CDP that has the same name as the town and is the only discrete village or CDP in the town. That's good! I see several situations, however, where it wouldn't work:
::::*When a town includes one CDP that has the same name as the town and additional CDPs/villages with different names. For example, ] includes a CDP/village named "Great Barrington" and a second CDP/village named ]. Both are well-defined villages with characteristics and histories that are different from each other and different from the more rural parts of the town; both of them have post offices (with different zip codes). Housatonic clearly needs to be documented in an article separate from the town article -- and it does not make logical sense for it to have a separate article while the town's main village is lumped in with the town article.
::::*When the CDP is not part of the town of the same name. (Example: ] is not in ], but in the adjacent town of ])
::::*When a CDP includes multiple distinct villages -- this is the example Polaron mentions.
::::Fortunately, I think that in the first two of these cases, disambiguation of titles could be accomplished using forms like ] and ]. In the third case (the CDP that contains multiple villages), I think the demographics of the CDP could be discussed in the town article, while each of the villages could have a stand-alone article.
::::What have I missed here or oversimplified? --] (]) 03:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
:::::(Not answering Orlady's question which needs answering!). As Polaron has said, we have a "town" with two incorporated villages in them in Vermont. Each village has a census. The town including the two villages also has a census. This is handy and very accurate.
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::In Florida, we have a small town. There are unincorporated communities outside the town (in the South="in the county") that share the same zip code and the same "town identity." There is a census for the town AND a separate census for the zip. Lazy, I included them in the same article, identifying which was which. This is accurate, but politically strange since the people are definitely '''not''' part of the town. I'm hoping since I made it clear in the article, it's not encyclopedically strange! And there is really nothing else under which the town-outside-the-town can be listed except "neighborhood" and frankly, we aren't ready for that yet. Calling them "neighborhood (county)" or whatever, would sound really strange, though politically accurate. If they were a separate article, we'd have to say "town (not in town)" which is preposterous! ] (]) 19:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::The situation of a the name of a discrete place becoming the postal address for a larger area exists all over the U.S., although the details differ. I live in a state where nearly half the population lived outside of incorporated municipalities in 2000, and where many of the unincorporated "places" where people will tell you that they live (including many places with post offices) aren't designated as CDPs. This is one reason why many named unincorporated places are documented in Misplaced Pages articles, but it is often difficult to get reliably sourced information about places with no legal existence.
::::::] is one article where I very recently wrestled with the problem of separately documenting an actual community and a postal place in the same article. The post office uses the name Uncasville, Connecticut (a small village with no legal existence) for a big chunk of the legal town of ], including the Indian reservation that is not in Montville's legal jurisdiction and is the site of the ] casino resort. One result is that the Uncasville article has hundreds of backlinks from articles about boxers, rock stars, etc., and people following those links need to understand the zip code situation because they are not interested in the small village of Uncasville. Another example that might be useful to someone else is ], which contains the following text:
:::::::<small>Due to its hilly terrain and the relatively poor roads of 19th-century Sevier County, a number of smaller communities developed independently along the outskirts of Sevierville. These include Harrisburg and Fair Garden to the east and Catlettsburg and Boyd's Creek to the north. In addition, the United States Postal Service associates the name "Sevierville" with ZIP codes for much of Sevier County, including the town of Pittman Center and other geographically extensive areas located outside Sevierville's city limits.</small>
::::::Be cautious about describing demographic data for a zip code. The Census Bureau does not actually tabulate official census data for zip codes, but the Bureau does try to approximate zip code boundaries (using the nearest boundaries of census units) to create "Zip Code Tabulation Areas." Data for these ZCTAs might be pretty rough... --] (]) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
Just speaking more about the New Hampshire situation, we merged most of the CDP articles (thanks to Polaron's initial suggestion) into their respective towns a few years ago, after it became clear that people were starting to add duplicate material to the CDP and the town articles. We had one case (]) where the ] was smaller than the ] CDP, so the Conway CDP article was kept separately. I would support changing the article name to "Conway (village), New Hampshire" in this case. With the 2010 census, a few more cases of this sort have arisen (], for instance, versus ]), where I have simply redirected a new Goffstown CDP article title to the town article. I'd be open to converting the Goffstown CDP redirect to a "Goffstown (village)" article if that's where we're headed. As for the "Oxoboxo River"-type name that no one uses, we have an ] that is of that type. I would prefer we stick with the existing article title, as it is the simplest way to name it, and simply mention the usage or non-usage of the name within the article, as is currently the case. --] (]) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
:The ] handling of CDPs can be seen at ]. ] 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Timorese American ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 19:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


== Discussion on the renaming of the article ] ==
Should there be an article regarding, ] Americans? There are two reliable source references which I have found. One indicates that there are about 40 Timorese immigrants in the United States, the other indicating that there is at least one American born Timoran.
*{{cite news |title=East Timor, Only Four Years Old, Struggles With Poverty, Obscurity |author=Larry Luxner |url=http://www.washingtondiplomat.com/November%202006/a6_11_06.html |newspaper= |date=6 June 2006 |accessdate=9 June 2011 |archiveurl=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GTWySrvzOo4J:www.washingtondiplomat.com/November%25202006/a6_11_06.html+%22Timorese+American%22&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com |archivedate=25 May 2011 |quote=Pinto certainly doesn’t need a big staff to look after the Timorese-American immigrant community: He says that no more than 40 Timorese nationals live in the United States. }}
*{{cite book |title=East Timor's unfinished struggle: inside the Timorese resistance |last=Pinto |first=Constâncio |authorlink= |coauthors=Matthew Jardine |year=1997 |publisher=] |location=Boston, Massachusetts |isbn=9780896085411 |page=236 |pages=289 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=CdHlt6CSp54C&lpg=PA236&ots=YR_WFnK9tX&dq=%22Timorese%20American%22&pg=PA236#v=onepage&q=%22Timorese%20American%22&f=false |accessdate=9 June 2011 |quote=We named her Tima, for Timorese American. }}
There might not be enough, as there wasn't for ], but that doesn't mean that we as a community of editors cannot contemplate it. --] (]) 07:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
:Using the above data, should I produce a stub quality article, to begin with? --] (]) 02:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
*People in Timor born in the US and people in the US born in Timor should be trated as two seperate articles. They are distinct groups. On the other hand, there is no reason for the purposes of articles to limit the group to people in the US born in Timor, people in the US with parents born in Timor could also be included. However if there are only about 40 Timoreans who have emigrated to the US, it seems that this might be better treated as part of an article like ] or ] with a section titled "Timorean people who have moved to other countries". You could link Timorean American to that section as a redirect. If more Timoreans come to the US or they become the subject of significant scholarly study in the future this could be made a seperate article, but for now it hardly seems worth seperating.] (]) 04:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
::"People in Timor in the US"? Was what was meant to be typed "People of Timor born in and residing in the United States"?
::Is there sufficient reliable sources to create a Timorean Diaspora article? Perhaps that would be a good article which to send a Timorean American article? Is it be Timorese or Timorean?
::Perhaps we are not the best individuals to answer that, I shall ] editors from WikiProject Southeast Asia to this discussion. --] (]) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


Please see ] for a discussion about renaming ] to ]. ] (]) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
== User:Michael J/County table ==


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] is a useful page.—] (]) 17:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== B-Class Checklist for ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 00:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
The suggestion has been made to add the B-Class checklist functionality to the WikiProject United States template. Since this is a significant change I wanted to take the opportunity to allow for comments about this from the members of the projects. If you have any comments, ideas or suggestions plesae take the time to participate in the discussion. --] (]) 15:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 20:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== WikiProject Franco-Americans is up for deletion ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 20:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
I have nominated ] for deletion at ]. Please ] for any concerns. Thank for your time. '''] <small>(] / ])</small>''' 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Also note, ] and ] are also up for deletion at ] and ]. '''] <small>(] / ])</small>''' 19:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


== RfC ongoing at ] ==
== Daniel Webster FAR ==


There is a RfC ongoing at ], an article within the scope of this WikiProject. All editors are invited to participate. '''] ]''' 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
{{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 00:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== International Space Station ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
{{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
<span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; class=texhtml">]</span><sub>]</sub> 14:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


== Tagging articles with the WikiProject United States banner == == ] ==


My concern is that every single man on this list is in fact a traitor, and treason has reasons to source. Please fix this issue. ] (]) 11:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion about my tagging articles relating to WikiProject United States. Because this discussion relates directly to the project, its scope and the association of United States related projects I felt it important to notify the project in this fashion. Please take a moment to comment on this discussion so that all (including myself) will be clear on what the project wishes its scope to be.


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
The notice below was copied from my talk page.<br/>
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{AN-notice|thread=Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags}}--] (]) 01:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Supported WikiProject proposal ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
As was open for ] there was no opposition posted to the idea of having ], being either a task force or a supported WikiProject. I imagine the difference between Task Force and supported WikiProject is the level of integration and independence; and that point itself hasn't really been discussed. Since the previous discussion has been auto archived, I am renewing the discussion. --] (]) 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 03:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== ] ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Asian or not? See ]. Since it has been shown that DEOMI isn't always reliable. --] (]) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== A-class question ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Reliable sources for US political articles ==
Hey WP:US people, do you (or will you, I suppose) accept ] A-class ratings in your project template? An example of this would be ] at ]. Milhist's A-class criteria are located at ]. Regards, ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 07:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - I think thats a great idea personally. I think Milhists standards are very well developed and very well respected in the community. We already have the A class rating and a number of articles in it (many of them Milhist related). --] (]) 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


There is an interesting discussion regarding reliable sources for US political articles at ] --] (]) 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== Nomination as a ] candidate ==


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
The ], an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be a future ]. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month ]. --] (]) 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Content removal discussion ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 16:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC) <small>(Using {{]}})</small>
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== A problem with politics articles, especially senator articles ==
== ] for July 2011 ==


]: "A member of the Democratic Party, he has been the '''senior''' U.S. senator from Arizona since 2020". This isn't actually true. He's been in the Senate since 2020, but he only just became the senior senator. I think similar statements appear in a number of articles. ] (]) 07:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
], a page within the scope of this project, has been selected as the ] for July 2011. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month ]. --] (]) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


:Correct. It's a problem that people care about shoehorning in whether they are the junior or senior senator without regard for sentence flow. Please edit those articles to fix it or at least tell us which ones do this. I'll fix Kelly. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== San Diego is up for peer review ==


== Requested move at ] ==
I have listed San Diego for peer review. Please ]. Thank you. '''] <small>(] / ])</small>''' 00:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 19:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Order in the 'President of the Continental Congress' is fucked ==
There is a discussion at ] about which dialect of English the article should be using. It is currently using '''British English'''; however there's no British module (there's a European module with British contributions, and a Canadian module, plus several American modules, of the English speaking countries involved) ] (]) 07:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


In the infobox of each ] holder, the order is self-contradictory with one another. Some of them are ordered based on the name of the office (ie. 1st President of the First Continental Congress v 1st President of the Confederation Congress) or ordered based on all previous titles combined. These also contradict the NavBox at the bottom of each page. Can someone who better knows the topic let me know which order is best? ] (]) 05:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== WikiProject English ==

] has been nominated for deletion. As this project was proposed for maintaining national varieties of English on how articles are written/formatted/spelled, you may be interested. (essentially, maintaing ] compliance on articles) ] (]) 04:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

== "American Indians" ==

] has been requested to be renamed. See ] for the discussion. ] (]) 05:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

== July 2011 Newsletter for ] ==

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States/Newsletter/Newsletter link|July 2011}} --] (]) 03:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

== Can the phrase "The population was spread out...." be replaced? ==

With new census data, the demographics sections of the US named places articles will need to be updated. Is there a way to remove this phrase? I think it is borderline non-English; it is certainly not meaningful. ] (]) 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The phrase appears to occur in the vast majority of our articles. ] (]) 19:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
:That language came from a set of bot edits done circa 2002. Not only is the language peculiar, but it's not clear that the information that was reported in those bot-created Census data sections was the "right" information to distill from the Census. The "spread out" section related to age and sex. If there's a desire to describe the age-sex distribution, age pyramids would be better (they were added to some articles more recently). On the other hand, humans might want to decide what parameters to report. I suggest that median age is a good single parameter to report for all communities, and additional age data could be included at the article developer's discretion. I'd be interested in hearing what other Wikipedians think. --] (]) 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:"distributed by age as follows.." ] (]) 22:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
::That would work fine. --] (]) 14:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you. The simplicity is attractive, and it is English. ] (]) 03:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

== Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at Featured Portal candidates ==

*]
] is a candidate for Featured Portal, with discussion at ]. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:Discussion regarding ethnicity and whether certain sources are ].|Discussion regarding ethnicity and whether certain sources are ].}} ] (]) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC){{z48}}

== Historiography of the United States has been nominated as the ] for next August 2011 ==

], an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be the ] for next August 2011. You can vote for this or other articles to be next months Collaboration of the Month ]. ] 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

== Democratic Party (United States) has been nominated as the ] for next August 2011 ==

], an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be the ] for next August 2011. You can vote for this or other articles to be next months Collaboration of the Month ]. ] 19:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

== Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move ==

] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC){{z48}}
== Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move ==

] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC){{z48}}

== Years by State ==

Years by various state for 2014 back to 1861 have been created, but are all these categories necessary, in addition to the main category eg ]? The content is largely elections in the state for which there is already a series of categories by year. See say ], where for 2008 while California has 10 pages; and Arkansas, Connecticut and Texas one page each (plus the elections subcategory), the categories for the remaining 9 states only contain one subcategory for elections eg ]. Most of the content of the 19th & 20th century years seem to relate to one state, California. ] (]) 02:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

]
I would like to announce the first featured article contest for the National Archives project. The National Archives has graciously provided us with prizes to give out to winners, including National Archives publications, tote bags, and other swag. The first contest is a challenge to get any of the articles on the three documents on display in the National Archives building's rotunda—the ], the ], and the ]—featured (in any language). <p> There is a one-month timeline for this contest, with the deadline tentatively set for August 20. Please read more about how to participate ]. Good luck! ]·] 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

== Census pointer ==

Just found a census pointer for those of us who monitor that sort of thing. By counties with cursor, by state on the left. http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1 If there is a govt (one-pointer-meets-all) link, ignore this one! ] (]) 22:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

There has been conflict at ], largely (although not exclusively) about two sections:

===Civil Rights, the War on Poverty, and the New Left===
In 1958 the ] welcomed former members of the], which before its 1956 dissolution had been led by ]. Shachtman had developed a ] critique of ] as "]", a new form of class society that was more oppressive than any form of capitalism. Shachtman's theory was similar to that of many dissidents and refugees from Communism, such as the theory of the "]" proposed by Yugoslavian dissident ] (Djilas). Shachtman's ISL had attracted youth like ],],<ref>Isserman, ''The other american'', p. 116.</ref> ], and Rachelle Horowitz.<ref>{{harvtxt|Drucker|1994|p=269}}:<p>{{cite book|title=Max Shachtman and his left: A socialist's odyssey through the "American Century"|first=Peter|last=Drucker|publisher=Humanities Press|year=1994|isbn=0-391-03816-8|ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Horowitz|2007|p=210}}</ref><ref name="KahnMS">{{harvtxt|Kahn|2007|pp=254–255}}: {{citation|title=Max Shachtman: His ideas and his movement|last=Kahn|first=Tom|<!-- authorlink=Tom Kahn -->|journal=] ''(merged with'' ] ''in 2009)''|volume=11
|issue=
|year=2007|origyear=1973|pages=252–259
|url=http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/docs/d11Khan.pdf|format=pdf|<!-- ref=harv -->}}</ref> The YPSL was dissolved, but the party formed a new youth group under the same name.<ref>Alexander, p. 812-813.</ref>
] led the ] at which ] delivered his speech "]".]]

Kahn and Horowitz, along with ], helped ] with the ]. Rustin had helped to spread ]and ] to leaders of the civil rights movement, like ]. Rustin's circle and ] organized the ], where Martin Luther King delivered his ] speech.<ref name="Randolph">Jervis Anderson,''A. Philip Randolph: A Biographical Portrait'' (1973; University of California Press, 1986). ISBN 978-0-520-05505-6</ref><ref name="Rustin">
* Anderson, Jervis. ''Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen'' (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997).
* Branch, Taylor. ''Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-63'' (New York: Touchstone, 1989).
* D’Emilio, John. ''Lost Prophet: Bayard Rustin and the Quest for Peace and Justice in America''(New York: The Free Press, 2003).
* D'Emilio, John. ''Lost Prophet: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin'' (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004). ISBN 0-226-14269-8</ref><ref name="RHKahn" >{{harvtxt|Horowitz|2007|pp=220–222}}:<p>{{cite journal|title=Tom Kahn and the fight for democracy: A political portrait and personal recollection|first=Rachelle|last=Horowitz|authorlink=Rachelle Horowitz|url=http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d11Horowitz.pdf<!-- http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/oldsite/Kahn.html -->|year=2007|journal=]''(merged with'' ] ''in 2009)''|issue=Winter|volume=11|issue=Summer|year=2007|pages=204–251}}
</ref><ref name="NYTKahn" >{{cite article|title=Tom Kahn, leader in labor and rights movements, was&nbsp;53|newspaper=New York Times|year=1992|month=1 April|first=Wolfgang|last=Saxon|url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F1992%2F04%2F01%2Fnyregion%2Ftom-kahn-leader-in-labor-and-rights-movements-was-53.html&rct=j&q=%22Tom%20Kahn%22%2CNew%20York%20Times&ei=wgPqTaeYEsnCtAaUr_DnCg&usg=AFQjCNEai5k3bXSuiUDmQZg3x_oZ2kqjaQ&sig2=GK8sbNNMq_Z77bDy0mtPGg&cad=rja}}</ref>

Michael Harrington soon became the most visible socialist in the United States when his '']'' became a best seller, following a long and laudatory '']'' review by ].<ref>
* {{cite journal|title=Our invisible poor|first=Dwight|last=MacDonald|authorlink=Dwight Macdonald|month=January 19|year=1963|journal=]|ref=harv
|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1963/01/19/1963_01_19_082_TNY_CARDS_000075671#ixzz1SNI25qvI}}
*:Reprinted in collection: {{cite book|first=Dwight|last=Macdonald|authorlink=Dwight Macdonald|title=Discriminations: Essays and afterthoughts 1938-1974|origyear=1974|year=1985|edition=reprint|publisher=Da Capo Press|isbn=030680252X,
ISBN-13 978-0306802522|ref=harv|chapter=Our invisible poor
|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1963/01/19/1963_01_19_082_TNY_CARDS_000075671#ixzz1SNI25qvI}}
*Sumner, Gregory D. (1996) ''Dwight Macdonald and the ''Politics'' Circle: The Challenge of Cosmopolitan Democracy''
*Whitfield , Stephen J. (1984) ''A Critical American: The Politics of Dwight Macdonald''
*Wreszin, Michael (1994) ''A Rebel in Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight MacDonald''
</ref> Harrington and other socialists were called to Washington, D.C., to assist the ] and then the ]'s] and ].<ref name="WoPMH">
{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/books/review/Isserman-t.html?_r=1
| work=The New York Times | first=Maurice | last=Isserman |authorlink=Maurice Isserman|title=Michael Harrington: Warrior on poverty | date=2009-06-19}}
</ref>

Shachtman, ], Kahn, and Rustin argued advocated a political strategy called "realignment," that prioritized strengthening labor unions and other progressive organizations that were already active in the Democratic Party. Contributing to the day-to-day struggles of the civil-rights movement and labor unions had gained socialists credibility and influence, and had helped to push politicians in the Democratic Party towards "]" or ] positions, at least on civil rights and the ].<ref>Isserman, ''The other american'', pp. 169–336.</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Drucker|1994|p=187–308}}<!-- :<p>{{cite book|title=Max Shachtman and his left: A socialist's odyssey through the "American Century"|first=Peter|last=Drucker|publisher=Humanities Press|year=1994|isbn=0-391-03816-8}} --></ref>

Harrington, Kahn, and Horowitz were officers and staff-persons of the ] (LID), which helped to start the ] ](SDS). The three LID officers clashed with the less experienced activists of SDS, like ], when the latter's ] criticized socialist and liberal opposition to communism and criticized the labor movement while promoting students as agents of social change.<ref>Kirkpatrick Sale, ''SDS'', pp. 22-25.</ref> <!-- Gitlin, I think, notes that such public strong criticisms did not help and might have hindered their efforts at realignment. -->LID and SDS split in 1965, when SDS voted to remove from its constitution the "''exclusion clause''" that prohibited membership by communists:<ref>Kirkpatrick Sale, ''SDS'', p. 105.</ref>The SDS exclusion clause had barred "advocates of or apologists for" "totalitarianism".<ref>Kirkpatrick Sale, ''SDS'', pp. 25–26</ref> The clause's removal effectively invited "disciplined cadre" to attempt to "take over or paralyze" SDS, as had occurred to mass organizations in the thirties.<ref> Gitlin, p. 191.<p>].'' (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2.
</ref> Afterwords, ], particularly the ], helped to write "the death sentence" for SDS,<ref>Sale, p. 287.<p>Sale described an "all‑out invasion of SDS by the Progressive Labor Party. PLers—concentrated chiefly in Boston, New York, and California, with some strength in Chicago and Michigan—were positively cyclotronic in their ability to split and splinter chapter organizations: if it wasn't their self‑righteous positiveness it was their caucus‑controlled rigidity, if not their deliberate disruptiveness it was their overt bids for control, if not their repetitious appeals for base‑building it was their unrelenting Marxism". Kirkpatrick Sale,''SDS'', pp. 253.</ref><ref> Gitlin, p. 191.<p>].'' ISBN 0-553-37212-2.
* Miller, James. ''Democracy is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago''. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0674197251.
</ref><ref>Sale wrote, "SDS papers and pamphlets talked of 'armed struggle,' 'disciplined cadre,' 'white fighting force,' and the need for "a communist party that can guide this movement to victory"; SDS leaders and publications quoted Mao and Lenin and Ho Chi Minh more regularly than Jenminh Jih Pao. and a few of them even sought to say a few good words for Stalin". p. 269.</ref>which nonetheless had over 100 thousand members at its peak.

In 1972, the Socialist Party voted to rename itself as ] (SDUSA) by a vote of 73 to&nbsp;34 at its December Convention; its National Chairmen were ], a peace and civil-rights leader, and ], an officer of the] (ILGWU).<ref name="NYTimes">{{cite article|title=Socialist Party now the Social Democrats,&nbsp;U.S.A.|newspaper=New&nbsp;York Times|year=1972|month=31 December|page=36|author=Anonymous|url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B16FC3E5A137A93C3AA1789D95F468785F9|accessdate=February 8, 2010|url2=http://www.marxisthistory.org/personal/721231-sdusa-news.pdf|ref=harv}}

</ref> In 1973, ] resigned from SDUSA and founded the ] (DSOC), which attracted many of his followers from the former Socialist Party.<ref name="Iss311">Isserman, p. 311.</ref> The same year, ] and others from the pacifist and immediate-withdrawal wing of the former Socialist Party formed the ].<ref>Isserman, p. 422.</ref>
<references/>
===Social Democrats, USA===
{{main|Social Democrats, USA}}
====Version A====
] was the national chairperson of SDUSA during the 1970s. SDUSA sponsored a biannual conference<ref name="Challenge">{{citation|url=http://www.archive.org/details/TheAmericanChallengeASocial-democraticProgramForTheSeventies|title=The American challenge: A social-democratic program for the seventies|location=New York|publisher=SDUSA|year=1973|author=Social Democrats, USA|<!-- authorlink=Social Democrats, USA -->|ref=harv}}</ref> that featured discussions, for which SDUSA invited outside academic, political, and labor-union leaders. These meetings also functioned as reunions for political activists and intellectuals, some of whom worked together for decades.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Harold|last=Meyerson|authorlink=Harold Meyerson|issue=Fall|year=2002|volume=49|number=4|title=Solidarity, Whatever|url=http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=552|journal=Dissent|page=16|ref=harv}}</ref> SDUSA also published position papers, e.g. opposing many of the ] domestic policies.<ref name="muravchik">{{harvtxt|Muravchik|2006}}:<p>{{cite journal|first=Joshua|last=Muravchik|authorlink=Joshua Muravchik|url=http://www.aei.org/article/23700|title=Comrades|journal=|date=January 2006|accessdate=15 June 2007}}</ref> From&nbsp;1979–1989, SDUSA members like] organized the ]'s fundraising of 300 thousand dollars, which bought printing presses and other supplies requested by ].<ref name=Horowitz> {{cite journal|title=Tom Kahn and the fight for democracy: A political portrait and personal recollection|first=Rachelle|last=Horowitz|url=http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d11Horowitz.pdf|ref=harv|year=2009|journal=Democratiya''(merged with'' Dissent ''in 2009)''|volume=11|year=2007|pages=204–251}}</ref><ref name="Shevis31">{{harvtxt|Shevis|1981|p=31}}: <p>{{cite journal|title=The AFL-CIO and Poland's Solidarity|first=James&nbsp;M.|last=Shevis|journal=World Affairs| volume=144|number=1|issue=Summer|year=1981|pages=31–35|publisher=World Affairs Institute|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/20671880|jstor=20671880|ref=harv}}</ref><ref>Opening statement by Tom Kahn in {{harvtxt|Kahn|Podhoretz|2008|p=235}}: <p>{{cite journal|title=How to support ''Solidarnosc'': A debate|others=Sponsored by the ] and the ], with introduction by ] and moderation by ], and held at the Polish Institute for Arts and Sciences, New York City in March 1981|last1=Kahn|first1=Tom|authorlink1=Tom Kahn|last2=Podhoretz|first2=Norman|authorlink2=Norman Podhoretz|journal=Democratiya ''(merged with'' Dissent ''in 2009)''|volume=13|issue=Summer|year=2008|pages=230–261|url=http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/docs/d13Whole.pdf|ref=harv}}</ref> SDUSA members helped form a ] to support the founding of the ] (NED), whose first President was]. The NED publicly allocated 4 million USD of public aid to Solidarity <!--via the AFL-CIO -->through 1989.<ref>"The AFL–CIO had channeled more than $4 million to it, including computers, printing presses, and supplies" according to {{harvtxt|Horowitz|2009|p=237}}.</ref><ref name="Puddington" >{{harvtxt|Puddington|2005}}:<p>{{cite journal|title=Surviving the underground: How American unions helped solidarity win|first=Arch|last=Puddington|<!-- authorlink=Arch Puddington -->|journal=American Educator|issue=Summer|year=2005|publisher=American Federation of Teachers|url=http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2005/puddington.cfm|accessdate=4 June 2011}}
</ref> Because of their service in government, Gershman and other SDUSA members were called "State Department socialists" by {{harvtxt|Massing|1987}}, who wrote that the ] was being run by ], a claim that was called a "myth" by {{harvtxt|Lipset|1988|p=34}}.<ref name="Lip34">
"A 1987 article in ''The New Republic'' described these developments as a Trotskyist takeover of the Reagan administration" wrote {{harvtxt|Lipset|1988|p=34}}.</ref> This conspiracy charge has been repeated and even widened by journalist ] to assert a takeover of the ] by former Trotskyists;<ref>{{cite journal|title=The weird men behind George&nbsp;W. Bush's war|first=Michael|last=Lind|journal=New Statesman|location=London|month=7 April|year=2003
|url=http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/030408/d431cc57ce9014da63b65ea39c1fd657/8%20Apr%2003%20The%20weird%20men%20behind%20George%20W%20Bush.doc
|ref=harv}}</ref> Lind's "amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of 'the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement'" was criticized by Alan&nbsp;M. Wald, a professor at the University of Michigan who has written a history of Trotskism and neo-neoconservatism, ''The New York intellectuals''.<ref>{{cite journal|month=27 June|year=2003|title=Are Trotskyites Running the Pentagon?|first=Alan|last= Wald|authorlink=Alan M. Wald|journal=History News Network|url=http://hnn.us/articles/1514.html|ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Muravchik|2006|<!-- p= ONLINE -->}}. Addressing the allegation that SDUSUA was a "Trotskyist" organization, Muravchik wrote that in the early 1960s, two future members of SDUSA, ] and ]
<blockquote>
"became devotees of a former Trotskyist named Max Shachtman—a fact that today has taken on a life of its own. Tracing forward in lineage through me and a few other ex-YPSL’s ]] turned neoconservatives, this happenstance has fueled the accusation that neoconservatism itself, and through it the foreign policy of the Bush administration, are somehow rooted in 'Trotskyism.'
<p>
I am more inclined to laugh than to cry over this, but since the myth has traveled so far, let me briefly try once more, as I have done at greater length in the past, to set the record straight. The alleged connective chain is broken at every link. The falsity of its more recent elements is readily ascertainable by anyone who cares for the truth—namely, that George Bush was never a neoconservative and that most neoconservatives were never YPSL’s. The earlier connections are more obscure but no less false. Although Shachtman was one of the elder statesmen who occasionally made stirring speeches to us, no YPSL of my generation was a Shachtmanite. What is more, our mentors, Paul and Tom, had come under Shachtman’s sway years after he himself had ceased to be a Trotskyite.
</blockquote></ref>
<references/>
====Version B====
The Shachtmanites, called the Realignment Caucus, in the SP-SDF argued that since organized labor supported the Democratic Party, they should join the Democratic Party and transform it into a left-wing party, with the Republicans becoming a right-wing party. Further, they argued that they should support the ] to stop Communist expansion. In 1972, they supported Senator ] for the Democratic presidential nomination, and re-named the party ] (SDUSA), dropping the term "socialist". While they retained membership in the ], they supported ] in the 1976 election and had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.<ref>Busky, pp. 163-165</ref>
<references/>



* Busky, Donald F. ''Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2000. ISBN 02759688

===Request for help===
Second opinions would be helpful. Thanks! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

== List of United States Foreign Service Career Ambassadors ==

So, I have been informed that I should seek permission to add your banner to articles. Should ] be bannered with this project? ] (]) 04:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:25, 8 January 2025

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconUnited States
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
Articles		MembersPortalRecognized
content		To doHelp

This WikiProject is under the scope of WikiProject United States.

    Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States

    Archiving icon

    		Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

    Old U.S. notice board archives: National, Southern, Northern


    This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
    WikiProject United States was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 4 July 2011.
    Miscellany for deletionMisplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States/US related unreferenced BLPs was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
    United States
    WikiProject
    Main page Talk
    Assessment Talk
    Collaboration Talk
    Help
    Newsletter
    Outreach
    Portal Talk
    To do / cleanup lists
    Project organization
    Article alerts
    Articles for creation
    Automation
    Deletion sorting
    Members
    Popular pagesTalk
    Project bannerTalk
    Project category Talk
    Quality content
    Recognized content
    Requested Articles
    WikiProject embassy
    Related projects
    National
    Regional
    States
    State-level WikiProjects
    Territories
    Caribbean

    Puerto Rico
    Virgin Islands
    Micronesia

    Guam
    Johnston Atoll
    Northern Mariana Islands
    Wake Island
    Polynesia

    American Samoa
    Borders
    Governments
    Culture
    Society
     · related changes


    Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush#Article size, structure, and focus

    Would appreciate some eyes on this. Pasting what I wrote there for context:

    This article needs pruning, but I am unsure of where to begin, or what the end result should ultimately look like. If there is a policy for what "Political positions of ______" pages should look like, I am unaware of it (and would appreciate a link to). However, I think we can all agree that there is no reason why the article on Jeb Bush's political positions should be 605.99% larger than his brother's.

    Jeb Bush hasn't been in a position to directly influence American policy since leaving gubernatorial office in 2007. Since then, he had an infamously unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, has been involved with a number of lobbyist groups (e.g. Foundation for Excellence in Education, United Against Nuclear Iran, the James Madison Institute), and occasionally contributes to media outlets as an op-ed columnist. This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to his stated positions on the 2016 campaign trail; eight years down the line and three presidential elections later, it is safe to say that they ultimately fail the WP:10YEARTEST.

    By the end of this discussion, I'd like to set up an outline for how the article should be restructured and discuss what should or should not remain. My immediate thoughts:

    • I'd like to avoid splitting the article into sub-subsections unless absolutely necessary to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION.
    • I believe the most weight should be given to his political positions during his tenure as governor, followed by his post-gubernatorial career as a lobbyist and op-ed columnist, followed by comments made on the 2016 campaign trail.
    • Anything that did not influence public policy probably does not deserve a section unto itself. For example, his opinion on the Confederate flag, the name of the Washington Commanders (né Redskins), or his comments about the "French workweek" seem particularly superfluous.

    Discuss.
    — User:Kodiak Blackjack 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    These seem like sound principles, although I don't think the size vis a vis his brother is that important. I found the International relations section the most unneeded, it seems mostly news-style reporting of specific statements. For what it's worth there is one relevant GA, Political positions of Paul Ryan. CMD (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Joseph McCarthy

    Joseph McCarthy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for East Carolina University

    East Carolina University has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Neal Boortz

    Neal Boortz has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Death of Abdul Wahid#Requested move 8 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death of Abdul Wahid#Requested move 8 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe 21:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#Requested move 10 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#Requested move 10 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for John Glenn Columbus International Airport

    John Glenn Columbus International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for The Contest

    The Contest has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion on the renaming of the article Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge

    Please see here for a discussion about renaming Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge to United States support for the Khmer Rouge. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Dick Cheney

    Dick Cheney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:European Union–United States relations#Requested move 23 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Union–United States relations#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Batman in film

    Batman in film has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Margaret Chin

    Margaret Chin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Ne-Yo

    Ne-Yo has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio

    There is a RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio, an article within the scope of this WikiProject. All editors are invited to participate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    List of Confederate States senators

    My concern is that every single man on this list is in fact a traitor, and treason has reasons to source. Please fix this issue. Bearian (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Mitch Daniels

    Mitch Daniels has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for 2017 World Series

    2017 World Series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Anuel AA

    Anuel AA has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for American automobile industry in the 1950s

    American automobile industry in the 1950s has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

    1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for American Horror Story

    American Horror Story has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Reliable sources for US political articles

    There is an interesting discussion regarding reliable sources for US political articles at WT:RS#This is curious... --Magnolia677 (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Wings (1927 film)

    Wings (1927 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for 102nd Intelligence Wing

    102nd Intelligence Wing has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    A problem with politics articles, especially senator articles

    Mark Kelly: "A member of the Democratic Party, he has been the senior U.S. senator from Arizona since 2020". This isn't actually true. He's been in the Senate since 2020, but he only just became the senior senator. I think similar statements appear in a number of articles. 174.160.82.127 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Correct. It's a problem that people care about shoehorning in whether they are the junior or senior senator without regard for sentence flow. Please edit those articles to fix it or at least tell us which ones do this. I'll fix Kelly. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Benny Friedman#Requested move 4 January 2025

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Benny Friedman#Requested move 4 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Order in the 'President of the Continental Congress' is fucked

    In the infobox of each President of the Continental Congress holder, the order is self-contradictory with one another. Some of them are ordered based on the name of the office (ie. 1st President of the First Continental Congress v 1st President of the Confederation Congress) or ordered based on all previous titles combined. These also contradict the NavBox at the bottom of each page. Can someone who better knows the topic let me know which order is best? GGOTCC (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: