Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VictorD7 (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 21 September 2015 (→What to do about users reverting to versions linking dispute tags to nonexistent talk page sections?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United States at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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 Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 14 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1. How did the article get the way it is? Archives: Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present. Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page. Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"? Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case. This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States". If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States": "United States" is in compliance with the Misplaced Pages "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Misplaced Pages naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States. Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States". Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other. This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country. Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Misplaced Pages an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do. The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title. With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Misplaced Pages should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America": It is the country's official name. The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name. The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America." The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America." The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Misplaced Pages articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Misplaced Pages is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States. Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world? 1. Isn't San Marino older? Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution. 2. How about Switzerland? Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848. Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Misplaced Pages articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence. The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut. Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President? The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox. Q5. What is the motto of the United States? There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States. Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy? The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016. Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"? In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas. Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight? The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.

United States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2005 Good article nominee Listed May 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 27, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 6, 2009 Peer review Reviewed January 19, 2011 Peer review Reviewed March 18, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted August 10, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed January 21, 2015 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending? A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008. Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Top‑importance This article 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. North America Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. United States: Government This article 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009. "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources: Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Orson Scott Card: United States, author, critic, public speaking, activism, genre, Betascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Biosphere 2: Biosphere 2, closed ecological system, Oracle, Arizona, Arizona, United States, Biome, space colonization, Biosphere, rainforest, Ed Bass, BIOS-3, Eden project, Alphascript{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Military journalism: Combatant commander, psychological warfare, United States, public affairs (military), propaganda, journalist, Civil-military operations, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Additional comments OCLC 636651797, ISBN 9786130336431.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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 Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Continued attempts to contravene RFC outcomes

I object to this edit by VictorD7, who continues his relentless campaign to reject the conclusions of four RFCs and their confirmations (or is it five now?) without any serious administrative oversight. EllenCT (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For one thing you tried to sneak in material not even mentioned in the RFC, namely the productivity, gender pay gap, and erosion of safety net stuff in a second segment below, as your own link helpfully shows. Please avoid misrepresenting edits in edit summaries. As for the phrasing of the first segment, again, the one RFC that's gone your way here explicitly avoided endorsing any phrasing as "consensus", stating that the material was allowable "in some form". There was no consensus phrasing. Period. That became even more true after that RFC close when I provided the scholarly sources above contradicting your sources, along with quotes from your own sources showing that even they acknowledge they don't represent the established expert consensus. Even your attempt to go to a noticeboard to have your "reiteration" section closed resulted in you being informed that a closure on this issue wasn't possible, spread across various sections as it was. If you really want to impose your preferred wording, which states your own views in Misplaced Pages's voice while omitting the sources who disagree, then it will require a fresh attempt specifically focusing on wording and arguing why the sourced alternative views (which you've now been made aware of but didn't know about earlier when crafting your preferred phrasing) should be excluded. We've established elsewhere that the phantom "four RFCs" you mention don't actually exist, but I'd advise you to not ignore the last three, very real overlapping RFCs you've flooded this page with that all resulted in the community totally rejecting by strong consensus your attempts to shove POV "inequality" talking points into this article (, , , and to desist from your ideological WP:SOAPBOX crusade here. VictorD7 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I did include the causes of inequality including the productivity "stuff" as proposed and discussed at length. I also propose replacing the graph that used to illustrate the decoupling of median incomes from productivity growth in the early 1970s. (1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) above. EllenCT (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Only your first link is to an RFC (which, again, didn't endorse any specific wording, indeed even some supporters had issues with your wording). Your second and fourth ones were to brief, informal discussions with only a few editors and in each case multiple editors opposed you. Your third link is to your call out section against me and only the two of us participated. When you sought closure via noticeboard the result went against you. "Confirmations"? "Unanimously"? All your proposals have been significantly and sometimes unanimously opposed, and the productivity graph was appropriately removed by another editor. It's amazing that even you concede some of the EPI chart's major shortcomings below even as you try to reinsert it in via your latest RFC. VictorD7 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Graph

I like this graph, but it is now years out of date and the labels are unclear below 450 pixels width. Is there a better version? EllenCT (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT waited until the discussion of this graph was archived. This graph is very similar to the graph shown by Hillary Clinton, and both are examples of how the left distorts information (lies). It has been thoroughly discredited by the St. Louis Fed, which said that economists have long known that total compensation, which includes non-cash benefits, closely tracks productivity. Also, "family" has changed over the almost three-quarters of century and now includes a significant number of single parent households. Adjusted for changes in taxation, family size, increased employer contributions to health insurance and other factors, median family income has risen about 37% over the last 30 years. I think we should have a section showing how the left is using statistics to tell lies. That should also include the fact that social security is called a tax, but it is really a massive income redistribution program (a negative tax for most people).Phmoreno (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Median family income rose because people needed to move back in with their parents. EllenCT (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Show me a reference that says that legal adult age children living at home are counted as family in determining median family income. But you did point out something significant that is dragging down family income: more working age young people attending collage.Phmoreno (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's spelled "college." You can look up the definition of a household. EllenCT (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would we use a graph that's years out of date with unclear labels? Rwenonah (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer something based on the graph here? EllenCT (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I prefer Martin Feldstein's analysis. Are US Middle-Class Incomes Really Stagnating? However, all of this discussion is outside of the scope of this article and far to complex to be discussed here. It needs to go to Income inequality in the United States. As I said below, your proposal is a Trojan horse to disrupt this article with edits like yours in Economic growth that created "a disorganized mess" and were called "crap", "not accurately representing the sources" and were subsequently deleted after editors wasted countless hours arguing with you. Phmoreno (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC on influence of elites again, with causes of inequality and graph

References

1. Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
2. Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation". The Unsustainable American State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
3. Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
4. Tcherneva, Pavlina R. (April 2015). "When a rising tide sinks most boats: trends in US income inequality" (PDF). levyinstitute.org. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
5. Casselman, Ben (September 22, 2014). "The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years". FiveThirtyEightEconomics. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
6. Parlapiano, Alicia; Gebeloff, Robert; Carter, Shan (January 26, 2013). "The Shrinking American Middle Class". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
7. Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.
   Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation" (PDF). The Unsustainable American State: 167–196. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007.
   Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
8. Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015.
   "Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.
   Brunner, Eric; Ross, Stephen L; Washington, Ebonya (May 2013). "Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 5 (2): 53–76. doi:10.1257/pol.5.2.53. Retrieved July 12, 2015.
   Feldstein, Martin (May 14, 2014). "Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up: Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2015.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which is the best version to include, and with what changes if any? 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Revision A with the graph, as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Either B or neither (you should have added a C, since those aren't the only two options). First, "A" violates WP:NPOV policy because it's biased POV that omits the scholarly sources that disagree with your sources, and misrepresents your own sources by stating their opinions as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice when I've quoted in the above section where even they admit they don't represent the established expert consensus (and cite several of the scholars who disagree with them, along with at least one of the sources I list above, calling it "influential"). This is an extremely complex issue with different POVs and core Misplaced Pages policy requires we be neutral. Furthermore, this is a broad country summary article, not a focused economics article where this issue can be covered neutrally in depth. Your detail level is ridiculous and cherry-picked, and the statements are opinions involving causation that are extremely inappropriate in Misplaced Pages's voice. You also admit above that the graph, which is entirely the uncorroborated, original work of an obscure left wing think tank called EPI, is "years out of date and the labels are unclear". It was removed months ago by editors for being over detailed in a niche, cherry-picked topic and for conflicting with some other sources. This entire proposal is inappropriate for this article. This information belongs in more narrowly focused economics articles if anywhere, and even there with fuller, more neutral and accurate coverage than this. This merits rejection for the same reasons your last three RFCs trying to soapbox on "inequality" here were shot down (, , ). Since you failed to collaborate with me on wording before initiating this RFC, since I think there are more than the two options you present (which were crafted before I posted the contradicting scholarly source evidence), and given the non-neutral personal call out nature of the section in which you tucked this RFC, I also ask that you self revert it so we can discuss a fair way to construct it. Otherwise, I might initiate my own RFC on this topic. VictorD7 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support B The first sentence of version A it totally unquantifiable and generally meaningless. How would one ever prove such a thing? Besides, this argument is as old as politics. The same types of things were said during the Gilded age, but despite the concentration of wealth then the average U.S. citizen earns over 10 times as much today, works far fewer hours per year and lives significantly longer. Also, the disputed tag needs to be removed from B. There is enough evidence on talk pages to show the statement is in fact the case.Phmoreno (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Revision B - I'm heartily sick of seeing another rehashing of this, but I went and read one of EllenCT's references I hadn't read before, the Tcherneva article, to see if there was anything convincingly new in its presentation. No. It's another restatement of the fact that there is growing income inequality (although I found it surprising that it's traceable to just after World War II, and has continued throughout the post-war period). The causes aren't addressed, but they can't be laid just at Reagan's feet. The solutions are vague nostrums, including "...a mechanism that links wage increases to productivity gains..." but without examining whether the productivity gains are due to increased worker excellence or are merely calculated by dividing the number of employees into revenue/profits of an increasingly automated firm. But I've said much of this before. This constant calling of RfCs, as well as the disruptive editing of the article, needs to stop. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Revision B, but extended - There's ample evidence on this talk page proving that B is the case. However, I think it would be worthwhile to summarize the conservative and liberal positions on income inequality in a couple of sentences and include both, thereby giving the reader some idea of that debate. Rwenonah (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support expanded B. I think a third option should be created that cites relevant sources and studies that counter the claims made in A and states that it's disputed. But to leave out these things completely as B does, is not fair to our goal of educating our readers. I think we should convey to our reader that there is some debate in this area. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  While I agree in principle, remember we need to do the educating in the right articles. This broad country summary article isn't the right place for a detailed exposition on this subtopic. If anything, the overwhelming sentiment from editors here in recent years has been that there's already too much detail on this page, and there have been countless complaints about things like load time for the massive article. That's why Misplaced Pages is structured the way it is, with links to other, more topically focused pages. While this is an important issue for some, there are potentially countless other topics that are important to other editors, from abortion to tort law, that they could argue deserve expanded coverage here with the same reasoning you cite. There are various more appropriate articles for this material dealing with economics and/or income in the US. I know the US Economy article, for example, already contains some of these same sources and text coverage of the "inequality" debate. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  Your bias here is belied by your use of quotations around the word inequality. There's definitely merit to inclusion of this in this article.... And you certainly haven't convinced me to change my vote. 2601:740:8103:81E0:1C29:3ADC:A7B2:B827 (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  I only used quotes because "inequality" can refer to lots of different things. VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Two sentences, one outlining the generally conservative position, and one outlining the generally liberal position on inequality, wouldn't seem out of place. IMO, it's the focus of more political energy in the US than these other topics you mention, (as this talk page amply demonstrates). Simply saying "it's a matter of debate" is telling the reader almost nothing and is entirely a wasted sentence unless the respective positions are outlined, at least briefly. Misplaced Pages's strength compared to conventional paper encyclopedias is that it isn't bound by the space constraints enforced by books. Statistics have shown that readers are significantly less likely to look beyond an initial article for information by clicking on links; by not providing information in a widely-searched-for article like this one, we impair their ability to get information and thus their understanding of the topic they searched for, directly in contradiction of Misplaced Pages's goals. On balance, I think we're better including some info on the debate than omitting it for the sake of brevity. Rwenonah (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Abortion, immigration/border security, job creation/economic growth, foreign policy, national debt, 2nd Amendment/gun control, crime, drug policy, and some other topics are all much higher priorities and consume way more energy in American political discourse than income inequality does. Activity on this page isn't evidence of much relating to political energy in the US since Misplaced Pages editors are so unrepresentative of the general population, and since certain editors have disproportionate influence in shaping discussion topics through persistence. That said, your proposal isn't unreasonable and would certainly be light years better than what EllenCT is demanding. VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This points out another issue: the influence of the spin doctors in managing the press/media and the overwhelmingly liberal bias of the media. The spin doctors' jobs are to deflect the public's attention away from more serious issues. Notice how whenever there's a scandal involving the administration the White House releases a press statement on Friday afternoon. Also notice how some unimportant topic gets in the headlines whenever there is s scandal and how the liberal press under reported the IRS targeting controversy and the 2012 Benghazi attack while hyping police killings of blacks without ever mentioning statistics of killings of police officers by blacks. And what about going around the constitution being ignored by the press, who are busy reporting on the phony war on women?Phmoreno (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's totally unrelated to what's actually under discussion and leads me to question your neutrality. Rwenonah (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not as unrelated as you think. The statement discussing "affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy" but it doesn't mention the media. And you do not see a statement regarding "affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites "as being biased?Phmoreno (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly a subjective and debatable statement, which is why I recommended we include the equally subjective and debatable conservative position on income inequality. Misplaced Pages can't spout the political orthodoxy of either side of the political spectrum; nor should its editors. Sadly, judging by your paragraph of Palinisms above, you're not in a position to give (or at least not likely to give) neutral input on improving the article. You literally sound like a GOP campaign manifesto excerpt above; WP editors are supposed to make an effort at setting their biases aside. Rwenonah (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why haven't you said that to EllenCT who proposed this? There is whole list of people who cited her for POV, misrepresenting sources and bad editing in general. As for this RFC, vote has been overwhelmingly for B. Phmoreno (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If she makes a biased comment in a discussion I'm involved in, I'll do so. Right now, you're the only one who seems to be showing POV. And support has been three for B, one for A, and two for an extended B - i'd hardly call that an "overwhelming" endorsement of an unchanged version of B. Rwenonah (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said, statement A is left biased, and inaccurate, so according to your criteria, it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages.Phmoreno (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I never set out any such "criteria". I just called you out on the ludicrous level of partisanship you displayed above. Obviously I agree it's a biased sentence, thus the reason I didn't vote for it. Do you agree that both positions should be explained, or would you rather denude readers' of information?Rwenonah (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this article is the proper place to make statements of this nature, even if both sides are fairly presented. It's off topic. This article is supposed to be about the United States, not a list of every social and political issue and certainly no place for statements like A. There are a couple of other more appropriate main articles already listed where this type thing is discussed in much more detail. EllenCT keeps persisting with this issue just like she did in Economic growth#Income inequality. Other editors there finally had enough and removed most of her poorly written, biased and untrue edits. As for my bias, it's people like EllenCT that have given me such a bad opinion of the left. Phmoreno (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also add that EllenCT is using this proposal as a Trojan horse to introduce another whole line of discussion into the article. If she get some portion of her argument in, there will be more counter arguments and the whole thing will just continue to grow into a huge cancer. This is her standard mode of operation.Phmoreno (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Rwenonah, while I agree that people should edit neutrally, before you start looking for excuses to marginizalize or disqualify editors for making ideological talk page comments, you might want to avoid sayings things like your "Palinisms" shot. That crack says a lot about your own political biases. The truth is that every editor has his or her own set of biases. The key is to be self aware enough to not let that warp one's editing. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

] - "the political philosophy associated with U.S. public figure Sarah Palin." Using that term to describe a totally-out-of-place rant about "liberal media bias" isn't indicative of bias, it's just an accurate characterization of those views. Also, I'm not "looking for excuses" to declare an editor non-neutral; when I see someone, with every appearance of seriousness, saying things like "the media is hyping police killings of blacks" or "the constitution [is} being ignored by the press who are reporting about the phoney war on women" or "people ... have given me a bad opinion of the left", I start to sense a political bias.

The truth is, the neutral decision to make here is to briefly summarize both political positions and let the reader decide for themselves which (or neither) they agree with. Excising any mention of income inequality from the article to make a bland statement saying it's "a matter of debate" is useless to the reader and leaves them with virtually no additional knowledge. Statistically, readers are unlikely to move on to broader articles with more details; therefore, when we leave out such information, readers don't get it. On balance, we should take advantage of wikipedia's lack of space constraints and include as much information as possible while maintaining clarity and easy navigation. One additional sentence won't have that effect. Rwenonah (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Except he didn't mention Sarah Palin, so you're the one associating a public figure you clearly don't respect with "a totally-out-of-place rant". Invoking her out of the blue like that to disparage his comments allows me to sense your bias, which, again, every editor has (it's like tossing out "Fox News" to disparage someone's comments when the news outfit hadn't been mentioned). There's also a difference between chastising an editor for getting too off topic and claiming one of his posts renders him unqualified to comment on a matter, especially, as Phmoreno correctly pointed out, in the context of this discussion occurring in the latest chapter of EllenCT's never ending soapbox crusade on "inequality".

You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding. There is already extensive coverage of income inequality in the article and no result with this RFC will excise it. The neutral thing to do would probably be to pare back our coverage of inequality, as it rarely appears in other country articles and many editors have rightly complained that it already receives undue emphasis here. Instead we're once again discussing expanding it. The additional change here is getting into subjective political views. While we briefly describe abortion (an extremely contentious issue involving life and death) with some salient facts, for example, we don't flesh out the subjective POVs on the matter or, last I checked, even mention that there's a political debate on the topic. Even the unexpanded "B" version on income inequality currently in the article goes further than we typically do with political issues in this article (though I think another "debate" or two have been mentioned at some point in the article's history), and includes sources from both sides if a reader is interested in learning more about that debate (the links are right there in the references, no need to even go to another article). While you can say Phmoreno got too off topic above, he did correctly raise some very widely held views that get absolutely no coverage in this article, but that might in the future if we make a habit out of doing this. It's an invalid argument to cite readers' supposed reluctance to click to subarticles as a reason for expanding detailed coverage of an issue in a broad country summary article. That logic would support the expansion of any segment. The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages is constructed in this format with articles and subarticles. Furthermore, space is very much constrained here. Misplaced Pages articles are much shorter than Britannica Macropedia articles, for example. Numerous editors have complained over the years about this article's length, and it is one of the longest country articles (probably the longest). This affects loading time on certain devices and readability. While I said your suggestion about a brief segment with one sentence each laying out the liberal and conservative views on economic inequality isn't unreasonable, I meant as a compromise, but let's not pretend that it's the ideal or most neutral solution from an article big picture standpoint. VictorD7 (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Statistically, readers are unlikely to move on to broader articles with more details" ...most likely because the have no interest in a sub-topic that doesn't fit in with the main article. Phmoreno (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement A needs to be checked against the sources to make sure it accurately reflects the sources. Same for the entire inequality section. EllenCT's edits removed from Economic growth were removed because they were not supported by the references. I wasted so much time reading her sources that I no longer bother reading them and just assume that her statements are either false or should come with a lot of qualifiers.Phmoreno (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the reason readers come to a summary article like this is so they don't have to wade through the technical detail of more specific articles. There's no way I'm reading, let alone responding too, the massive wall of text up there, so I'll just confine myself to saying that, barring a more decisive RfC result, the compromise solution may be the way to go. Incidentally, I wasn't disparaging Phmoreno's political positions; I was pointing out that they were more or less in line with Palin's, a politician whose positions are rarely called "neutral". Rwenonah (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It was two paragraphs. If that's too much for you I don't know what to say. At least you apparently read part of it. His views are in line with millions of people's. Singling out one former politician who happens to be a bogeywoman of the left to compare them to is bizarre at best. Also, no one's political views are "neutral". Even moderates have views and policy preferences that amount to bias. Neutrality isn't an ideology, but means handling your biases in an appropriate way so they don't lead to warped editing. VictorD7 (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming we agree ranting about "liberal media bias" and a "phoney war on women" while arguing against mentioning income equality on a website that demands neutrality from its editors isn't the way to do that. And no, it's not bizarre to compare right-wing views to a right-wing politician who says the same things - linking ideas to specific people who espouse them is kind of the basis of politics. Rwenonah (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We agree his post got off topic, but most of his posts have been exactly on point and whether issues like media bias are appropriate to raise depends on context (sometimes they're extremely legitimate). And unless I missed it he didn't argue against "mentioning income equality". As for your use of "Palinisms", it seems like an attempt to marginalize and dismiss very widespread, longstanding views that certainly predate the single former politician you mention (and postdate her political career). Why not a Marco "Rubioism" or Charles "Krauthammerism"? These views are ubiquitous on the right, shared by much of the center, and accepted even by some on the left. They aren't espoused merely by a single famous person. I already gave the "Fox News" liberal rhetoric example earlier. Another would be the tendency of trial lawyers opposed to tort reform to refer to loser pay laws as "the English rule" in a subtle attempt to marginalize them, when actually they're embraced by the rest of the Western world. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support A Enhanced - I was invited here randomly by a bot. I think A is more informative but should acknowledge the lack of academic and political consensus and include opposing positions. B is uninformative. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the sources and do they support the statements?Phmoreno (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support B only because A is written with too much conclusion. Items like the Gender Wage gap are partisan points which are not clearly linked to income inequality as defined in other areas. One could also put in items about minority wage gap, education wage gap, etc. Since the topics are controversial and nuanced, we should not include it here so simplistically as written.Mattnad (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mediation update Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/United States

Over the course of six months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lede sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox. The mediation has been successful and the participants reached consensus on the issues and have a proposed a new lede sentence for the article which is to be accompanied by a note. It has been agreed by the participants and the mediator that the proposed lede and accompanying note would be presented to article editors and members of the WP community as a Request for comment. It was agreed from the outset that the statement in the lede sentence of the article would have a footnote to explain the inclusion of U.S. territories, the consensus was to use the geographical sense of the United States for a general readership in an international context. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes below and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States. (To review tables, click "show" in column 1)

Mediation US territory discussion

United States District/Territory	Geographically, US national jurisdiction	US Citizens/Nationals	Estimated population	In Congress (Member of Congress)	Local self governance	US Constitution supreme law	US District Court	Presidential vote
District of Columbia	Done	Done 1801 US citizenship	658,000	Done 1971: Norton	Done 1975	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC	Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
American Samoa	Done	Done 1904 US nationals	57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population)	Done 1981; Amata	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi	citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court
Guam	Done	Done 1950 US citizenship	159,000	Done 1973; Bordallo	Done 1972	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU	while resident in a state
Northern Mariana Islands	Done	Done 1986 US citizenship	77,000	Done 2009; Sablan	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP	while resident in a state
Puerto Rico	Done	Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)	3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population)	Done 1901; Pierluisi	Done 1948	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR	while resident in a state
US Virgin Islands	Done	Done 1927 US citizenship	106,000	Done 1973; Plaskett	Done 1970	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI	while resident in a state
uninhabited possessions	Done	Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll	n/a	n/a	n/a	Done fundamental provisions	various	n/a

Mediation sources summary

----------- Scope ---------	----------- USG sources ---------	----------- Scholars ---------	----------- USG sources --------	----------- Scholars ---------	----------- Almanac ---------	----------- Encyclopedia ----------
US federal republic geographic extent	Pres. Proclamation , Pres. Exec Order , GAO (1997) , State Dept. Common Core , Homeland Act	Tarr , Katz , Van Dyke	FEMA , US Customs , Immigration serv. , Education , Soc. Sec.	Sparrow , Haider-Markel , Fry	Fact Book	Britannica
50 states (18 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	Done (1)
50 states & DC (17 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources)	Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland	Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US	Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law	Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	5 USG sources omit possessions	3 omit possessions	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss

which map should we use?

which map should we use? there was a disagreement between me Dannis243 and Dhtwiki about the map so i want to create a new clear consensus on this Dannis243 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Of the two offered, A is superior, as you can actually see elements like Hawaii and the Alaska panhandle in thumbnail, and the Aleutians at all. (Though I note Puerto Rico is not colored in the maps...) --Golbez (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Of the two offered, A is superior, as over 99% of the US population is mapped. (Though another source might supply color for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands.) NOAA presents an alternative global perspective showing the US land and water extent for states, CD, territories and possessions. See discussion at Exclusive Economic Zone online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Of the two offered, A is superior, as over 99% of the US population is mapped." Pretty sure B does the same thing... what added percentages of the US population are missing in B? --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither. We should have one map showing the bulk of the country as we do with France etc. We should also have one that shows the entire country, which neither does. TFD (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A better shows Alaska and Hawaii. It makes sense to have a map of the 50 states and another of the states + territories/possessions, and I believe the first map works for the 50 states. Dustin (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Between the two, A seems clearer. However, a version of A that adds shading to the visible territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands would be better still. ╠╣uw  09:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dustin, it does not make sense because it draws an arbitrary distinction between states and territories. TFD (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Version B is continental US only, without island Hawaii or insular territories. Puerto Rico now falls legally within the US customs borders (Reconsidering the Insular Cases Gerald L. Neuman. Harvard U. Pr. 2015), perhaps the publisher will soon add Puerto Rico.

We can await the publisher while using Version A in the meantime, or use the NOAA map an alternative global perspective rotated so as to show the US land and water extent for states, DC, territories and possessions. See discussion at Exclusive Economic Zone online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Version B includes Hawaii and the Caribbean parts of the U.S, while excluding parts of the U.S. to the east of Hawaii. Why are they are not highlighted in the map? What reason do you have to exclude insular territories from the map? Why does Version A for example not highlight PR and USVI? In what way is Hawaii different from Guam? TFD (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good points TFD, lets upload the NOAA map an alternative global perspective with the globe rotated so as to show the US land and water extent for states, DC, territories and possessions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If the intention is to use that EEZ map (or a similar projection) as the US article's main infobox map, I'm afraid I see a number of problems with that. First, it shifts the continental US off entirely into the upper right corner which I don't think is suitable given what an overwhelming portion of the nation it represents, and results in a map centered on mostly empty ocean. Further, the land area in some of the remote Pacific territories is so minuscule that it'd scarcely be discernible anyway, even if shaded green as in versions A and B (and as is the standard for most of our comparable nation maps). The red-line sea-border outlines are also IMHO inadvisable and inconsistent with the maps we use for most other nations.

Though I entirely support and agree with making it clear in the article that the territories are part of the US, I'm not convinced it's a good idea to use a projection that strains to include every island at the cost of moving the overwhelming bulk of the nation to the side. I would suggest retaining A's continent-centered projection and shading the visible territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, perhaps accompanied by a note indicating that not all US possessions are shown in that view. ╠╣uw  17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

We could use a two map selection as is done for similar articles with the first focusing on the 48 states & DC and the second map showing the entire country. See the maps for France. One shows metropolitan France in a map of Europe, while the second shows all of France in a map of the world. TFD (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Support a two-map version, with the EEZ dataset as map#1of2; that pretty closely represents the U.S. as a superpower (ideally it would be a different map projection so as to permit the lower 48 to be in the center of the image ... I suggest either transverse Mercator projection or maybe the Dymaxion-and-friends many of which are homebrew-American-inventions). Even more ideally, should use dots to indicate airbases (dot-size determined as 50% of the range of non-midair-refueled jets at said airbase), to indicate not just economic superpower status, but also military superpower status; suggest green lines to indicate economic footprint, red dots to indicate military footprint. For map#2of2, something like "Version A" which shows all 50 states (plus Puerto Rico), but preferably add in the green-economic-lines (shown in the EEZ map only at the moment) and the red-airbase-dots (hypothetical at the moment). p.s. I would also support a three-map-solution, with map#1of3 and map#2of3 being the same as in the two-map solution I just outlined, and map#3of3 being the lower 48 only, with the biggest 25 of the ~170 total commuter-centers legibly named (green borders for cash-power), plus major military facilities also noted (red dots for fire-power). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's not. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So, from your comment above I know that you like version_A better than version_B, because the fine details are more visible. And you WP:IDONTLIKEIT my suggestion ... what specifically? Are you against anything but version_A? Against any form of two-map solution? Against some specific map I suggested, or some specific projection, or some specific feature-illustration? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

From my comment above you can know that I hate the idea of including military facilities on the map, it just didn't seem necessary to explain that. --Golbez (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, definitely necessary. Honestly didn't catch your drift from the two-word answer. But since nobody else seems interested by the military-airspace-footprint-idea, seems I will have to await another bangvote, for that one to fly. Pun intended.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative maps showing insular territories for #2 map:

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I like this one, showing all 50 states with labelling of major cities.

SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that won't work because some people here have determined that the United States includes the territories, so anything omitting them can't be used. Someone should inform the United Nations that they are, in fact, wrong. Misplaced Pages has solved it. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The UN is correct in its Exclusive Economic Zones under its Convention on the Law of the Sea. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages reports three territories in France and three territories in the US found in the UN list of non-self-governing places as a part of each nation's geographic extent, so as to include those territories claimed by each nation to the United Nations. WP should display a map of the US Exclusive Economic Zone as internationally recognized. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We can always have our cake and eat it too: why not use one coloration for outlining the economic-zone of the 50 states (plus DC), another coloration for territorial econ-zones, and a third coloration for the econ-zones of the not-fully-agreed-upon territorial claims. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Version A - For the reasons given (any preferences at all shown for Version B?, even though, by the article edit history, some people prefer it). Also, I don't see the advantage of the other maps introduced (needless to say the confusion they might inject into this debate). The infobox map really just needs to say that this country is here in relation to the rest of the world; it doesn't need to be too comprehensive. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox mockup: maps @ 220px
The contiguous United States plus Alaska and Hawaii in green
US Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ): states, territories and possessions in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Version C

• Version A So far we have 5-1 for A as superior, Golbez, Dustin, Huw, Dhtwiki, and TVH. Dannis243 suggesting B? and two alternate map suggestions for the first map. I suggest calling 5-1 a consensus for Map A as the lead locator map.

• Version A I do not see that much of a difference between versions A and B, so I would rather simply stick with the status quo. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

TFD notes France has a global locator map for metropolitan France with 99% of its population without territories (comparable to our Map A for the US), and a second map shows “all of France in a map of the world”, including the three French territories on the UN non-self-governing list. The second map should be the US map of its EEZ which includes states, territories and possessions claimed by the US in the State Department Core Report to the UN, — either the version already at Wikimedia Commons above, or perhaps we should upload , or link to the interactive photographic map at . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree that we have 6-1 local consensus that version_A is superior to version_B, but that is not the same that as "consensus version_A is superior" without qualification. I like the idea of *some* kind of EEZ map (one of the three or four EEZ variants suggested so far) being used in a two-map solution. I would also support the use of some EEZ variant, as a one-map solution that acts as a replacement for the wiki-traditional version_A. The advantage to version_A is that it is very simple, and gives you the location of the main landmass of the USA, relative to other landmasses.

    The main disadvantage to version_A is that is all it gives. The EEZ map also, obviously, gives the reader the same tidbit of information, the relative position of the main USA landmass relative to other places... but in addition, it gives more information. The EEZ map is more complex, but the complexity is justified, because it provides more information to the reader. We need to strike a balance between too-cluttered-to-understand, versus too-simple-to-be-really-useful. How many people, in our readership, need to be reminded that the main landmass of the USA is located in the continent of North America (not named), and that South America (also not named) is to the south, and that there are nameless oceans to the west and east? That is the informative-content of version_A. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember that the infobox map should also be clear at the standard thumbnail size of about 250 pixels, which I suspect is why such maps for most other nations omit text labels and are kept extremely simple. ╠╣uw  09:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've supplied a mockup of the info box with maps only at 220px.

1. Map of the US EEZ omits US claimed Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank which are disputed.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TVH, definitely like the 220px_EEZ_map, as more informative than the 220px_version_A map immediately above it. Almost everybody knows where the continents are already, and most people know Alaska and Hawaii, but the additional blue-zones around the territories is encyclopedically-interesting-additional-info that only the EEZ map offers. Of course, one could always add the bluezones to the version_A-style of map, with a 3D projection... one downside to the particular 220px_EEZ_map shown immediately to the right, is that it somewhat distorts the relative size of Alaska. There are also other map-projection-options, besides the two pictured here, which could be bluezoned. Anyways, I do think the bluezone EEZ data adds something worth keeping. Ping User:TheVirginiaHistorian, can you label your maximally-preferred EEZ-style map "version C" so that folks can bangvote in favor of it please? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The US EEZ map now labelled Version C is currently in use at United States#Political divisions to highlight states, territories and possessions. But you hold out the chance at creating a new blue zoned map on another projection, and that sounds interesting. Ping ] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest taking a copy of Version_A, which is currently a two-color map (green landmass-of-interest and greyscale everything-else), then converting it to be a three-color map (through the addition of the EEZ dataset). Because of the wiki-tradition of centering the lower 48 in the middle, plenty of EEZ data for the Pacific island territories would be missing or just barely visible, but a modified version_A_with_blue_EEZ_data_added would be a more consistent fit with the usual wiki-traditional simple-orthographic-maps, and might have a better shot at getting bangvotes. Personally, I like Version_C, but that one isn't gaining much attention from other bangvoters. p.s. Unfortunately it is a technical limitation that pings don't function for anons; you have to do it the old-fashioned way, with a separate post on usertalk. Or just wait patiently until I circle back.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note to mention that the article currently uses an SVG image that may or may not be the same information as the PNG and the PNG file cannot be edited, while the SVG file can.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, technically the PNG *can* be edited, but it is incredibly more awkward/difficult/etc, so SVG is strongly preferred. If we get a local consensus for a map-switchover, conversion of the chosen map-rendering into SVG fileformat would be the next step, logically. But I don't think we should discount prototype-maps, because they haven't yet been converted to SVG fileformat. That's a technical detail, that can be remedied later, right? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Version A - If I have to choose between A and B. Some suggestions : (a) Add a note below this map that territories are not included and point to the map that includes them. (b) Close this discussion and open another one about including territories into countries maps (not just for this article but in general). Gpeja (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Version A - Looking closely between A & B - A seems to include more green parts as well as grey parts so personally I'd say A is a better choice here. –Davey2010 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Version A -- The two maps honestly do not look that different to me. I don't see many distinctions between the two. However, I am going to go with Version A because I think it shows Alaska and Hawaii better. You can't really see Hawaii at all in Version B. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Nor does B show the Alaskan panhandle very well. Juan Riley (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Version B - It just looks better and is smaller. There is also a consensus on WP:Maps to use that specific version of the map (I am unable to find it). Someone (I don't know how) can edit Version B to better suit what you all want but Version B is much more aesthetically pleasing. Luxure Σ 11:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I have found it here. Luxure Σ 11:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Luxure is correct, that there is a cross-wiki and enWiki-wide longstanding tradition to use maps that are simple, essentially label-free, and give *only* the location of the landmass in question. I don't like that wiki-policy, and if local page-specific-consensus were to be achieved, that the bare simplistic label-free low-information-content green-highlighted-landmass could be replaced, with something more useful such as Version C, 'twould overjoy me.  :-)     However, there does not seem to be much traction, for anything but version A, or the ever-so-slightly-distinct version B, presently anyways. I agree that version B has better Great Lakes, but I also think (as others have mentioned) that version A has a better Hawaii. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What convention is being cited and how does Version A, the preferred map by a wide margin, violate it? The maps are very similar and both are of the preferred svg type? Dhtwiki (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's here. Similar, but not the same. Version B is the one preferred by the convention. Luxure Σ 10:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The map convention motivation is, "To identify where a country is, with respect to other nearby countries that the viewer may know about.” The United States is located in the North American continent, the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. In a general way, Hawaii represents the insular territory which is a state in the Pacific without showing Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and American Samoa. Still, Hawaii is relatively nearby the East Asian nations the other US Pacific territory is. Coloring in Puerto Rico which is already mapped on map A (90% population of all US insular territories) would represent the insular territory in the Caribbean Sea without showing the U.S. Virgin Islands, but also identifying the US as nearby other Caribbean nations that the viewer may know about.

So A is better than B because it includes Pacific Ocean US territory, and an orthographic map also including US territory in Puerto Rico colored in would be best. At the modification of A, there might be further discussion whether to use color #346733, representing the Subject’s area (country, province) or color #C6DEBD, representing “Other areas part of the same political unity”, which Puerto Rico is in the US federal republic, as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A doesn't conform to border colour and "outside area" colours of the convention. So B > A. Luxure Σ 10:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Also notice the examples section of that page. Luxure Σ 10:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the borders instead of the substance of the information conveyed? The choice should be made on the basis of substance rather than window dressing. Surely the editor who colors in Puerto Rico can change the borders as well. Until then, A > B. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Mate, we have reached our conclusion. The editor who edits A to look aesthetically like B but have A's quality is a champ. Until then B > A (aesthetics) but A > B (quality). Luxure Σ 06:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I see now that the two maps were rendered using different GIS datasets and rendering software, all freeware but requiring enormous downloads and no doubt steep learning curve for the novice. If it's possible to specify Version B colors for the Version A dataset/rendering combination, a map might be requested. That done, the new map could replace Version B on the this Commons page where Version B is an example map, and why, I think, we've been getting it placed here so often. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Parties and elections edit

In “Parties and elections” section, propose to remove outdated photo of political branches leadership (executive and legislative) and replace it with a map representing divisions found under a two party system as illustrated in the 2012 Electoral Vote cartogram.

Add to the one sentence third paragraph to read,

The winner of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, Democrat Barack Obama, is the 44th, and current, U.S. president. Current leadership in the Senate includes Democratic Vice President Joseph Biden, and Republican President Pro Tempore (Pro Tem) Orrin Hatch. Current leadership in the House includes Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner, and Minority Leader Democratic Nancy Pelosi.

1. US Senate, Senate Organization Chart for the 114th Congress, viewed August 25, 2015.
2. US House of Representatives, Leadership, viewed August 25, 2015.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The photo serves as an illustration of the bipartsian process of governing; the map does nothing but show how particular electoral votes were doled out in 2012. It doesn't indicate how strongly each state is for that color, like a congressional map would; it has absolutely no relevance to congressional representation at all. If people want to know how the election went, we have more than enough articles about that very subject. I would sooner suggest removing the photo than adding this map, it has no place in this summary article. And even if your point is to illustrate the lockdown of the two-party system, I'm sure there are better ways than this. --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The section is “Parties and elections”. National party legal existence is in National Conventions to nominate presidential candidates, not in Congressional caucuses, the section is not "Congressional caucuses". The 2012 Electoral Vote represents party successes in state elections voting for the national office of President of the United States. The map as a cartogram shows the relative size of the states casting Electoral College vote, the people choose a president in their states independent of Congressional lockdown, Congressional District turnout per se is irrelevant.

If your point is that state geographic diversity should be reflected in the Electoral College, then we can work together to expand the District Plan that Maine and Nebraska have, but the President is not elected by the Congress, so a congressional map of presidential votes would be irrelevant to “Parties and elections” in the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is simply that the map is irrelevant. It shows how the states voted for president in 2012; what does that illustrate for this summary article? If people want to know how the states voted in 2012 the article is linked right there. Basically, the image illustrates a subtopic, rather than improves general understanding of the topic of the United States. Knowing how the electoral votes were doled out in 2012 doesn't enhance my knowledge of the topic "United States" at all. Of the 2012 election, yes. Of people involved in it, perhaps. Of the country as a whole, not really. --Golbez (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course the map is relevant. The section is “Parties and elections”, the map depicts the two major parties in an election reflecting persistent regional divisions as a whole as it really is. Of course another aspect might show the disparity between presidential returns and the gerrymandered state results in Congressional Districts.

That would take two maps, though again the cartogram is better graphically. What is called for is an update of this cartogram Congressional District map for comparison.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not follow that since every illustration considered is of something specific, it cannot be admitted since it does not encompass the entire nation’s history in all places at a glance. The section will admit one perhaps two images of something.

US national parties meet in national conventions to select candidates for president, a national office. They are made up of state and territory delegations reflecting the party voting and population of each. For an article about the nation's Parties and elections, a national office is appropriate, and this rationale serves for picturing elected national office holders. But an image of the US process of nominating a presidential candidate informs the reader's knowledge of the topic "United States, parties and elections" by illustrating part of the process among citizens by states meeting nationally, not just the result of Congressional party office elections.

WP prefers not mirroring other articles. The selection here shows a recent national convention (Democratic 2008) for the sitting president at the time of a roll call of a particular state (New York), and the companion major national convention (Republican 2008) from the floor addressed by the nominee. Each image is used in one other article, at the NY Democratic primary 2008 and at John McCain. Neither is linked in the United States article in the way the election maps are. These image should meet all previous objections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the maps? Please keep talk page entries stable. The maps made more sense than these pictures, which say nothing; they're just pictures of conventions. But we don't need any more graphics than necessary, because this page is so slow to load as it is. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The section is “United States, Parties and elections”. It has had an illustration which is now out of date showing the leaders of the two political branches, a sitting president and four past Congressional leaders. It should be replaced with an alternative which will not recognizably slow the loading speed of the article but related to parties and elections.

I propose two alternatives, a) one with national maps objected to on the grounds they do not represent the country as a whole, and b) one with party conventions nominating candidates for elections to illustrate “Parties and elections”. That is now objected to on the grounds that it is only an illustration of conventions of parties for elections, and that says “nothing” about “Parties and elections".

The images explain how it is party candidates in elections for the national office of president and vice-president are chosen, by delegates from states in conventions of all 50 states, DC and 5 territories. Please explain your objection further. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I rather like the Democratic convention photo, though the caption is needlessly descriptive. I don't see a purpose to the far lower quality Republican convention photo. --Golbez (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The right-hand map is an excellent graphic, showing constitution of the House by party and concentration of population. It's a good summary map, not used elsewhere, that I could see. It's too bad that the presidential results aren't shown on it. That states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted Democratic for president is remarkable, given how covered in red they are otherwise. Having a second map showing the presidential results as just labels is a much lesser graphic, as I indicated before. The problem with the convention photos, for me, is that they don't elucidate the process (note the barely visible state-delegation signs and tiny, off-to-the side total shown for New York, in the D. convention photo), with the R. photo being definitely sub-par (focus very poor). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We have maps illustrating the section above, the crowd photos add visual interest. The congressional election map on the right is used at United States elections, 2012, and United States House of Representatives elections, 2012.

The convention photos elucidate, explain and spell out the process of electing a national office by state, as the electoral vote is made by state: the DNC photo shows the NY roll call vote, the delegation spot lit, and the RNC photo from the floor clearly shows the signage at the location of the Kentucky, Wisconsin and South Carolina delegations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the map when I looked. However, it's of more intriguing visual interest to me. The convention photos are pretty poor, IMO. What about an updated photo such as what is there now, with a caption enumerating the current political leadership (including Senate caucus leaders, which aren't mention in the extract you posted above)? Dhtwiki (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

All objections removed. I simply don't care anymore. --Golbez (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Update to section done, adding current congressional leaders, linking to sources for any further updates in this Congress, and removing outdated image. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture of Congressional leadership is a function of Congressional in-house elections, not directly related to the people. Not sure why Dhtwiki's CD map is removed, but Wikicommons still offers this map of Congressional District elections. Is this agreeable? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture was a good one, and it allowed the listing of important officials (caucus leaders) not listed in the infobox, a good representation of national political leadership. What is "Dhtwiki's CD map" and where has it been removed? Both maps that I like are now present on the talk page. However much I like the map, because it's limited to House districts, it's somewhat flawed as the representative graphic for the section. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

At least we now have sourced narrative in the section to justify a congressional leadership image. Wikicommons does not seem to provide a current one. As possible alternates for upload, Truth in Media has a leadership image from 2014 at . And IBMs API page seems to invite free usage of its image, which might qualify for WP use at .

I still prefer the double convention illustration as the best example of “Parties and elections” with samples of the entire national population gathered in one place, but I can live with an image of current Congressional leadership, as Congress is the First Branch and closest to the people. In the mean time, should the Congressional District map be used as a place holder? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not put the old picture back, with the caption reworked to show the changes (Cantor replaced by McCarthy; the majority/minority roles reversed in the Senate), until we get an updated photo? The CD map is pretty but needs study in high res, and the second map to show how "red" states in terms of cong. district area can be "blue" in terms of how the population votes. I don't think that the convention photos offer much, as I've said. I haven't examined the photos you referenced, and am not well-versed enough in copyright to offer much help in determining whether they're usable here. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A picture of the US President with House and Senate leadership still does not represent the voters of the country in party elections as well as the national party conventions nominating candidates for a presidential election. The old picture had a caption longer than 1-3 lines which cluttered the section. It seemed like a Hill staffer did a promotional hack job for his/her Member. Leadership is listed at United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, so the caption could be shortened to 1-3 lines, "the US President with 2013 House and Senate leadership”. But we should await a current photo unless you think dating the shortened caption is sufficient. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the picture there now is as representative of elections and their outcomes as any one photo can be. The convention photos just aren't good, and where are the Libertarians, the Green Party, Peace and Freedom, etc., as they have conventions too? The caption could simply read President Obama meets with congressional leadership in 2011. BTW, the linkage in your proposed caption is not as good as what you set up in the article body, which leads directly to pages giving Senate and House leadership up front. The photo is by a White House photographer, and works by U.S. government employees seem to be usable on Misplaced Pages by that reason. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Other than the Democrats and Republicans, other party conventions do not rise to the level of significance. Libertarians (on the ballot but gaining 0.5% of the vote), Green Peace (0.4%) and Peace and Freedom parties (on the ballot in California, Iowa and Utah) do not gain electoral college votes,

So we are agreed, over a ten-day discussion, and since Golbez dropped out, to the pre-existing photo, caption “President Obama meets with congressional leadership in 2011” without links, adding updated narrative with links to support the image. Very well, collaborative improvement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The independent parties don't get electoral votes in presidential elections, but there are two independent senators, and there are, no doubt, other elected officials of independent affiliation. Plus, for how many is a party political convention that relevant? I suspect that most vote for party candidates in primary elections, and that's the limit of their involvement. A better representative picture would probably be one of a voting booth or ballot, if we had to find something other than one similar to what's there now. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'independent' Senators caucus with the major party that is closest to their stances; they are independent in name, but not in voting-pattern. Most people don't vote, roughly speaking; those that do vote, only vote in the general elections (and often only the presidential ones not the midterms), but only rarely vote in the party-primaries. That said, I think that the usrep-maps and ecVote-maps are important because they show political *control* of the country... I don't think they have any substantial correlation with what people actually *want* (or would be perceived to want if we used some other kind of voting system), but that doesn't mean the maps don't have meaning, just that we should be careful to neutrally and accurately describe the meaning the maps do actually convey. p.s. TheVirginiaHistorian, the Green Party e.g. Jill Stein is distinct from Greenpeace e.g. Michael Bailey.     75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Well, 1) we have me and Golbez for convention floor pics, but Golbez withdrew, but it is still my druthers, and 2) me and Dhtwiki for the existing pic of president and Congressional leadership until an updated image is located, and 3) at different times, me and you for the us rep-map, with Dhtwiki once saying he could live with it, but for me, that’s now visually awkward with a map in the section just above. Did you have a caption in mind to run by Dhtwiki? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've looked for a suitable replacement photo at whitehouse.gov. They have mostly videos, not still pictures. The most promising video, from which I might have gotten a frame with everyone in it, had Sen. Durbin subbing for the injured Harry Reid. So, it may be awhile. However, their copyright (i.e. no copyright) indicates that we can use whatever we can find. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It is a government source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Why has Misplaced Pages stopped showing the breakdown of religions in the summary panel in entries on a respective country?

This seems to have been a unilateral decision affecting all entries for countries - I was advised by the Misplaced Pages information team to address this question to an article talk page.

"Decisions like these are made by the volunteer editors who donate their time maintaining our various articles. You can ask questions to them on the article talk pages. Simply click the "talk" or "discussion" tab at the top of any article, then click "new section" to start a thread with a new section. Click the "edit" button next to a thread title to add a message to an existing thread.

Yours sincerely, Robert Johnson" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.188.122 (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're referring to? --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the state of the article, in June. Looks pretty similar to now. But my guess is that we used to have something about "47% Protestant / 21% Catholic / etc" up top, in the infobox (which is what I think Robert meant by "summary panel"). Definitely seems to be some changes to infobox-content between June and now, anyways. Ping User:Golbez, do you remember, did there used to be an infobox-sub-section which listed major religions and their percentages? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe? But it's better handled in the text rather than the infobox. We don't have ethnicity or relative language use in the infobox either. --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This Article should be called The United States of America because the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico.

This Article should be called The United States of America because the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.184 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The official name of Mexico is "United Mexican States". There are virtually no instances in English of Mexico being referred to as "United States", so I don't think your concerns are realistic. Dustin (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That line of reasoning has been rejected in the past. Also, unless something had changed it has been shown previously that even the Spanish Misplaced Pages does not use Unitied Sates of America.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"the United States of America" is common enough for us to rename the article just that. The United States of America is often called "United States" and "America". However, those are just shorter terms for the country's name; "the United States of America" is both the official name and is very common so I support renaming this article. However, my reasoning for changing the name of this article is for a different reason than the original reason given. Prcc27 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Regardless of any "official" name, the WP:COMMONNAME of our southern neighbor in English is simply "Mexico", a fact which leaves "United States" both unambiguous and WP:PRECISE. The status quo naming of the two articles is fine (i.e. in accordance with policy).--William Thweatt 09:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the very first line of the article already clearly specify that the official name is United States of America, even if the most common shorthand form is "United States"? --SchutteGod (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the likelihood someone searching for "United States" is looking for Mexico rather than the United States of America? TFD (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, not using Unitied States since it is the shorter term does not fly either since if Misplaced Pages wanted the full names North Korea would titlec the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Tne Unitied Kingdom does not use the full name for the title either.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mexico's official name is the United Mexican States, not the United States of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the two just variant translations? "Mexican" literally means "of Mexico". How is this different from "steel bar" vs "bar of steel"? Admittedly, the "United Mexican States" is the usual translation, but how can you say that "United States of Mexico" is wrong when they are exact synonyms? --Khajidha (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

How many sources do you have that use "United States" to refer to Mexico? WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear on this; when people use the term "United States", they overwhelmingly mean this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply asking a question about translation. To me, the English forms "United Mexican States" and "United States of Mexico" seem to be exactly equivalent, but others seem to see some distinction that I am missing.--Khajidha (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

They aren't exact synonyms. For example, on the Spanish Misplaced Pages, the United States is "Estados Unidos de America". But Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". Not of Mexico, simply "United Mexican States" (or, "Mexican United States"). The distinction is being made for a reason, so we should respect it. It's the difference between... I'm not sure if this specifically applies in this case, but it's just to illustrate that the terms are not synonyms: "Republic of Madagascar" vs "Malagasy Republic". The former is saying it's the republic of a region named Madagascar; the latter is saying it's the republic of the Malagasy people (who happen to live on the island of Madagascar). Similar, but not synonymous, despite pertaining to the exact same land. --Golbez (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So the term "Mexican" is being used to mean the people? Is that the distinction you are making? Because otherwise "Mexican" is simply an adjective meaning "of Mexico" and, again, the two forms are equivalent. In English we COULD say the "American United States" with no change in meaning from "United States of America". We don't, but we could. --Khajidha (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying "United States of X" and "Xian United States" are not 100% synonymous in all cases. Furthermore, the official translation is United Mexican States. And yes, you could say American United States, but you'd be wrong because no one uses that name, either officially or colloquially. Some people might use "United States of Mexico" informally but it would be incorrect to use it formally, just as it would be incorrect to say "American United States" formally. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I still haven't seen an English example of when "______an" and "of ______" would have different meanings (not a Spanish example, not Madagascar vs Malagasy). I'm not arguing about what is the officially used translation, I'm not saying we should use "American United States". I'm simply asking how "__________an" and "of ________" can have different meanings. But this is way off topic, so let's just drop it.--Khajidha (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't name articles based on what could be, we name them based on what is. This article is called United States because this subject is called that. "United States of Mexico" is not used by reliable sources in the English language, and even if it was, no source uses United States to refer to Mexico, so there is no cause to rename this article on that rationale. Even if United States were used to also refer to Mexico, WP:COMMONNAME would apply, and even in that incredibly hypothetical situation, it couldn't be argued that when the overwhelming majority of sources use the term United States, they mean anything other than this article. That is why there is absolutely no reason to change this article based on that rationale. There's an album called United States (album), but we don't change this title for that per WP:COMMONNAME. This scenario you're presenting is even less of a reason to, because there's no way someone would confuse United States for Mexico. - Aoidh (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for "Very long" template?

This page may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (September 2015)

Any explanation?Ernio48 (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That was just added here. I don't remember any discussion, so can't explain why it was placed; but I can't say that I disagree. However, if you want a discussion, I think you should come up with a less-cryptic section heading, as well as posting more fully as to why an explanation is needed. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I spot checked over the last six months, the page is saved as File size 66 kB including yesterday, but it shows on the current page as 1174 kB. Otherwise the page size is "readable prose size" in all cases, since April up 1 kB in prose size, up 1 kB in references, up 98 words. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading again, to something closer to what the OP's concern was. While loading time isn't complained of here, that is my complaint; and my problem may be due to the unusual number of references generating tooltip javascript on my computer that doesn't have a dedicated GPU. Not at all sure of that, but slowness in loading is my complaint, not just length of the article, which is reasonably coherent and navigable by me. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I too think that reference-list might be the reason for network congestion here. Even though the list is already divided into 3 columns it takes about 1/4 of the article space. -- Chamith (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it. Drive by tagging is discouraged. Calidum 04:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Redundant

Not all immigrants came from Europe in Ellis island, did you know you also had immigrants from other parts of the old world?????. The word "European" in the image caption wrongly narrows a wider concept. It's better to keep it general because keep in mind that people came from all over at that time and it would be imprudent to say that Ellis island was a European-only gateway of immigration because of the major influx of immigrants in the island. Taking away European would sound more fitting due to the uncertainty of the possible origins of immigrants to Ellis island. Yes, there were many immigrants from various parts of Europe but also from other parts outside Europe. Many tend to hear of Europeans in Ellis island and wrongly associated Ellis island as a gateway for European immigration and miss that it also a gateway for other immigrants but due to associations to European immigration, tend to think only about the European immigrants and not other groups, cultures, ethnicity and so on. I had people who constantly reverted my edit without saying a "concrete" why. Nevertheless I hope someone will join. (N0n3up (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

The image caption in question says Ellis Island in New York City was a major gateway for European immigration., which doesn't say that it handled only European immigration, nor that it was the only place European immigrants came in (the large influx of German and Irish immigration for which the 19th century is famous must have happened elsewhere). So, the caption isn't in error. The question then becomes is the caption somehow unduly misleading. Ellis Island has become associated with European immigration. If the percentage of non-European immigration is statistically large enough to show that that is an erroneous impression, then the caption probably should be reworked. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dhtwiki Right, but then you had immigrants from all over. Even though most of them came from Europe, they also came from other places. So it would be prudent to be a bit more general in this type of description. Because you also had Immigrants that came from the Levant such as Lebanese and Syrians who would have taken the same route as Europeans to the US. An example would be New York City's famous associations with Italian immigrants due to famous interpretations (e.g The Godfather), but you also had Greek-Americans in New York City, where their population is the largest in the US. So letting the redundant "European" would give an idea of the European migrants but not the wider image if you know what I'm saying. So why not be a bit general in the caption.

Here's something to look at. (N0n3up (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

It is true that it was not just Europeans that came through Ellis Island. However it is wildly known and The gateway for European immigrates. "Immigrants sailed to America in hopes of carving out new destinies for themselves. Most were fleeing religious persecution, political oppression and economic hardships. Thousands of people arrived daily in New York Harbor on steamships from mostly Eastern and Southern Europe. The first and second class passengers were allowed to pass inspection aboard ship and go directly ashore. Only steerage passengers had to take the ferry to Ellis Island for inspection." http://www.powayusd.com/online/usonline/worddoc/ellisislandsite.htm Reb1981 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

DhtwikiReb1981 aight guys Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC))

Ellis Island only operated from 1892 through 1914 at high-capacity; prior to that it was an arsenal, and both during and immediately after WWI immigration was greatly restricted (especially after 1924). Here is the breakdown of the country-or-religion-of-origin during the ~1895/~1903/~1911 centerpoints:

• ~#1, ~#1, ~#1, italian
• ~#2, ~#4, ~#4, german
• ???, ~#2, ~#3, jewish (not sure if this was tracked the same way prior to the 1900 re-opening of Ellis)
• >#8, ~#3, ~#2, polish

Those are the major groups. There are also several second-tier groups:

• ~#3, >#8, >#8, austro-hungarian
• ~#4, >#8, >#8, russian
• ~#6, ~#5, ~#6, scandinavian
• ~#5, ~#7, ~#7, irish
• >#8, ~#6, ~#5, british

These figures are not broken down in any exact fashion, and in particular, I don't know how accurate the rankings are. Generally speaking, though, during the main years when Ellis was a major immigration-processing-facility, the top dozen-or-so groups (with slovak probably being tenth place followed by croat at eleventh, and then scotland/france/greece/spain shooting upwards following the end of WWI when throttles were put in place) were European, broadly speaking. Since no percentages are given, and smaller ethnic groups are not enumerated, I don't know if that is good enough for wikipedia. But to a rough approximation, it seems fair to say Ellis was mostly processing European (and Jewish -- we cannot say they were specifically-European-Jews without engaging in WP:OR here) immigrants, primarily. As was mentioned by User:Dhtwiki, this is a question of percentages, which my source does NOT give us: does anybody know what percentage of Ellis Island processing was for European-origin immigrants, and what was not? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: debt owed to Haiti

https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/inside-ccr/why-us-owes-haiti-billions-briefest-history-bill

Haiti is a special case which should be reported in a general article such as this one. 184.99.206.71 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Chamith (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That article could help improve Haiti–United States relations. EllenCT (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Progressivity of taxes, again

I strongly object to this edit attempting to restore extremely biased Heritage Foundation and Peter G. Peterson Foundation sources to support the absurd assertion that U.S. taxes are "among the most progressive in the developed world." EllenCT (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not an absurd assertion that "U.S. taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world." If you look at a list of OECD countries (generally equivalent to the term "developed world") sorted by percentage of taxes paid by the top earners, you will see that the US is at the TOP of that list. The statement that U.S. taxes are AMONG the most progressive in the developed world is, if anything, an understatement.

The fact that US taxes are very progressive isn't just made up by the Heritage Foundation and Peter G. Peterson Foundation. It is extensively documented in news media and respected organizations, ranging from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-tax-system-just-keeps-on-getting-more-and-more-progressive/) to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/) to the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/). I'm sure you can agree that these are valid sources and most certainly not biased in favor of conservative politics. It's also noteworthy that in the Atlantic source, it's mentioned that the OECD has explicitly stated that the high percentage in taxes paid by America's highest earners is due to the unusually progressive tax system (in addition to being caused in part by the high share of income of the top earners).

Not to mention, you keep altering a statement that is absolutely, 100% indisputable: that the U.S. tax system is "generally progressive." This is a graph that shows what a progressive tax distribution looks like: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/distribution/progressive-taxes.cfm If it were even remotely flat, then you could make an argument that our tax system isn't "generally progressive." But you are just wrong on this one. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

U.S. taxes are generally progressive the same way the plains are generally sloped. http://www.itep.org/whopays/executive_summary.php EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your mathematical analogy is incorrect. Please see these definitions on regressive, proportional, and progressive taxation. The tax system in the USA is progressive. This is a mathematical definition used to describe the economic situation; it has very little relationship to the term progressive politician. Bernie Sanders is a progressive politician, and thus he favors mathematically-progressive taxation system such as the IRS, but plenty of "conservative" politicians (using the American lexicon not the worldwide view of what it means to be "conservative") are also in favor of mathematically-progressive taxation systems to one degree or another.

In any case, though, before we can discuss the mathematical degree to which the USA is a progressive-taxation-regime, relative to France and other countries, first we have to define our terms: progressive-taxation is a mathematical concept, used by economists, and is only vaguely correlated with Progressive political views. Misplaced Pages should state the facts succinctly and in a neutral tone, and explain how the terms are defined and used, so that the readership is not confused about what the meaning of mainspace prose actually is. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

How many kilobytes do you think it would take to support the contention that U.S. taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world? EllenCT (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your source is dealing exclusively with state taxes. It should be noted that the size and scope of state taxes pales in comparison to that of federal taxes. On the whole, the U.S. tax system is very progressive. Yes, you can cherry pick for tiny components of tax revenue that are not progressive (e.g. FICA tax, certain state income taxes), and I could respond by cherry picking for components that are extremely progressive (corporate income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, etc.), but at the end of the day, that gets us nowhere. Instead, why don't we just mutually acknowledge that when taking everything into account, the affluent pay a significantly larger share of their incomes than the lower-classes, and to a degree that exceeds just about every other developed country on earth. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah.... good old ITEP.org. It's an advocacy group and not at all a reliable source and makes absolutely no comparison between countries. OECD doesn't have an axe to grind and provides context relative to other nations. States vary, and frankly ITEP uses a black box calculation which they use to push their agenda. We cannot accept it for the basis of changing the article.Mattnad (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Which OECD characterization do you like? One of them treats taxes and transfer payments differently than the other countries. EllenCT (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Progressiveness of taxes is separate from how a country spends. You like to conflate them to confuse the discussion. We've been through this before. Not biting. And don't bring back ITEP again please. Not a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Since EllenCT misrepresented the sources she was removing and failed to provide anything close to resembling a valid basis for disputing the material, I propose that the garish factual accuracy disputed box tag she decorated the article with be removed. This has been discussed to death over the years with EllenCT across multiple articles and she refuses to get it. Even her lone ITEP source doesn't dispute the fact that US taxation is progressive, nor does it make any international comparisons (so it can't dispute that portion of the well sourced segment either). The fact that ITEP/CTJ is a lobbying outfit with an opaque methodology and its results are dramatically contradicted by more reliable sources like the CBO, Tax Policy Center, and Tax Foundation is almost beside the point. The fact that EllenCT spent over a year misrepresenting ITEP's methodology on corporate tax incidence in an attempt to spin away this discrepancy (she claimed they treat corporate taxes regressively when they actually treat them extremely progressively, one of the few relatively transparent aspects of their process) is also almost beside the point. Even her source acknowledges US taxation is "progressive" (ITEP/CTJ publications regarding overall taxation; as was pointed out above, the specific page she links to here doesn't even comment on federal taxes). Case closed. Since she's identified me in the past as her chief opponent on this issue she may have thought that because I was away from this talk page for a while she could sneak this ridiculous, baseless change in. Fortunately there were responsible editors like Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq, Mattnad, and Capitalismojo paying attention. VictorD7 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented ITEP's findings or methodology, and their findings are far more accurate than the discredited supply side trickle down contention that taxes should be less progressive. http://www.itep.org/whopays/ is far more accurate than opposing sources from the Heritage or Peterson foundations. EllenCT (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT> Yes you have, and you're still misrepresenting the sources disputing you on this. For example, neither the CBO, the Tax Policy Center, a joint creation of the left leaning Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, nor the academic Oxford Journal study used to source the segment advocate "supply side trickle down" economics. VictorD7 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a well-known OECD report attesting to this; surely you're not really asserting that IETP is more neutral or a better source than the OECD? Rwenonah (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several OECD reports on the topic, but one of them is often misrepresented. Is that the one you meant? I would gladly replace all 2,000 characters of Heritage and Peterson foundations' sources with an unbiased characterization of those OECD figures. EllenCT (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Even your link doesn't dispute the basis of OECD report, it just says that the US does "less to fight inequality" than other countries. Progressivity of taxes and these spending of those taxes (on welfare, etc.) are totally separate issues, and I don't know why you're trying to pretend they're the same. Rwenonah (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So that was indeed the specific OECD report to which you were referring? Please see tax expenditure for the symmetrical equivalence of taxes and transfer payments. EllenCT (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT, that's apples (progressive taxation) and oranges (social welfare spending). To other editors, EllenCT repeatedly uses the same arguments, has received pushback over the years, and when things go quiet, she tries again to push her POV. Be warned, you're in for a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Mattnad (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources that say the tax system is among the most progressive in the world are all unreliable, either they are "conservative" think tanks or columnists. It is very easy to take selective information to come to any conclusion one wants. We need a reliable source to support this. TFD (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How's OECD for a reliable source? Rwenonah (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, please tell me you're joking. Forbes, the Washington Post, and the Atlantic have all explicitly stated that US taxation is among the most progressive in the world. Don't try to tell me that the Washington Post and the Atlantic are conservative. I'll post the links again here, because clearly you didn't look above:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-tax-system-just-keeps-on-getting-more-and-more-progressive/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

If you have a problem with the current sources in the article, you could perhaps replace them with one of these. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And indeed the article already covers the US having a proportionally smaller welfare state elsewhere. Tax progressivity is a separate issue. VictorD7 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Forbes does not "explicitly state that the U.S. taxation is among the most progressive in the world." Rather, it published an opinion piece by a fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, a right-wing think tank, that says that. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources for facts. "Wonkblog" although hosted by the Washington Post is actually a blog, providing opinion reports. The Atlantic Journal report is also an opinion piece. Notice that the last opinion piece sets out to rebut another opinion piece that says U.S. taxes are not progressive. Notice that it also mentions that Paul Krugman, who is an economist, also does not think U.S. taxes are progressive. None of your sources meet rs standards. TFD (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually opinion pieces can be reliable sources for facts depending on circumstance. In this case they're just reflecting underlying facts produced by groups like the OECD, CBO, and this academic study published in the journal Socio-Economic Review that you apparently missed. I doubt even Krugman, who's widely known as a wild eyed partisan fire breather (some might say lunatic, but I'll refrain here), would deny that taxation per se is progressively structured (he might try to conflate taxes with another issue, like spending, as EllenCT did above). Regardless, if you actually read the Krugman piece linked to in the article you mention it's just a few lines of name calling and vague, disjointed claims about inequality, not tax progressivity per se. I'll add that Washington Post writer Dylan Matthews is an admitted liberal writing to liberals in his piece acknowledging that US taxes are more progressive than in Europe, citing facts from the aforementioned study, since you were so eager to tag an ideology to the Forbes article. Some don't like to emphasize the fact that US taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world, preferring instead to focus on spending or income inequality (both also amply covered in this article), but as far as the facts are concerned, this isn't controversial. VictorD7 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And the abstract to the paper you mention says, "Our study supports the argument others have made that the USA has more progressive taxes." That U.S. taxes are more progressive is a statement of fact not opinion. Opinions do not become facts just because they fit in with one's preconceptions. TFD (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your comments. When you look at the sources provided by VictorD7, they are a mix of news and research reports that qualify as reliable sources. While every news org has some political bent, I'm not seeing any disagreement that US taxes are progressive. So are you agreeing with the basic point that the US tax system is more progressive than its peers or not? EllenCT has only ITEP, and it deals only with state taxes with no international comparison, or that little problem that state and local taxes are deducted from federal tax owing for lower income households. On the other hand, there are several newspapers, magazines, and reports that address the specific topic that say yes indeed US taxes are more progressive than its peer nations. If you disagree with the many sources that address this, what source do you have that says the opposite?Mattnad (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, none of the sources meet rs. We should use common sense too. No capable author writing an encyclopedia article would use newspaper columns as a source for public finance issues. I do not know whether U.S. taxes are more progressive, but would not assume they were because some columnist says that in his opinion they are. TFD (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Established news outlets covering the fact (as you call it) that US taxes are more progressive than other developed nations, as found in studies by groups like the OECD and the academic paper I posted, and the underlying academic and OECD sources themselves, are most certainly RS. Even your editorial quote said "rarely" reliable, not never reliable for facts. In this case the sources support each other, and the facts covered in the media sources are verifiable through the other sources. Again, this isn't controversial. No contradicting sources have been presented. VictorD7 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean interpretation of (frequently selective) facts by partisan writers whose opinions are published in news media that publish reliable news stories. Again it does not meet rs and if you think that articles in Misplaced Pages should be based on what your favorite columnists write rather than what is published in expert sources, then get the policy changed. Or do you have trouble distinguishing news reporting and opinion pieces? TFD (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the sources span the political spectrum and most of them lean left if anything. Again, the comprehensive academic study and OECD reports aren't opinion columns. Your above claim that these sources are "all" either "'conservative' think tanks or columnists" is blatantly wrong. Period. If you're struggling with this because English isn't your first language then let us know and perhaps a translator can be found. That's without getting into the fact that policy allows the use of "opinion pieces" (and even facebook posts by experts, if they can be verified) in certain contexts. The ones used here, like the liberal Dylan Matthews writing in his regular spot in the liberal Washington Post, is analytical news coverage and included because they clearly lay out the results of studies in ways that might be easier for readers to understand than the original sources themselves, which are also included. They're supplemental sources. You still failed to provide a contradicting source. VictorD7 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds)...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Having been written by a "liberal" does not make Wonkblog any more reliable than if it had been written by anyone else. Instead of searching for anything that supports your views, please consult reliable sources and distinguish between facts and opinions. Also, we should not choose sources because they "might be easier for readers to understand." Editors should be able to use reliable sources written by experts and express them in terms that are easy for readers to understand. BTW just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they have trouble understanding standard English. TFD (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You already quoted that above, and I already pointed out that "rarely" doesn't mean "never", and in this case the analysis is only complementing the scholarly sourcing used (which it covers, complete with verifiably accurate visuals and direct links), so we aren't relying on "opinion pieces" to source the facts. I only mentioned the liberal ideology of the Washington Post writer as part of my refutation of your claim that these were "conservative" sources. I offered to help find a translator since you repeatedly made false claims about these sources even after being corrected. VictorD7 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course rarely does not mean never. But you need to explain why you think these sources should be used. In some cases for example the writer may have qualifications in the subject. But clearly you are going the wrong way - rather than consulting the best sources and reflecting what they say, you have decided what should be said and then looked for sources. That explains why your sources are weak - you are more interested in what they say than in how reliable they are. TFD (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>Every claim you just made is false. I started off with the best sources on the issue because I wanted to be accurate, they're strong sources with extremely robust results leaving no dispute on the conclusion, and I explained why it's worth adding supplemental sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Even partisan sources on the other end of the spectrum agree that the OECD makes the point that US Taxes are very progressive, but they complain that it doesn't help inequality due to spending priorities. Here's a source offered by EllenCT as a counterpoint. In it they write:

"Critics of proposals to make the tax system more progressive or to take other steps to help lessen widening income inequality sometimes cite a 2008 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) report stating that the United States has the most progressive tax system among developed countries. The implication is that, with a progressive tax system, the United States is already taking very substantial steps to address income inequality. But to cite the report’s finding on the progressivity of the U.S. tax system while ignoring its other findings amounts to cherry picking and distorts the report’s overall findings."

You will note they do not dispute in the least the point that US taxes are very progressive. They just bring in the other side of the equation on spending which does not help with inequality.Mattnad (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to use the OECD report. It is a 310 page report on inequality that discusses tax progressivity in one paragraph. A reasonable approach would be to use a source about the topic rather than one that mentions it in passing. It would be like using a book about Albania for this article because it said something about the U.S. we could not find in books about the U.S.

The OECD report draws its conclusion by comparing taxes paid by the top tenth of income earners in 2005 with the lowest 90% and compares this with other OECD countries. The data was obtained from questionnaires sent to each country. This approach raises several questions: Was the U.S. return accurate? Were the definitions of income and taxes the same? Would the results be the same had they used the top 1%, top quartile or top half? Was 2005 a typical year?

TFD (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether or not you personally believe the report. That's really WP:OR at best. It's a reliable source that's been commented extensively on by secondary reliable sources (even if opinion pieces) on both sides of the political spectrum. They all agree what it says, and there are no other sources that you have presented that says otherwise. You've tried to disqualify some sources as partisan opinion pieces, but when other opposing partisan opinions agree with the premise, then we have enough in my opinion. Mattnad (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact it has not been commented upon in any reliable sources. It's just cherry-picking a primary source that says what you happen to believe, rather than identifying the best, most relevant and up to date secondary source and reflecting what it says. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a Sun column, and the standards are different. TFD (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Even your basic use of language here indicates a misunderstanding of policy. As has been explained to you before, source reliability is always context specific. Sources aren't either inherently "reliable" or "unreliable". All these sources are reliable in this context, and you never did provide a disputing source. VictorD7 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

IOW you consider yourself free to determine what is reliable without reference to any set criteria. There are two basic approaches: (1) determine the best sources and report what they say. (2) determine what you want the article to say and find sources. Professionals who write mainstream textbooks use the first approach. Advocates of fringe theories and conspiracy theories use the second. TFD (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, these are the best sources on the topic, their findings are clear cut and robust, and you failed to provide a disputing source. We aren't required to use textbooks (just glance at the page's reference list; the vast majority of sources aren't textbooks), and implying an association between peer reviewed research published in prestigious academic journals and comprehensive OECD reports with "fringe theories" and "conspiracy theories" is ludicrous. VictorD7 (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

FICA (social security) is not a tax for employees (it is to employers who match employee contributions), but a retirement and disability insurance plan and it is progressive because it redistributes from high income earners/contributors to the low. The net effect of FICA is that,over their lifetime, it is a negative tax for most employees.Phmoreno (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The CBO is quite explicit on Social Security which they say overall is progressive, particularly for lower income households, and I quote, "For people with lower than average earnings, the ratio of the lifetime benefits they receive from Social Security to the lifetime payroll taxes they pay for the program is higher than it is for people with higher average earnings. In that sense, the Social Security system is progressive. For people in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution, the ratio of benefits to taxes is almost three times as high as it is for those in the top fifth."Mattnad (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

FICA is considered a tax. As a tax it is universally considered regressive - everyone pays the same percentage on the first $118,500 of income and nothing on earnings above that amount. The fact that people receive the same benefits from Social Security makes the tax progressive in a "sense", because low income people who pay less than max yet receive the same benefits as people who pay the max. But it ceases to be progressive for people earning over $118,500 whose additional income is not taxed. And of course the progressivity does not help anyone below retirement age. In any case all OECD countries have similar programs, and the quote does not explain how progressive FICA is relative to other OECD countries. TFD (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well then my 401K savings are a tax, which also has a cap. Social Security caps the contributions because it also caps the benefits which demonstrates how it's not a tax. You can take it up with the CBO since they disagree with you on whether or not it's progressive. It's no different in function from pension plans except that it gives you much more benefits than you contribute if you're low income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 September 2015

But economists and the OECD report consider it a tax, while your 401K is not. And payments are classified as government spending, rather than a rebate of taxes. It is included, rightly or wrongly, in tax comparisons. TFD (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The progressive thinktank, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has an article, "What Do OECD Data Really Show About U.S. Taxes and Reducing Inequality?" Apparently this report is popular with some people who wish to prevent further progressivity in U.S. taxes. It points out some of the limitations of the report, for example the age of the data and the fact that it omits regressive taxes and employers' portions of payroll taxes. TFD (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ironically after falsely claiming above that only conservative sources state that the US has a relatively progressive tax structure (most sources posted here that do so lean left if anything), the one source you contribute is a far left think tank. And even it doesn't dispute the premise that US taxation is progressive, a fact it acknowledges as it reports on the OECD's findings, underscoring everything editors have been explaining to you. The page you linked to, in accordance with its ideological bias, just wants to emphasize that the US does less to redistribute income than European governments do (because it supposedly spends less on welfare). Of course it takes someone with ideological blinders on to only view tax progressivity through an "income equality" prism, as tax progressivity is relevant to other topics, including revenue volatility and economic growth, and therefore is a worthwhile stand alone topic in its own right. The issues CBPP raise are arguably important too, which is why this article already covers both income inequality and the fact that the US government redistributes less income than European nations tend to (I added the latter segment myself). So relax. All these issues are covered. Deleting one would leave an ideologically biased skew. As for "regressive" sales taxes not covered in the OECD report, those are counted in the journal study I linked to above. Counting consumption taxes makes US taxation even more progressive vis a vis other developed nations, since European systems rely far more on VAT and other consumption taxes than American government does (at all levels), and American sales tax regimes are typically more progressively structured to boot. VictorD7 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Use common sense. FICA is a redistribution of income system. How can that not be progressive?Phmoreno (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"Taxation" on the University of Rhode Island website explains it. Taxes collected are proportional (neither progressive nor regressive - everyone pays the same % of income) to income up to the insured amount, but then become regressive. Someone who earns $1 million per year pays a lower percentage of income than someone who earns $10,000 per year. Some writers, like you, take into account cash transfers which would make the program progressive. But then for comparison purposes the same must be done for other countries. When that is done, the U.S. rates 28 out of 31 for progressivity, as shown in the CBPP article (link above). TFD (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion habits food USA

"American eating habits owe a great deal to that of their British culinary roots with some variations. Although American lands could grow newer vegetables England could not, most colonists would not eat these new foods until accepted by Europeans." is what I deleted

References

1. Harvey A. Levenstein (1988). Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23439-0.

The source here is to a broken link. The link is to a page where I can buy a book. Not an actual source, there's no proof and all that this quote is in the book. I have researched this independently on my own and have not found anything of the sort related to this material. This is an opinionated argument and not a fact you can easily look up. The source does not share this quote or fact; it isn't in it from any link posted and is in fact a broken source and a link that does not lead to the information written.

I recommend deleting this post until the user or whoever has written it can find identifiable information by a credible source leading to the statement. It does not further the page or help anyone understand anything about this topic nor is credible or have any identifiable backing of any kind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryantheravensfan1 (talk • contribs)

That info is on page 3 of the book; anyone can look it up. Go to Google Books, type the name of the book ("Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet"), scroll past the table of contents to page 3 and there it is. In general, it's not a requirement for Misplaced Pages sources to be actually online for immediate access, although Google Books makes it easy in many cases. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Orange Suede Sofa is correct that Misplaced Pages does not require sources to be available online. See Misplaced Pages:Offline sources. As it happens, this source is viewable at Google Books; here is a convenience link to the cited page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Links are never required, although page no., which is now added, is. I do not see anything opinionated about it Why wouldn't colonists eat the same types of foods as they did in the UK? TFD (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Colonists might try at first to eat what they knew; but if the growing conditions weren't right, they'd have to learn to eat what did grow or starve. Growing conditions in much of the South (long, very hot growing season with intermittent droughts) weren't right for shallow-rooted plants such as wheat, so corn and sweet potatoes were grown instead. I'd like to see something more on how Southerners didn't take to those foods until, say, hoecakes were reported to be popular in London dining rooms. The paragraph in question started being placed here and received its final form and placement here. You can see from the other edits around that time that I had reservations about it then. The following snarky part about how much better our forefathers ate than we do also seems wrong and positively out-of-place in the food section. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Phillips, Ulrich Bonnell (2007) . Life and Labor in the Old South. Southern classics series. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9781570036781. Retrieved September 16, 2015.

United States of America - request the name for the article Suggestion

I request the article be named the United States of America as the common name and a better proper name

The name of the country is the United States of America per the USA Constitution: "...establish this Constitution for the United States of America" the name used on US paper money, Air Force 1, et al.

WP recommends doing a google search as a technique to find the common name. United States of America gets 1.5 billion results United States gets 3 billion results.

But I don't think this is a good technique here, I see lot's of double counted results, and results like the United States of ISIS, etc.

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, United States is such a broad definition, even mexico is the UNITED Mexican STATES officialy. But this page should obviously not be moved to "America", as that would cause so much more conflict, so why not just move it to it's official name, United States of America?

AvRand (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You can see which search term is more popular by visiting this link. Clearly, "United States" is more popular, according to Google. If you are suggesting a move based on the constitution then it's most likely WP:PRECISE you are looking for, not WP:COMMONNAME. However, another editor recently brought up this topic, and the consensus was to keep the title as it is. -- Chamith (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What to do about users reverting to versions linking dispute tags to nonexistent talk page sections?

Could an uninvolved editor please clean up this revert by User:Mattnad who, among other things, replaced a {{disputed-inline}} tag linking to the "Republican Party description" section which has been archived away from this talk page for over a week? Note that he also attempted to revert the unanimous and repeated endorsement of the four income inequality RFCs. And saying US taxes are "among the most progressive in the world" along with several hundred bytes of Heritage and Peterson Foundation sources is not just completely wrong, it's puffery and WP:WEASEL wording, too. EllenCT (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, EllenCT. Those "other things" were the massive, controversial, non-consensus changes you've repeatedly tried to make that have already been reverted by several editors. VictorD7 (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Correcting those of you who think trickle down has merit, or that encyclopedias should be based on the paid advocacy you call scholarly instead of secondary peer reviewed literature isn't edit warring, it's improving the encyclopedia, and I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary. EllenCT (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Trickle down is in fact an economic reality. Incomes rose over 10 fold over the 20th century despite the fact that the work week is much shorter and working conditions much better. Total compensation closely tracks productivity, but productivity growth has been slowing for a long time now.Phmoreno (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be edit warring against consensus even if you were being honest and were correct on the merits. That you aren't makes it even worse. Again, sources like the CBO, Washington Post, and peer reviewed academic studies published by Oxford Journals aren't "paid advocacy" and the segments in question have nothing to do with "trickle down". VictorD7 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That opinion is not grounded in guidelines or policy. Your POV fringe sources that you have been continuously pushing for years are far out of the mainstream. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources I just listed are "fringe" or represent the (actually mainstream) POV you claim they do. VictorD7 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Now VictorDJ has joined Mattnad in reverting to the version contrary to the RFC outcome and which includes hundreds of bytes of far right-wing fringe sources, and which has a broken link on an inline dispute tag. EllenCT (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Republican party tagline (assuming that's what you're referring to) has nothing to do with the massive "other" changes in the Gov. finance and Income sections you've repeatedly tried to sneak in with misleading edit summaries. If you really care about the link then fix it separately. Same if you're referring to a broken link in one of those sections. Just edit the link. Of course your claim about "far right-wing fringe sources" is outrageously false (we're talking the CBO, OECD, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, peer reviewed journal articles, the Tax Policy Center, Wall Street Journal, mainstream economists of varying political stripes, etc..). VictorD7 (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Last polity admitted (infobox)

The last polity admitted to the United States was Hawaii. Northern Mariana Islands is neither part of the United States nor an incorporated territory. It is a dependent possession of the US, subject to US jurisdiction, but politically unincorporated and geographically outside the US. --SchutteGod (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We had a months long mediation process that, in its wisdom, decided that the inhabited territories are incorporated. --Golbez (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Even though they are specifically called unincorporated territories? Smashing. Link? --SchutteGod (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.183.169 (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mediation is here, but the bulk of the discussion was on the mediation's talk page. Enjoy! --Golbez (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

“Unincorporated” is an arcane judicial term of art, with a different meaning than the common usage of the word. A hundred years ago, insular territories were judicially “unincorporated" for internal tariffs to suppress sugar competition with the mainland producers, and to justify colonial administration without local participation. But in the modern era, a federal court case observed that Congress has “in fact” politically incorporated Puerto Rico (p.26 ), see constitutional scholar confirmation (2009 p.1175 ). The "political union" of the Northern Mariana Islands with the United States was confirmed by a referendum under United Nations supervision.

Today the insular territories are self governing polities within the constitutional framework of the US, see U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. The Insular Cases are reflected in IRS application of income taxes, but on the other hand Congress directs FICA taxes collected on wages in the insular territories. Judicial "unincorporation" has been substantially superseded by Congressional action over the las half of the 20th century. Apart from these considerations of internal US affairs, certainly in an international context, the U.S. territories are within the United States.

The modern day political branches of Congress and President include the insular territory in the geographic sense of the United States for all practical purposes, such as citizenship, immigration, homeland security, FEMA, environment, transportation, etc. See Note 1 and Note 2 of the article. Both mediation consensus and RfC consensus chose to use the geographic sense of the United States as sourced in its determination to include insular territories for a general international readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discrimanatory IRS taxes are unconstitutional. TFD (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be a flat tax on all income without discrimination regarding its source, and there should no longer be an interest rate advantage for banks in states west of the Mississippi by the Fed, but all law with inequitable consequences is not ipso facto, by itself, on the face of it, unconstitutional. DC and the insular territories need not be states, nor are they required to have the same constitutional status as states, to be within the constitutional framework of the United States, as sourced (items 22, 27, 80 . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Uniformity Clause says, "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...." There are no exceptions. TFD (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

But there are exceptions in the case of territories as the Supreme Court has ruled; they are not states, they are foreign in a domestic sense for tariffs and domestic in a foreign sense for citizenship as Congress has allowed. You cannot wiki-secede the U.S. territories by your original speculations of counter-jurisprudence because they have self-governing citizenship within the constitutional framework of the U.S. as sourced to the U.S. State Department, and once the Constitution is extended in a political sphere, it cannot be turned off and on again like a spigot.

The constitutional status of the territories is ambiguous as sourced, Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008) at University of Kansas notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining judicially 'unincorporated territories’. (p. 649 ), but their international geographic status is not disputed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We just had a mediation on this and it was concluded that the territories were unambiguously incorporated into the U.S. and the Insular Cases decision that they were "foreign in a domestic sense" and that the constitution did not extend in full to them is obsolete. Any other interpretation was "fringe." Can you provide any source that explains why the Uniformity Clause should not extend to all parts of the U.S.? As Mr. Justice Brown wrote in Downes v. Bidwell, "If Porto Rico be a part of the United States, the Foraker Act imposing duties upon its products is unconstitutional not only by reason of a violation of the uniformity clause, but because, by section 9, "vessels bound to or from one state" cannot "be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another."" The case also cites Rev.Stat. sec. 1891: "the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within all the organized territories, and in every territory hereafter organized, as elsewhere within the United States." TFD (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You assert absurd mischaracterizations of the mediation, misconstruing both the mediation and the following RfC where you were overwhelmingly outvoted. In both, editors were careful to distinguish between the internal issue of insular territory constitutional status, — which is ambiguous, — and the external issue of geographic extent in the modern international community, — which is not.

In the case of the Northern Mariana Islands, the view --- that indigenous peoples are not competent to freely choose in UN-supervised referendums to be US citizens in "political union" with the US --- is fringe. The Insular Case provisions for colonial governance with a military governor, presidentially appointed territorial legislatures and military courts is obsolete. They cannot be reimposed now that constitutional guarantees have been extended for internal democratic self-governance.

You persist in original research into primary documents without any scholarly backup. You need not do so any further, as limited application of jurisprudence regarding the commerce clause is not germane to the discussion of the geographic extent of the United States for the purposes of the general reader in a modern international context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the insular cases are obsolete. The Northern Mariana Islands are now part of the U.S. and the constitution applies in full - no exceptions. TFD (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the statement that the mediation concluded that the territories are unambiguously incorporated is false. The language agreed to under mediation carefully avoided making any statement regarding incorporation or status. The status of territories is clearly ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the 100-year old Jim Crow Supreme Court holdings in the Insular Cases which withheld citizenship from indigenous "savages" to enable rule by military governors and military courts are obsolete. Because in the modern era, Congress has mutually made the inhabitants citizens with constitutional protections of federal courts. Puerto Rico provides a paradigm of what an insular territory looks like when it is "in fact" politically incorporated, as the federal courts would have it.

But the Constitution does not apply the Northern Mariana Islands in full because the territory is not a state, it does not have presidential electors for instance. And like non-state DC, its laws are subject to Congressional review. Regardless of these and other internal considerations of constitutional status, — internationally, the Northern Mariana Islands and DC are both considered within US territory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the constitution requires that citizens vote for presidential electors. It's granted specifically to the states and the federal district. The entire constitution can apply to a territory and they still not receive electors. Try again. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And the Uniformity Clause does not say it only applies to states and D.C. It applies "throughout the United States", and was held to apply to Hawaii and Alaska in the Insular Cases. TFD (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

America

Why was it decided that America should re-direct here?? Is it likely that someone who wants to search for this article will expect it to be titled America?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Because consensus was reached that the US is the primary topic when somebody is searching for America. See Talk:America (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 July 2015, where the decision was reached to move the disambiguation page from America to America (disambiguation). —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• GA-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
• WikiProject United States articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• GA-Class North America articles
• Top-importance North America articles
• WikiProject North America articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States Government articles with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment