Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:22, 20 July 2011

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject United States and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:WPUS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT

United States Project‑class

This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

The WikiProject United States Tab Spacer and WikiProject United States Tab templates are used by WikiProject Climbing on their project page. If you are planning to make major changes to this template or nominate it for deletion, please notify WikiProject Climbing at their talk page as a courtesy. Thank You.

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 pages Talk Project banner Talk Project category Talk Quality content Recognized content Requested Articles WikiProject embassy
Related projects National U.S. History U.S. Roads U.S. Streets Superfunds Regional U.S. counties States State-level WikiProjects Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Territories Caribbean Puerto Rico Virgin Islands District of Columbia Micronesia Guam Johnston Atoll Northern Mariana Islands Wake Island Midway Atoll Polynesia American Samoa Borders Canada Mexico North America Governments United States Government United States Public Policy U.S. Presidents U.S. Congress United States Courts and judges United States Governors United States Politicians US State Legislatures U.S. Supreme Court cases U.S. presidential elections Culture American cinema American television United States History U.S. Military history American Revolutionary War American Civil War American animation United States comics National Register of Historic Places Society African diaspora Asian Americans Indigenous peoples of North America Latinos Mexican-Americans
view talk edit  · related changes

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject United States and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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 WP:consensus? Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 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? --Kumioko (talk) 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. Student7 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that GeorgeLouis was concerned with edits like this one. 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.
I, too, am troubled when users delete all information about the unincorporated place and replace it with the census-designated place 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 Oxoboxo River, Connecticut).
I also agree that "white" should not be capitalized. --Orlady (talk) 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? --Kumioko (talk) 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.
Seymour, Tennessee and Lake Tansi, Tennessee 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 Montville, Connecticut and Uncasville, Connecticut) and Wakefield-Peacedale, Rhode Island (a CDP incorporating Wakefield, Rhode Island and Peace Dale, Rhode Island). 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. Peace Dale, Rhode Island 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). Wauregan, Connecticut 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.) --Orlady (talk) 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 Lake Tansi, Tennessee 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? --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this, but my internet service has become "intermittent" at best. Later. --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. --Kumioko (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My internet service is working again, so I'm starting a discussion. :-) --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Describing/naming census designated places

The census designated place (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 GNIS (search page at this link) 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, Central, Tennessee). 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, Wakefield-Peacedale, Rhode Island, which consists of the villages of Wakefield and Peace Dale)
• 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 Chester-Chester Depot, Vermont, which addresses a CDP within the town of Chester, Vermont 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, Oxoboxo River, Connecticut, which is a subpart of the legal town of Montville, includes discrete sections of that town including the historical village of Uncasville, 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:

• Blountville is an unincorporated town and census-designated place (CDP) in Sullivan County, Tennessee, United States.
• Crugers is a hamlet and census-designated place (CDP) located in the town of Cortlandt, Westchester County, New York.
• Lake Tansi is a resort community in Cumberland County, Tennessee, United States, recognized by the U.S. Census as a census-designated place (CDP).
• Seymour is an unincorporated community and a census-designated place (CDP) in Blount and Sevier counties in the U.S. state of Tennessee, United States.
• White River Junction 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 common name 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").

--Orlady (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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

If the name is one that the Census folks pulled out of thin air, then there will be no confusion in calling it Thin Air, State; if there is another Thin Air in that State, if it is the more prominent (or say, incorporated) then it gets Thin Air, State and the other gets disambiguated; if neither is obviously the major use of the term, then Thin Air, State can be a disambiguation page, and we then disambiguate articles the normal way (by county, parish in Louisiana, borough in Alaska), so Thin Air, County 1, State vs. Thin Air, County 2, State.

If there was an unincorporated community that was made a CDP, it is handled in the same manner. For example: Rolling Hills, California is the city in Los Angeles County - the primary use of the name, and Rolling Hills, Madera County, California is the CDP in Madera county, hatdabbed at the city article, but not Rolling Hills CDP, California because before 2010 it wasn't a CDP and may not be in 2020 (WP:CRYSTAL).

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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" Jd2718 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I agree that the article Oxoboxo River, Connecticut 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. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Hilo, Hawaii 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.

As for titles, there currently are numerous articles that use "CDP" as a disambiguation term. For example, Middlebury (CDP), Vermont has that title to disambiguate from the legal town of Middlebury, Vermont in which it is located. Under my proposal, it could be renamed to Middlebury (village), Vermont, 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 Template:New London County, Connecticut. One editor has been insisting there that the CDP named "Oxoboxo River" (not to be confused with the actual river by that name) 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? --Orlady (talk) 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. older ≠ wiser 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. --Orlady (talk) 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). Jd2718 (talk) 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). --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 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. --Polaron | Talk 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, Great Barrington, Massachusetts includes a CDP/village named "Great Barrington" and a second CDP/village named Housatonic. 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: Canaan (CDP), Connecticut is not in Canaan, Connecticut, but in the adjacent town of North Canaan, Connecticut)
• 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 Canaan (village), Connecticut and Great Barrington (town center), Massachusetts. 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? --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(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.

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! Student7 (talk) 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.

Uncasville, Connecticut 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 Montville, including the Indian reservation that is not in Montville's legal jurisdiction and is the site of the Mohegan Sun 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 Sevierville, Tennessee, which contains the following text:

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.

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... --Orlady (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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 (Conway, New Hampshire) where the Conway CDP was smaller than the North Conway 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 (Goffstown, for instance, versus Pinardville), 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 East Merrimack, New Hampshire 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. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Colorado handling of CDPs can be seen at Colorado census designated places.  Buaidh  21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Timorese American

Should there be an article regarding, Timorese 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.

• Larry Luxner (6 June 2006). "East Timor, Only Four Years Old, Struggles With Poverty, Obscurity". Archived from the original on 25 May 2011. Retrieved 9 June 2011. 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.
• Pinto, Constâncio (1997). East Timor's unfinished struggle: inside the Timorese resistance. Boston, Massachusetts: South End Press. p. 236. ISBN 9780896085411. Retrieved 9 June 2011. We named her Tima, for Timorese American. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

There might not be enough, as there wasn't for Malaysian American, but that doesn't mean that we as a community of editors cannot contemplate it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Using the above data, should I produce a stub quality article, to begin with? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 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 Timor or Timorean people 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 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 invite editors from WikiProject Southeast Asia to this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at peer review

A new portal Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Misplaced Pages:Portal peer review/Supreme Court of the United States/archive1. I put a bit of effort into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

coin images up for deletion

three US coin images from coins of 200, 150, 120 years old have been nominated for deletion. See WP:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_19

65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject United States for a Signpost article to be published on the Fourth of July. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Is anyone willing to be interviewed? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions and responses may be trimmed if the final article becomes too long. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. --Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Michael J/County table

User:Michael J/County table is a useful page.—Wavelength (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

B-Class Checklist for Template:WikiProject United States

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. --Kumioko (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Franco-Americans is up for deletion

I have nominated WikiProject Franco-Americans for deletion at WP:MFD. Please comment here for any concerns. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Also note, WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies and Template:WikiProject Georgia are also up for deletion at WP:MFD and WP:RFD. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Webster FAR

I have nominated Daniel Webster for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. 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 here. Brad (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. 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 here. Penyulap _talk 14:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagging articles with the WikiProject United States banner

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.

The notice below was copied from my talk page.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags. Thank you.--Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Supported WikiProject proposal

As was open for discussion there was no opposition posted to the idea of having WikiProject Asian Americans, 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. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Elmelindo Rodrigues Smith

Asian or not? See talk page discussion. Since it has been shown that DEOMI isn't always reliable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A-class question

Hey WP:US people, do you (or will you, I suppose) accept WP:MILHIST A-class ratings in your project template? An example of this would be here at James B. McCreary. Milhist's A-class criteria are located at WP:MH/A. Regards, Ed  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). --Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

The Hope Diamond, an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Content removal discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine cuisine#Philippine cuisine in the United States. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for July 2011

United States dollar, a page within the scope of this project, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month 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 here. --Kumioko (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

San Diego is up for peer review

I have listed San Diego for peer review. Please comment here. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

There is a discussion at Talk:International Space Station 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) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject English

Misplaced Pages: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 WP:ENGVAR compliance on articles) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"American Indians"

Native Americans in the United States has been requested to be renamed. See Talk:Native Americans in the United States for the discussion. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 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. Jd2718 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The phrase appears to occur in the vast majority of our articles. Jd2718 (talk) 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. --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"distributed by age as follows.." Student7 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That would work fine. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The simplicity is attractive, and it is English. Jd2718 (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

• Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is a candidate for Featured Portal, with discussion at Misplaced Pages:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Supreme Court of the United States. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Elmelindo Rodrigues Smith

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elmelindo Rodrigues Smith#Asian American. Discussion regarding ethnicity and whether certain sources are reliable. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Historiography of the United States has been nominated as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for next August 2011

Historiography of the United States, an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for next August 2011. You can vote for this or other articles to be next months Collaboration of the Month here. Project Messenger Bot 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States) has been nominated as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for next August 2011

Democratic Party (United States), an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for next August 2011. You can vote for this or other articles to be next months Collaboration of the Month here. Project Messenger Bot 19:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Template: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 Category:2008 in the United States? The content is largely elections in the state for which there is already a series of categories by year. See say Category:2008 in the United States by state, 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 Category:Alabama elections, 2008. Most of the content of the 19th & 20th century years seem to relate to one state, California. Hugo999 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

National Archives featured article contest

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 Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—featured (in any language).

There is a one-month timeline for this contest, with the deadline tentatively set for August 20. Please read more about how to participate here. Good luck! Dominic·t 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! Student7 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

American Left

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

Civil Rights, the War on Poverty, and the New Left

In 1958 the Socialist Party welcomed former members of theIndependent Socialist League, which before its 1956 dissolution had been led by Max Shachtman. Shachtman had developed a Marxist critique of Soviet communism as "bureaucratic collectivism", 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 "New Class" proposed by Yugoslavian dissident Milovan Đilas (Djilas). Shachtman's ISL had attracted youth like Irving Howe,Michael Harrington, Tom Kahn, and Rachelle Horowitz. The YPSL was dissolved, but the party formed a new youth group under the same name.

Kahn and Horowitz, along with Norman Hill, helped Bayard Rustin with the civil-rights movement. Rustin had helped to spread pacificismand non-violence to leaders of the civil rights movement, like Martin Luther King. Rustin's circle and A. Philip Randolph organized the 1963 March on Washington, where Martin Luther King delivered his I Have A Dream speech.

Michael Harrington soon became the most visible socialist in the United States when his The Other America became a best seller, following a long and laudatory New Yorker review by Dwight Macdonald. Harrington and other socialists were called to Washington, D.C., to assist the Kennedy Administration and then the Johnson Administration'sWar on Poverty and Great Society.

Shachtman, Michael Harrington, 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 "social-liberal" or social-democratic positions, at least on civil rights and the War on Poverty.

Harrington, Kahn, and Horowitz were officers and staff-persons of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), which helped to start the New Left Students for a Democratic Society(SDS). The three LID officers clashed with the less experienced activists of SDS, like Tom Hayden, when the latter's Port Huron Statement criticized socialist and liberal opposition to communism and criticized the labor movement while promoting students as agents of social change. LID and SDS split in 1965, when SDS voted to remove from its constitution the "exclusion clause" that prohibited membership by communists:The SDS exclusion clause had barred "advocates of or apologists for" "totalitarianism". 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. Afterwords, Marxism Leninism, particularly the Progressive Labor Party, helped to write "the death sentence" for SDS,which nonetheless had over 100 thousand members at its peak.

In 1972, the Socialist Party voted to rename itself as Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) by a vote of 73 to 34 at its December Convention; its National Chairmen were Bayard Rustin, a peace and civil-rights leader, and Charles S. Zimmerman, an officer of theInternational Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU). In 1973, Michael Harrington resigned from SDUSA and founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), which attracted many of his followers from the former Socialist Party. The same year, David McReynolds and others from the pacifist and immediate-withdrawal wing of the former Socialist Party formed the Socialist Party, USA.

1. Isserman, The other american, p. 116.
2. Drucker (1994, p. 269):

   Drucker, Peter (1994). Max Shachtman and his left: A socialist's odyssey through the "American Century". Humanities Press. ISBN 0-391-03816-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

3. Horowitz (2007, p. 210)
4. Kahn (2007, pp. 254–255): Kahn, Tom (2007) , "Max Shachtman: His ideas and his movement" (pdf), Democratiya (merged with Dissent in 2009), 11 (Winter): 252–259 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help); External link in |issue= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
5. Alexander, p. 812-813.
6. Jervis Anderson,A. Philip Randolph: A Biographical Portrait (1973; University of California Press, 1986). ISBN 978-0-520-05505-6
7. • 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
8. Horowitz (2007, pp. 220–222):

   Horowitz, Rachelle (2007). "Tom Kahn and the fight for democracy: A political portrait and personal recollection" (PDF). Democratiya(merged with Dissent in 2009). 11 (Summer): 204–251. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)

9. Template:Cite article
10. • MacDonald, Dwight (1963). "Our invisible poor". The New Yorker. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

      Reprinted in collection: Macdonald, Dwight (1985) . "Our invisible poor". Discriminations: Essays and afterthoughts 1938-1974 (reprint ed.). Da Capo Press. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/030680252X,

    ISBN-13 978-0306802522|030680252X, ISBN-13 978-0306802522]]. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); line feed character in |isbn= at position 12 (help)
    • 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
11. Isserman, Maurice (2009-06-19). "Michael Harrington: Warrior on poverty". The New York Times.
12. Isserman, The other american, pp. 169–336.
13. Drucker (1994, p. 187–308)
14. Kirkpatrick Sale, SDS, pp. 22-25.
15. Kirkpatrick Sale, SDS, p. 105.
16. Kirkpatrick Sale, SDS, pp. 25–26
17. Gitlin, p. 191.

    Todd Gitlin.The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2.

18. Sale, p. 287.

    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.

19. Gitlin, p. 191.

    Todd Gitlin.The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (1987) p. 387 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.
20. 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.
21. Template:Cite article
22. Isserman, p. 311.
23. Isserman, p. 422.

Social Democrats, USA

Version A

Bayard Rustin was the national chairperson of SDUSA during the 1970s. SDUSA sponsored a biannual conference 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. SDUSA also published position papers, e.g. opposing many of the G. W. Bush administration's domestic policies. From 1979–1989, SDUSA members likeTom Kahn organized the AFL–CIO's fundraising of 300 thousand dollars, which bought printing presses and other supplies requested by Solidarnosc (Solidarity), the independent labor-union of Poland. SDUSA members helped form a bipartisan coalition (of the Democratic and Republican Parties to support the founding of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whose first President wasCarl Gershman. The NED publicly allocated 4 million USD of public aid to Solidarity through 1989. Because of their service in government, Gershman and other SDUSA members were called "State Department socialists" by Massing (1987) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFMassing1987 (help), who wrote that the foreign policy of the Reagan administration was being run by Trotskyists, a claim that was called a "myth" by Lipset (1988, p. 34) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFLipset1988 (help). This conspiracy charge has been repeated and even widened by journalist Michael Lind to assert a takeover of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration by former Trotskyists; Lind's "amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of 'the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement'" was criticized by Alan M. Wald, a professor at the University of Michigan who has written a history of Trotskism and neo-neoconservatism, The New York intellectuals.

1. Social Democrats, USA (1973), The American challenge: A social-democratic program for the seventies, New York: SDUSA {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
2. Meyerson, Harold (2002). "Solidarity, Whatever". Dissent. 49 (Fall): 16. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |number= and |issue= specified (help)
3. Muravchik (2006):

   Muravchik, Joshua (January 2006). "Comrades". Magazine. Retrieved 15 June 2007. {{cite journal}}: External link in |journal= (help)

4. Horowitz, Rachelle (2007). "Tom Kahn and the fight for democracy: A political portrait and personal recollection" (PDF). Democratiya(merged with Dissent in 2009). 11: 204–251. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
5. Shevis (1981, p. 31):

   Shevis, James M. (1981). "The AFL-CIO and Poland's Solidarity". World Affairs. 144 (Summer). World Affairs Institute: 31–35. JSTOR 20671880. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |number= and |issue= specified (help)

6. Opening statement by Tom Kahn in Kahn & Podhoretz (2008, p. 235):

   Kahn, Tom; Podhoretz, Norman (2008). "How to support Solidarnosc: A debate" (PDF). Democratiya (merged with Dissent in 2009). 13 (Summer). Sponsored by the Committee for the Free World and the League for Industrial Democracy, with introduction by Midge Decter and moderation by Carl Gershman, and held at the Polish Institute for Arts and Sciences, New York City in March 1981: 230–261. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)

7. "The AFL–CIO had channeled more than $4 million to it, including computers, printing presses, and supplies" according to Horowitz (2009, p. 237).
8. Puddington (2005):

   Puddington, Arch (2005). "Surviving the underground: How American unions helped solidarity win". American Educator (Summer). American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved 4 June 2011. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

9. "A 1987 article in The New Republic described these developments as a Trotskyist takeover of the Reagan administration" wrote Lipset (1988, p. 34) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFLipset1988 (help).
10. Lind, Michael (2003). "The weird men behind George W. Bush's war". New Statesman. London. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
11. Wald, Alan (2003). "Are Trotskyites Running the Pentagon?". History News Network. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
12. Muravchik (2006). Addressing the allegation that SDUSUA was a "Trotskyist" organization, Muravchik wrote that in the early 1960s, two future members of SDUSA, Tom Kahn and Paul Feldman

    "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.'

    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.

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 War in Vietnam to stop Communist expansion. In 1972, they supported Senator Henry Jackson for the Democratic presidential nomination, and re-named the party Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), dropping the term "socialist". While they retained membership in the Socialist International, they supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election and had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.

1. Busky, pp. 163-165

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

Request for help

Second opinions would be helpful. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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 List of United States Foreign Service Career Ambassadors be bannered with this project? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Project-Class United States pages
• NA-importance United States pages
• Project-Class United States articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• WikiProject United States talk pages