Talk:United States/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65

Contemporary history issues

9/11 occurred 13 years ago, with the former World Trade Center being destroyed and 3,000 people tragically losing their lives in one unprecedented fell swoop. 13 years later, the follow up has occurred, with a bold new tower in its place, the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere. Time advances, and the narrative must keep up. Now that the new One WTC has been topped out, I believe it is fundamentally important to display the sequel to the initial event. There's an image of the original shown, and I think it would really be constructive to juxtapose the image of the new tower with the image of the previous towers at the site. What do people think, and what might be the best way to accomplish this? Castncoot (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing is an image like that has less relevancy in a summary article about the broader United States. It would be more relevant in an article like New York City and World Trade Center (where it already exists in both). The single 9/11 image already clutters that area especially being in such a small section, and if there is enough agreement I would be find with removing that one altogether. Cadiomals (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding, correct???!!! - 9/11 was an event of national (and international) significance - it was an attack that included the Pentagon and a site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania as well. That being your reasoning, the image needs to be re-inserted, if not there, then elsewhere, as a matter of great significance. Independent of 9/11 as well, One WTC is the tallest skyscraper in the United States (and the Western Hemisphere) and is worthy of imaging based on this fact alone. Castncoot (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, 9/11 was an event of national and international significance. That is why the 9/11 image is there and that is why it will not be removed if people don't want it removed. But it does not at all justify the addition of a second image of a completed skyscraper which is of far less significance than the image of the actual attacks, and which is so large that it actually ends up being pushed into an unrelated section: Geography, climate and environment. In an article with limited room and one which is already saturated with images, we need to prioritize, and I known most people will agree with me on this. Cadiomals (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Points expressed here reconciled. Castncoot (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Your recent change makes the two images almost too tiny to distinguish any detail and deviates from the formatting of the rest of the section, however I will let other people express their opinions. Cadiomals (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I find them more than clear enough for their intended purposes. Castncoot (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
What's this about a previous discussion to eliminate Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy from the contemporary history section? Those were the two most monumentally expensive natural disasters in U.S. history. The real problem that I find here actually is that this particular section is way, way too (ridiculously) short, even for a "summary" article as you describe it. Castncoot (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
To elaborate on another recent addition you made, WP:RECENTISM is the reason we chose to leave out mention of any hurricanes, storms or other natural disasters in Contemporary history or the History section in general. Almost all natural disasters in US history have been local or regional, not national, and you will notice none of them are mentioned here. Recent efforts in shortening and streamlining the History section involved making these decisions, and it will have been in vain if such details were allowed to creep back. Whatever your opinion on this there was a broad consensus that History had become too long, and Contemporary history is kept exceptionally short due to concerns over recentism bias. In fact this History section continues to be significantly longer than any found in Good or Featured country articles, and that is the long term goal we are aiming for. Cadiomals (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Points well taken but keep in mind that collectively, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy witnessed nearly 200 MILLION people impacted and 200 BILLION dollars in damages - in my book, this represents national rather than regional significance. Perhaps an exception should be made to allow just these two as a line in the text, otherwise it seems that the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. Any other changes can always be carefully monitored such that the section still maintains its brevity. Castncoot (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hurricanes are considered Acts of God by the insurance companies, and not proper subjects of history. We will not treat the various comets portents during the Civil War section, for instance, or the great Missouri earthquake. They are footnotes, lost at this level of summary account. Much of the hurricane damage suffered was in flood plains or drained swampland --- which should not be built up in the first place for environmental reasons. The damages will be reduced whenever the mistaken policy becomes costly in any real sense that matters to the public, and the building policy changed. The U.S. spent TRILLIONS on its last two wars and CUT taxes. There does not seem to be anything of wide ranging public interest regarding costs related to hurricanes, even at numbers greater by orders of magnitude for war. Wars are included because they are manmade and so properly the subject of a general narrative history, regardless of their costs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty insulting that you equate earthquakes and hurricanes with "comets portents", as if they had the equal effect on life and property. --Golbez (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that the material just spewed out by TheVirginiaHistorian is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Let's try a single, concise statement for these two specific hurricanes given their magnitude and national significance in the period of contemporary history specified by the article. And let's keep the threshold for mentioning a natural disaster somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million affected or 100 billion dollars in damages. This will ensure both A) that the section is short and not overloaded with every single disaster that inevitably occurs based upon statistical probability, and B) that we do indeed mention the rare natural disasters which are so catastrophic that they warrant mention and that not mentioning these would make the article a joke. Will proceed as such. Castncoot (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Insert another climate change denier, it seems. Regardless of the predominant cause or the proportion of man's contribution, sea levels are rising, so habitation along marshes and floodplains should change -- as a matter of policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say we should mention storms that cost "100 billion dollars in damages" because the 1900 Galveston hurricane not only caused thousands more deaths than Hurricane Katrina but, adjusted for inflation, cost almost the same amount of property damage as Katrina; and the 1926 Miami hurricane, which actually cost more in today's dollars. Why don't we mention those? Meanwhile, superstorm Sandy only cost $68 billion in today's dollars and killed 159 which is significantly lower than all these storms that are not mentioned ("adjusted for wealth normalization", based on the tables in the wikilinks here). The 1988–89 North American drought cost $80-120 billion in losses and killed 7,500. I still insist that because these events happened relatively recently you are biased towards believing they are more important than they actually are in the grand scheme of US history, pummeled by natural disasters decade after decade. Even if it's only one sentence, we have to set limits somewhere lest the door is opened for further justifications of adding more "necessary" information until the History section gradually creeps back to its former size. Cadiomals (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Castncoot, please understand that it is not helpful when you make an edit, that edit is challenged, and then you make it again before obtaining consensus. The cycle here is Bold, Revert, Discuss. So when you revert simply saying "See talk", that doesn't help. No consensus has been gained. There's no one that's going to be shot if you have to wait a few days to put your passage back. --Golbez (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiment regarding the pictures, Castncoot, but we barely have space for one picture there (which I support keeping). Regarding natural disasters, I agree with Cadiomals. Neither Sandy or Katrina are the worst natural disasters in US history, and at this detail level we don't have room to go back and add enough of them to avoid legitimate accusations of recentism. VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I just saw your new picture proposal and reverted it, accidentally hitting save before I typed the edit summary. I meant to say: Restoring picture. Not sure if I oppose this new one or not, but at the very least the size would probably need adjusting, so let's discuss this significant change on the Talk Page first. This new one has the benefit of being smaller overall but it may be too small, especially the more important 9/11 picture. I'm not sure how well people across the various types of machines can see it. It's in the history now, so people can check it out. Let's get additional input before making such a change permanent. VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's great to engage in this lively discussion. First of all, the damage caused by Sandy was actually pegged at $82 billion (including insured losses) and rising, as opposed to the $68 billion in uninsured losses alone, and that's why I phrased my threshold as being in the neighborhood of $100 billion in damages, OR 100 million people affected, which there were as well by this storm, as well as separately by Katrina. Furthermore, the 1988-1989 drought is outside of the range of the Contemporary history time frame, namely "1991-present."
As far as the 9/11 image goes, I don't mind increasing the sizes of both images, but I sincerely believe it would be remiss to portray only the destruction and not the very deliberate and painstaking but triumphant rebirth of the site, which is also highly significant on a national United States level. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
What do people think of placing this image?
The former World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan on 9/11.
One World Trade Center constructed in its place.

There's a horizontal triplex image below this in the Government and Politics section of the article, so I don't see why this duplex image would present a problem; it's constructive; and I believe it addresses people's concerns reasonably well. Castncoot (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The point of the terrorist attack was to disable New York as a financial center. However tragic in the event, the attempt failed. New Yorkers still go to work in the financial capital of the world in skyscrapers. Only the rebuilt image need be shown. If the destruction is shown, the rebuilt must be shown, otherwise showing the act of terror alone is terrorist POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: It's funny how a 9/11 image has been there for years by itself and neither you nor anyone else has ever complained about it being "terrorist POV" until someone came along and decided they wanted a double image there to throw off the formatting of the rest of the History section. If this article ever hopes to see Good or Featured status again, I guarantee one of the requirements by reviewers will be to reduce clutter by getting rid of a few images. But since we're not overly concerned with that right now, I'll leave it be. Cadiomals (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
So now at least one person agrees with me on showing the duplex image, if not using the same reasoning that I have, although the more I think about it, his reasoning makes sense as well. Therefore, it is fair play for me to post this new image; others who have commented above have had a chance to reply to this and still do; and nothing is etched in stone, anyway. Castncoot (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't gone through this discussion and weighed the arguments, but at a glance of the images before / after in the article, I like including both pictures. Morphh (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Castncoot, in the future you should give discussion more than a few hours before rushing to change a long established item so people have a fair chance to express disagreement. A counterargument (one that doesn't necessarily involve supporting jihadist terrorism) would be that the 9/11 attacks weren't just about a couple of buildings. They were far more important and defined this era. While the construction of a new building at one of the attack sites is nice in keeping that real estate from being wasted, it's hardly an act of equivalent historical importance. It's even questionable how triumphant a symbol of New York strength it is given the bureaucratic delays, changing the name from a supposedly too charged "Freedom Tower" to "1WTC", and various other controversies. That said, I won't revert it because I personally like the picture's aesthetics and its size seems to fit better. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I must agree with you, VictorD7, as well as with Cadiomals indirectly, that this size is better than the way I had it before - thanks for the suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of the image of the new building. The 9/11 image is relevant to U.S. history overall as the events of that day instigated the War on Terror, undoubtedly an important aspect of U.S. and world history. By contrast, the image of the reconstructed building at the site, while perhaps visually appealing, is not appropriate to be included in this article, as the reconstructed buildings are simply not notable in the overall narrative of U.S. history. It is not "terrorist POV" to only show images truly relevant to U.S. history in the History section of the U.S. article. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The aesthetics are irrelevant to me as well. But simply omitting the reconstruction wouldn't tell the whole story (or complete the history) accurately. Castncoot (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It is true that omitting the reconstruction image wouldn't tell the whole story of the World Trade Center, but that isn't the goal of this article. This article is about the United States overall, not the World Trade Center. By your logic we should also include an image of the WTC before 9/11, and perhaps also under construction. Adding those pictures would indeed tell the whole story of the WTC, but this article does not have room for such images that do not directly pertain to overall U.S. history. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I second this, but for some reason User:Castncoot insists that the rebuilding at Ground Zero is of the same national significance as the attacks themselves. The reality is that the building of a new skyscraper in New York had no concrete direct effects or consequences on the rest of the US or the unfolding of its history the same way 9/11 did, other than the sentimental feeling that a "wound has been healed". Sentimentality, and not reason, has been the only justification for cramming a second image in there and the "terrorist POV" thing User:TheVirginiaHistorian came up with out of the blue when he/she never had a problem with it before sounds ridiculous. In the coming months when I and others have finished going through every section to clean up and qualify this article for Good status it will almost certainly be one of the first to go. Cadiomals (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent my or others' words or sentiments, Cadiomals. Speaking for myself only, the rationale here is that if the rebuilding of the WTC site were in some way incidental and unrelated to the destruction, and occurred simply because a valuable piece of real estate had become newly available, then the image should not be placed. On the other hand, because the rebuilding of the WTC was deliberately and qualitatively directed by the original destruction, especially with regards to height (1,776 feet - numerically the year of the United States Declaration of Independence), design, structure, security, and exact site location, and because the reconstruction effort was absolutely an effort of national significance, and with national (and international) media coverage for years - the reconstruction image here is absolutely essential, from accuracy, contextual, and "Good article" vantage points. Castncoot (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, people, understand that this is a building of federal significance, see this: [1]. Castncoot (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the problem with current events as "history". The image of the 9/11 attack is old news, the effort failed to have any lasting effect, it will go down as a contributing cause for war in Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq, not as a stand-alone event worthy of this amount of coverage in the sweep of American history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I think 9/11 had a much longer lasting effect on the general behavior of the US gov't and American psyche beyond the immediate consequences. But that's besides the point: in contradiction to your last statement, you still agreed that both images should be there and now say 9/11 is "old news". Have you changed your mind? Cadiomals (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Far from true, TheVirginiaHistorian. The entire security protocol of the United States (and much of the world) was transformed permanently by that fateful day. Castncoot (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that 9/11 as a military event altered the national consciousness. The same is true in that peculiar sense on September 17, 1862, for the Battle of Antietam with a combined tally of dead, wounded, and missing at 22,717 in one day --- an event which forestalled European recognition, military and naval aid to the Confederacy, and propelled Lincoln foreword with the Emancipation Proclamation. Are you suggesting ten times the text here for Antietam as for 9/11? Or is there a larger historical context to be found in this kind of summary narrative account, which would omit both Antietam and the 9/11 event as military history per se on the American psyche. You seem to be favoring more text for the Department of Homeland Security now, with a departmental seal for illustration?
This is the difficulty one has with current events as history, not enough time has lapsed for proper context. Maybe end contemporary history with the end of the Cold War, and then have a volatile "current events" section to end the series, limited to 300 words. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"Contemporary history," by definition, is a section that will be expected to change with time, Cadiomals. 10 years from now, the section as it's defined, "1991 - present," will no longer even validly carry that particular time frame definition. What really counts as "contemporary" is that which has happened recently. So if you want to avoid WP:RECENTISM altogether, then it's silly and hypocritical to even include a section titled "Contemporary history" that in fact worships recentism. Contrapositively by logic, if you're going to have a section entitled "Contemporary history," then welcome recentism with open arms in this section.
Given the premise, then, of including a contemporary history section, both the destruction and rebirth stemming from 9/11 need to be included. Plain and simple.

Castncoot (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The destruction of the WTC is an important historical event. The reconstruction of a building in its place is not. walk victor falk talk 14:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
What's the rule here now? Can Victor Falk simply take down an image, without allowing any discussion from others for consensus, after an apparent consensus was achieved to keep it up (Users Castncoot, TheVirginiaHistorian, Morphh, and - lukewarm - VictorD7)? Castncoot (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, since there was (slight) majority support for it, he can't take it down. But he adds +1 to the list of people who are against it, which now includes me, him and Philpill. I ignored it since I'm obviously not a fan of the image arrangement, but you would have the right to put it back up until more users voice their opinion and it becomes majority opposed. Cadiomals (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your note on that, and I will certainly abide by the same rules as well. Will place the picture back up for now and discussion can certainly continue. We all really should try, however, to figure out a solution here that satisfies most of the involved editors, because it is obviously a polarizing issue. Castncoot (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations for the economy section

NO ACTION
Consensus not to use proposed images (now collapsed).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[[:File:South San Jose (crop).jpg|thumb|A tract housing development in San Jose, California]] [[:File:Us housing.png|thumb|Clockwise from top left: The Breakers, a mansion of the Vanderbilts (Newport, RI). Public housing (Bushwick, Brooklyn, NY). Trailer park (West Miami, FL). Tract housing development (San Jose, CA)]] The montage is more representative of different types of housing in the US, and links to them in the legend. The old picture is by definition biased by showing only a single type of habitation, and as a thumbnail must anyway be clicked to be clear. walk victor falk talk 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey & discussion

First of all, thank you for your attempt at a good faith contribution. I meant no malice towards you in reverting your edits, I just feel it should be further considered before being implemented. The reason the tract housing image exists in that section in the first place is to illustrate a style of living mostly unique to the US. Public housing, trailer parks, and mansions are not unique to the US and exist in most countries, especially Western ones. Your montage might give a more "balanced" picture of life in the US but it would not be very notable for the article, which for the most part only has images unique to the country. Other country and city articles also only show unique architecture rather than generic buildings. Detached single-family homes in giant sprawling suburban housing developments are really only found in the US, with Canada probably being the only other country with similar housing. European countries are mostly too small and dense for such sprawl, with most Europeans living in conjoined homes with small or non-existent yards. Even giant Russia and China do not yet have the household wealth to build big homes like these, so most people live in apartment buildings.
If you and others really feel showing only one type of housing is biased or unbalanced, that image can be removed altogether and very little would be taken away from the article. Cadiomals (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, looks busy. The proposed one would be even smaller per housing type and harder to see. Besides, the current one looks like a roughly middle class development, and represents the type of housing that most distinguishes America from other parts of the world. Just about every country has mansions, slums, and apartments, but most lack the large, newly built suburban tract housing that's come to define the US middle class since the 1950s, at least in terms of proportional extent and home size. PS - Edit Conflict; I see Cadiomals stole my thunder. VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The wider diversity of vistas is a more accurate representation of the median experience of Americans. The majority of Americans do not live in the suburbs in McMansion-sized cookie cutter subdivisions, even if it is a reasonable statistical mode. EllenCT (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If tract housing is such a peculiarly American phenomenon, it would be an argument for inclusion in the United_States#Culture section, it doesn't illustrates the "Income, poverty and wealth" sub-section. walk victor falk talk 14:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't believe a montage is appropriate for a subsection of an article. See the "Government and politics" section for an example of how multiple images can be used successfully. --Jleon (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I also do not believe montages should not be used in the body of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks too cluttered. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose montage Any single high quality picture is fine, even if it does not show a spectrum of diversity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Montages are really quite useless on small screens as found on cell phones, and look busy even on large screens. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name of USA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The USA is now sometimes referred to as the Occupied States of America, because what was once a united group of states regulated by a federal government has become a subservient group of states occupied by the federal government. I think we should reference that it is now sometimes referred to by its citizens as the Occupied States of America. FYI, it is not an opinion that its citizens refer to the country as the Occupied States of America. That is a fact. Whether they are correct or not is opinion, but that they do say it is a fact. Pittpnthr (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)pittpnthr

The Articles of Confederation was superseded by the Constitution of the United States, by We, the people of the United States, in state ratification conventions. The Constitution makes plain that the Constitution and the laws of Congress (the federal government) are the supreme law of the land, --- and the officers of the USG, as well as state executive, legislative and judicial officers, swear to uphold that supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, in compliance with that U.S. Constitution. It matters not what a WP:FRINGE suppose on their blogs. When there was a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the provision, a Civil War settled it, the Union is "settled law" in the United States, any other theorizing is moot. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
These kinds of trolling posts by IPs and new users should be ignored as they are not serious about making improvements to the article. I'm not entirely sure if this should be removed or just hidden? Cadiomals (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
At least it's an obvious troll attempt. More dangerous are the relatively subtle ones. VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

image changes

@Mark Miller: You seem to be making a lot of the image changes on the basis of them having "no context" to the section. While I may end up agreeing with a few image changes, if you can be patient I can add "context" (such as mention of significance within the body) in order to keep some of those images, many long standing. In addition, not all images need to have a direct mention within the body of the section in order for them to be completely relevant to the section. For example, images of the university, health center, and stock exchange remain totally relevant even if they aren't fully elaborated on, but I can still make some additions to the body. I think we should take it slow, so I just made a sweeping revert because I feel you made too many changes too quickly. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't edit war over what you do or do not like. That was not appropriate as all my edits were to image use policy. I am reverting that.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Mark, with all due respect, all bold edits can be reverted if they are disputed per WP:BRD. This is completely in line with Wiki policy and I think you need to respect it and participate in discussion and dispute resolution like everyone else. Cadiomals (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, I suggest your review BRD. You don't get to revert another editor's work just because you don't like it. You must have a reasoning per policy and guidelines and not based on what you like or don't like. It is NOT in line with policy to force editors to discuss something before they do it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
None of the images are in violation of copyright or non-free use so as to warrant immediate removal. As I have repeated before, many are long-standing. You absolutely need to discuss such sweeping changes first to get consensus and input from other editors and it is very sad if you are willing to edit war over it because you don't want to follow the rules like everyone else and don't have free reign over what you can change in the article. I asked you to be patient as I find ways to give the images context but it is clear you aren't. Cadiomals (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Look, if you want to spend the time to add the context and return images with the proper context that is absolutely fine. Bu without context these images should be removed or the context added. Stop working with personal opinion. Collaboration means that if you feel the context can be added then you are welcome to add it not edit war.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It absolutely does not work that way. Everyone has the right to revert bold sweeping changes as long as there is no outright severe violation of copyright, plagiarism or non-free use. Your distorted interpretation of Wiki policy is very confusing. Nevertheless, I am following the three revert rule to not get in trouble so if you revert me again you will be the one in the wrong by edit-warring over sweeping changes you made and I will contact an administrator to resolve this. Cadiomals (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
By insisting that we do it your way under weak justifications you have made it easy on yourself, but because I don't want to prolong this I will have to do it your way. Clever but not at all in good faith. Cadiomals (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't "my" way. This is how Wikipedia has worked since the day I registered in 2007. Bold edits do not need to be discussed first and reverting another's work needs to have justification beyond what one likes or doesn't like. Also it is indeed considered "wholesale" reverting to revert everything. There were some images that were removed for more than just image use, but because they made claims that are not accurate. You also reverted the removal of claims made with non RS, and additional copy editing to add more context to other images.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I support Cadiomals' reverts. While bold editing doesn't require discussion first, it's a good idea for significant changes on high traffic articles, and you can't suddenly change most or all of the article's long standing images and expect it to stand. If there are legitimate complaints these things should be discussed one at a time. I restored a couple of pictures myself, including the Cold War one erroneously described as lacking section context. I haven't had time to examine the whole page yet, but I might restore some others too if they're still gone. VictorD7 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can. And just reverting over what you feel is a good idea is the same as the other editor, but now that there is a second editor fighting this I will simply stop for now and return to this after dinner. And to the other editor, this content dispute does not have enough discussion to take to DRN and I will not be participating at this time. Every edit I made was to image use policy. Images are not meant to be simply illustrative.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Your highly specific "criteria" for what images can be allowed, based on your idea that they must be directly and specifically referred to in the body rather than just be relevant to the topic, I did not find any semblance of in WP:IUP or WP:MOSIM and you have not pointed to specific pieces of text from those pages to support your assertions. The images are both illustrative and highly relevant and educational. I took this to the DRN because I want an admin to clear this up for both of us and clarify how the policies should be interpreted and whether or not the images really violate the policies. Cadiomals (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I have dinner to make...but...YES IUP does indeed state what I am saying about context and...DRN is NOT an admin noticeboard. I am a volunteer there and I am also a major contributor to BRD and have been very active on Wikipedia with images image use, and non free images. I have grown tired of your inability to get a the point. But again...please get your facts straight before you continue this discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
So I have no idea what I'm talking about? Why don't you point to (as in, copy-paste) points from WP:IUP and MOS:IMAGES that specifically back up your assertions that every image in an article must have a direct, specific mention in the body? I have pored over those articles to try to prove myself wrong. And yes, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a completely appropriate place to have admins and others help resolve a dispute regarding article content. Let me start: IUP states that an image should "should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." In what way does the bland, monotonous facade of the US Department of Education "increase the readers understanding" of education in the United States over the unique neo-classical and colonial architectural elements that are characteristic of universities across the eastern US? "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text" and "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic"... where does it say that that the specific subject of the image needs to have a specific and direct mention within the body? Don't get angry and lash out at me because you've been backed into a corner in terms of your distorted and narrow interpretation of these policies. Cadiomals (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL! DRN is for content disputes. Admin do not run it or over see it. It is a volunteer area like WP:RS. You are not collaborating or interpreting anything properly. You have not backed anyone into a corner. You are simply being disruptive and working around policy to get what you want. Saying "Holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about, do you"? is not lashing out. It is pointing out my perceptions of your shortcomings in this discussion and what I see as attempts to manipulate wording for your own needs. Sorry, but this is an OLD policy and it is accurate. Images must be relevant to the article. Sorry if you simply refuse to understand that but this is an encyclopedia not your personal web page where you can do whatever you want.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"LOL"? That is a really professional way to behave and will really elevate your position in the eyes of other editors. This is a content dispute. I am done discussing this with you and repeating the same things as you regress further into childish responses. Every single image in the United States article is completely, 100% relevant to the content of the article and the sections they are in. It is ironic that you would call me "disruptive" since you were the one attempting to remove relevant long-standing images that have been here for years without anyone saying it violated anything, and replacing some with images of less educational value. As you have failed to specify using copy-paste how the image policies back up your specific assertions, that says quite enough on its own and I am not going to repeat myself. I will simply await others' input and so far two others have backed me up. Cadiomals (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
When its funny...I laugh. You have messed things up here so badly I do find it funny. I am not here to "elevate my position in the eyes of other editors" and you have a lot of nerve mentioning professionalism or guidelines when you began this fucking discussion by violating one of our policies of NPA by creating a discussion of me in the header of this "discussion" and then not getting the point that you are also violating image use policy and dancing around what that policy says. I am preparing dinner. When I have finished eating...I will be sure to go over every policy and guideline you have violated, misinterpreted or just blown off. All your words and text say very little. Why should I be rushed to do your bidding and research for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And you also stated that you didn't violate 3RR on that dispute form. You don't understand that brightline rule either. I'll get to that later.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way...irony is your telling me to be patient in your first revert and then taking this to DRN within an hour of making this thread and then becoming impatient when I didn't copy paste at your request. That is irony.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, lets look at your claim on the DRN filing, that you didn't cross the 3 revert rule:

  • First revert [2] at 00:37, 8 April 2014.
  • Second revert [3].
  • Third revert [4].
  • Fourth revert [5].
  • Fifth revert [6] at 14:41, 8 April 2014.

There is no doubt that you crossed 3RR and without an exemption for policy reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I just had a very detailed post about all of the things you did wrong or violated policy or guidelines but, the Wikipedia servers went down momentarily and everything was lost. I will redo the post and have it up by tomorrow night as I am off to bed (shortly at any rate) and will be traveling tomorrow. But I will get back to this.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me tell you in advanced if you don't want to waste any more of your time: You are not an admin, I have spent enough time on this site to know how to properly behave and abide by guidelines and as such I couldn't care less what you have to lecture me about. I have contributed to an astronomical improvement in the quality of this article in recent months and I don't need a holier-than-thou random prancing in here telling me I don't know what I'm talking about or doing. I don't need a hypocrite who swears at and insults me and regresses to immature language when they are frustrated telling me not to use personal attacks. In the discussion of content below there are already several people either disagreeing with or at least questioning your viewpoint. When I said I didn't violate the 3RR rule it was for those first three sweeping reverts, but when you again reverted one of my edits under bogus justifications (which no one agrees with), I thought "screw it". In this case you would have have violated 3RR too. So if an admin feels I have broken rules and need a block or sanctions, they will do so, otherwise I won't hear a lecture from an equal who thinks they're better than me. I won't go around in circles with you anymore on this and allow the consensus of other editors to dictate what stays and what goes so we can move on. Cadiomals (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what I mean. What the (self editied) "frack" does it matter that I am not an admin? Like that is some special, privileged position or something. You aren't either. And that has absolutely no bearing on this...but it is telling about your attitude. If you know so well how to behave then STOP edit warring over what you just want. Only revert when you have an absolute policy or guideline you are adhering to. You need the lecture from someone and if not me...eventually you will be before an arbcom discussion that will be accepted. You bullshit about 3RR is just that. Bullshit. You very much violated that brightline rule before you scurried away to DRN way before you should have is just the most absurd thing I have seen written on Wikipedia in a long time. If you know so much about our polices and guidelines than I am sure you know that any revert of content on a single page within a 24 hour period is a violation of one of the few real rules we have. You violated it so quickly and without any regard that it was truly fascinating. Admin do not float around looking for issues but dude...don't dangle ANI in front of me and think it aint an option for your behavior. I don't think I am better than you so shut the fuck up with that crap. You are an editor like everyone else, including me, but you seem to have an issue with honesty or...at the very least...accuracy. You keep saying you are done but you still keep chiming away. Try not reverting others for your own desires and wants and you will be just fine. Move on? Something tells me we shall meet again in a more formal setting. You can't unclench, that is for sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've said my piece to you and that's it. I have a feeling I won't be getting in any sort of trouble any time soon, let alone anything that involves you, but if you want to carry on such wishful thinking it doesn't affect me. I can only chuckle at your hypocrisy given your recent violation of the "brightline" 3-revert rule just now with AbelM7, and of course your continued swearing, immature language and personal attacks towards me. Actions speak louder than words, and given that your actions have been completely incongruous with your words I can only take you less and less seriously. This is my last reply to this thread and I will only ever address you with regards to content if it is needed. As for the images at the core of this issue, we let editor consensus decide and so far I don't mind the results :) Cadiomals (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You've said a lot of pieces and you still have no fucking idea what you are talking about. I don't believe you here simply because you just spout off on whatever you want and then say it's the last time you'll address me. This is about your 5th comment about no longer addressing me. Anytime you are ready to shut the fuck up would indeed be welcome. I see you "chuckled"...that is the same as "LOL". You be pretty funny to me. Cool about those results.....see what happens when you actually attempt discussion instead of attempting to be a pain in the ass with wholesale reverts to place the article back into your preferred version.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment A good caption legend can be just as informative and encyclopaedic as any body text (and often more concise and striking thanks to the possibility of semiotic interaction with the illustration.) walk victor falk talk 00:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • This is not clear and could be a grey area except that if the image fails to be relevant to the content it still fails image use policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Could the pictures on question be provided here so that other editors may judge for themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes. Don't forget to sign your posts though. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • While those that return or add content either for the first time or after a deletion are responsible for the burden to demonstrate the content is verifiable and this actually does count, I will go ahead and do that with any image returned that has not had proper context added. If there is sufficient context and relevance I will not bother with those images.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The nature of this conversation is not immediately apparent to me. Could it be summarized so that others could comment on it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:It started when I reverted his sweeping image changes because I thought they should be discussed one-by-one first, but he insisted that WP:BRD does not apply here because the images violated policy and needed to be removed/replaced immediately. I started a discussion here but it devolved into him accusing me of not knowing what the hell I'm doing or talking about, so I will not go in circles with him anymore on interpretation of policy and let the consensus from other editors speak for itself. It is apparent that his interpretation of the Image-use policy is that if the subject of the image does not have a direct and specific mention in the body of the section it is not "relevant" in his eyes. It doesn't matter if the image is related to the subject of the section.
While we have discussed removing or replacing some of the other images, the three big ones I could not wrap my mind around: his insistence that an image of a university has "no relevance" to the Education section because that specific university is not mentioned in the body; his insistence that the image of a law enforcement vehicle of the country's largest municipal police force is not relevant to the Law enforcement section because the section does not directly mention the NYPD; and his insistence that an image of the world's largest and most sophisticated medical center found within the US has "no relevance" to the Health section because it does not specifically mention the health center itself. I have never in all my time here encountered such a narrow interpretation of the image policy, and if he went around trying to apply that to every article, even the Good and Featured ones, he would have endless work on his hands. Of course he will accuse me of misrepresenting him, but so far no one has agreed with him on his view of the policies in terms of those images and I and others insist that they are relevant; for the others we are discussing suitable replacements. Cadiomals (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't know if it is Cadiomals's intention to lie of if perhaps it is simple competence issues, but I wouldn't take anything he says about others as accurate. I made a number of valid edits based on image use policy to prepare the article to be nominated for GA. Cadiomals made wholesale reverts of everything including the removal of non RS. He just blindly reverted and demanded I discuss first before I make edits, which is in no way a policy or guideline. BRD was his excuse, and has nothing to do with this. BRD is not a license to blindly revert editors work just because you don't like it and one cannot make demands on any article to discuss first. it isn't DBR. The discussion below shows that some agree with image removal and some would like some to remain, but even Cadiomals has stated multiple times that the context can be added he just wants to demand slowing others down because he can't seem to keep up. We don't edit at the whim of Cadiomals.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of credibility, Mark Miller, you have yet to retract your false statement at the top of the Cold War section that Reagan isn't mentioned in the section when he clearly is. VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

First sentence text flow

The first sentence:

"The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), the States or simply "America"

Has been edited in a manner that does not flow well. The meaning of US is "United States", so the logical flow of the text should be "(U.S.), the States" and then a singular word would truly be "or simply "America".

Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC):

Simple solution: Remove "the States" and end any conflict. AbelM7 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Not as simple as you seem to think.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would you remove "the States"? It's used widely enough to warrant addition in my opinion. I also want to inform both of you of nearly edit warring and WP:3RR. Bluefist talk 06:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Noted, but let me also remind you that reverting with no apparent reasoning is not acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What is this in reference to? Bluefist talk 06:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
AbelM7's first change. It simply made no sense and goes against reasoning.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it should be changed back to the previously agreed upon revision. I don't think you should do it though, if you do it again you might get reported to WP:AN3RR. Unless @AbelM7: could explain further why he felt it necessary to change it. Bluefist talk 06:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm...and this is an editor who recently tried lecturing me on breaking the "brightline" 3-revert rule and that I would get in trouble for it. Actions =/= words... but of course when Mark does it, it's completely justified. Ay ay ay... Cadiomals (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is, and again, there are exemptions to the 3 RR, but of course what is most important to you is contantly bashing me. You are probably the most horrid editor I have encountered here Cadiomals, you don't understand how Wikipedia works and you pit editors against each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I wont. Although it isn't like edit warring on this page seems to matter to anyone...but maybe me and you.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
United States and America are synonyms for United States of America. The States is just a simpler way to refer to the country. AbelM7 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The simplest, easiest end to this dispute would be to remove the word "simply" altogether. United States of America and United States are both the "official" names of the country, while America and the States are both simplified names. Cadiomals (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If you can produce a reference for that I might be inclined to support that. Right now I agree with Bluefist.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You agree with Bluefist because he/she doesn't realize it was your edit on April 3 that changed the long-standing status quo of "or simply the States" in the first place and others simply ignored it because it was so minor. And I don't care about such a petty change either, so whatever. Cadiomals (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cadiomals: In that case, should we just revert it to "or simply the States"? Bluefist talk 16:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I agreed with Bluefist because they were correct and not because of some fantasy of what they may or may not have realized. I, unlike you don't make personal attacks.
"I, unlike you don't make personal attacks" - Cadiomals (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a fucking message board, facebook or a political forum. You have been violating NPA since this entire situation began. You started a thread naming me as the subject which is a clear violation of NPA. Look, you don't like me. Cool. I am not 3 years old. I don't care who likes me or not. But if you cannot cut this shit out.....I won't be standing for it much longer.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bluefist: If that is what you feel should be done as a neutral third-party, sure. That is how it was for several months after it was first added. Cadiomals (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The official name is the United States of America and is shorten to United States, America, US, and USA. The article had "or simply the States" before. It didn't even had "the States" at first. AbelM7 (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The colloquial expressions, "America", "the States" or even "Norteamerica" among a substantial Spanish-speaking minority can be be admitted as such in the introduction, as a matter of convention in country articles, right? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why not. Thanks for your input TheVirginiaHistorian nice to see you back!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
How about this as suggested by Cadiomals above? "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America or the States—" Bluefist talk 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
My objection is the text flow. USA stands for "The united States of America". The most common way to follow that would then be to mention the abbreviated version of that and than the "simple" version would be a singular name of "America". But I support the consensus, whatever that may be.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary history

I know this subsection is already short compared to the other ones, but we should still keep to the formula of "Big Picture" details only and avoid WP:RECENTISM, so a few detail removals are in order. This may involve the removal of the 9/11 image as it will become too big for the section and we can't shrink it down too much. But as it is the section is cluttered with images. I would like to point out that I removed mention of the assassination of Bin Laden as his death did not mean the end of Al-Qaeda or terrorism, so I wouldn't consider it "Big Picture". Revised version below:

After the Cold War, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001.[141] The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists under the leadership of Osama bin Laden struck the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people.[142] In response the U.S. government launched the global War on Terror, invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps.[143] In 2003 the United States and several allied forces launched an invasion of Iraq to engineer regime change there, beginning the Iraq War. American combat troops fought in the country for eight years.[145][146][147] In 2008, amid a global economic recession and two wars, the first African-American president, Barack Obama, was elected.[148] Cadiomals (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Propose replacing "George W. Bush administration" with "United States". This is not one of the few instances where we clearly need to mention a specific president's name.
I'll also throw it out there that we may want to reconsider mentioning Barack Obama here; we don't make specific note of John F. Kennedy being the first catholic president (which was once also considered a big deal), so why is it necessary to make specific note of the first African-American one? --Philpill691 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I can concur with your first statement but I do think the latter should be kept in. In the coming decades, as newer more profound events unfold, it may be considered inconsequential, but for now the election of the first African-American president still remains a highly significant event in most people's eyes as it exemplifies the nation's progress in terms of racial views. Removing it would be risky and almost certainly a step too far for many editors. Cadiomals (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Phil that no presidents should be mentioned in the Contemporary section. Bush and Obama are both important presidents, but their legacies are still in flux. I take the opposite view that Cadiomals does; in the unfolding of time one or more of the recent presidents may be deemed important enough to warrant inclusion here, but simply being the "first" of a group falls short at this detail level. The Obama mention is recentism. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
At the very least the Obama sentence should be shortened. The "wars" segment is frivolous and at least mostly redundant, and we don't currently mention economic downturns apart from the Depression and the general stagflation phenomenon (which was a special kind of downturn involving soaring inflation). The current dismal economy is discussed in the main Economy and Income sections. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Propose changing "The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world" to "The Internet became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world". This is much more concise. Also, it seems out of place to mention ARPANET; the Internet itself certainly is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article, but its origins are not. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason ARPANET is mentioned is because it gives context as to why that statement should be included in a history of the United States in the first place. Not every country article mentions the Internet in their histories even though most countries have been impacted by it, but the origins of the Internet are connected to projects within the US. Otherwise it seems like a generic statement that could be applied to all of the developed world during the 90s. Cadiomals (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but mentioning ARPANET still seems far too specific for this article. How about something like this: The Internet, which largely had its origins in the United States, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. This is more concise, and not overly specific. --Philpill691 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A few further changes

I feel as though the above changes, though quite helpful, did not go quite far enough in removing extraneous details. I have removed a few more details in the draft I have placed below. I think this draft makes this subsection's detail level more appropriate relative to the other parts of the History section.

After the Cold War, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001.[131] The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world.[132] On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people.[133] In response the United States launched the global War on Terror, which includes the ongoing War in Afghanistan and the 2003–11 Iraq War.[134][135][136][137] In 2008, amid a global economic recession, the first African-American president, Barack Obama, was elected.[138]

Specifically, this draft removes:

  • the remaining mention of Osama bin Laden; we don't mention that the Japanese forces at Pearl Harbor were under the leadership of Chuichi Nagumo and Isoroku Yamamoto. From a historical perspective, this really is no different.
  • details of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. We provide no such detail level in mentions of previous wars of similar scale.
  • the wikilink to the George W. Bush administration; we don't link to other presidents' administrations during mentions of national actions.
  • "and two wars" as we already mention them, and based on the wording of the previous sentence, any reader can understand that the wars were still ongoing in 2008.

I thought it would be best to check in with others before I make these changes. Please tell me what you think. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I support these changes, though I still think we should lose the Obama sentence altogether. It was perhaps the most salient example of presidential recentism in the section, so it would be a shame if we went though all this just to leave it. VictorD7 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with these changes, except there's the issue about the shortest History subsection having the only double-image, and Castncoot insists on keeping both with support from a couple others. If the section is shortened to this little both images would ideally have to be removed as they would not even fit anymore without pushing into the next section, which would be further disputed. With these current complications it is probably not the best time for further shortening, but it will definitely be kept in mind for finalized changes in the future before I plan on submitting it for a GA review. Cadiomals (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll note that if we follow previously agreed on plans, we would probably be adding a population update sentence soon (maybe the 2010 Census count). As for the picture, shrinking would be an option of necessary. Not ideal, but better than keeping bloat that should be trimmed. VictorD7 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
In conjunction with the addition of other earlier population mentions, I propose the following be added to the Contemporary section:
By 2000 the United States had a population of approximately 281 million.
--Philpill691 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have implemented the summarizing changes. I have not added the population mention as a clear consensus for that has not yet emerged. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Internet

The old sentence:

  • The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world.

As Philpill691 says above, it's overly specific. I propose the following same-sized sentence instead of the current one, to better explain the impact of the internet on society, culture and the economy in a sentence of the same length and including linking to relevant articles:

Oppose change. That sentence is even longer, and loses its purpose by not mentioning the internet's origins, instead containing a cryptic reference to what it was "limited to" that might leave readers' scratching their heads. That's not an improvement. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But the real weakness of the original sentence is the second, which is vague to the point of almost non sequitur. "The Internet spread". You know another thing that spread during the 90s? Lumber jack shirts. It doesn't say why or how, or if it had any importance or on what or who whatsoever. The only informative value is on the origin of the internet, which is a technical aspect much more pertinent in the science section and already done there as user:Philpill691 does and thus entirely redundant. And redundancy is the last thing we need in a busy article such as this one. walk victor falk talk 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually "spread around the world" is appropriate for this detail level, which is a very rough summary, as a glance at the rest of the History section shows. People using the internet already know what it is. The information given is the timing. There's no law against mentioning a word like "Arpanet" in more than one section, but if that goes the alternative would be something like Phil's earlier proposal: The Internet, which largely had its origins in the United States, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. That's concise and points out that it had its origins in the US, which is the sole rationale for including the internet in a country article history section. We certainly don't need a longer sentence that contains less critical info. VictorD7 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, I understand your point about origins; what about:

The Internet, originating in academic and US defense networks, spread to the public through the World Wide Web in the 1990s, impacting greatly the global economy, society, and culture.

walk victor falk talk 04:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to change it we should shorten it per Phil's suggestion, not make it longer. We don't need "World Wide Web", or to spell out its impact. This is mostly about identifying the timing.VictorD7 (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
ok. walk victor falk talk 21:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That looks fine, though maybe "US" should be moved from before "defense" to before "academic", since the original universities were American too. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that ARPANET is already mentioned in the Science and technology section. I don't think we should mention it twice. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Before getting too deep into this, I would suggest going down and doing some supporting work in History of the United States (1980–91) and/or History of the United States (1991–present). At present there is no material in these supporting articles that you can summarize. ~KvnG 14:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Great Recession of 2008

I have been informed that some editors are against the inclusion of the historical recession is wp:recentism. I would like to clarify if references to it belong in the section or if it should be removed. walk victor falk talk 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep More than half a decade ago in no longer recent, and it's without a doubt one of, if not the, most significant event of our times. walk victor falk talk 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, really significant in the long view of things, significant enough to usher in a new era of federal regulation in an attempt to bring about transparency, fairness and competition in the face of global challenges and international shadow banking. The experiment in deregulation of financial markets broke at a huge cost to the U.S. and international economies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There's been more desire to remove the Obama mention as recentism than the ongoing downturn, despite no other economic downturns being mentioned apart from the Depression and the stagflation era (a distinctive phenomenon), so maybe the "great recession" should have its own sentence, one that mentions the ongoing downturn since the recession's technical end in the first half of 2009 that has really made it so notable. A sharp recession lasting around the postwar average (as the "great recession" did) by itself wouldn't merit inclusion here. The sustained economic stagnation and falling median income is what makes this era economically notable. Of course many disagree with the contention that it was a failed "experiment in deregulation" as much as a consequence of excessive government intervention, but this wouldn't be the appropriate article to get into differing causal interpretations. VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The USA is not a superpower

It's not a superpower, take that part out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanxBorealis (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DO you have reliable sources that claim that it is not? --Jayron32 18:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's just ignore the trolls so this can be archived in due time. Cadiomals (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a minor mistake in content

Under the "Government and Politics" section, the last sentence of the second paragraph says that there is no proportional representation at the federal level. This is wrong, and I want to edit it for a class I am taking as homework assignment. The problem is that I am not confirmed and this page is semi-protected. Check my source. <http://www.house.gov/content/learn/>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickipedia (talk • contribs)

You appear to confuse the fact that districts of roughly equal populations each get one member of the House of Representatives with the concept of "proportional representation" where multiple candidates are elected, more or less, in proportion to the vote their party receives in an election. The two uses are different in nature, which can be confusing to those in Europe who are used to having a arty which receives 5% of the vote being guaranteed some representation, while in the US this is not the case. Collect (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we should consider ways to tweak it for clarity, since the Euro-centric political science buzzword can be confusing and since Americans are proportionally represented in the House, even if the parties aren't. The election winner doesn't just represent those who voted for him, but his district. Also, we should consider whether it might be best to move the sentences in question......In almost all cases, executive and legislative officials are elected by a plurality vote of citizens by district. There is no proportional representation at the federal level, and it is very rare at lower levels..........from the Government intro to the Parties and elections subsection, where it would fit nicely after the second sentence: The United States has operated under a two-party system for most of its history.[233] For elective offices at most levels, state-administered primary elections choose the major party nominees for subsequent general elections. <insert here> Since the general election of 1856, the major parties have been the Democratic Party, founded in 1824, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
VictorD7's proposal is promising. The tweak for clarity revolves around the difference between a) proportionate party scheme representing parties in the nation versus b) single member district scheme representing people in places, first the states, then communities in each state.
The Founders did not want to promote parties, as parties were seen as the principle means of corrupting the British constitutional forms of government. But in our day, parties have corrupted redistricting procedures in the states so that Congressional and state legislature districts reflect parties, not places, creating "safe seats" apart from places of community in traditional county boundaries, watersheds or along interstates which bind people into communities.
The key modifier for clarification would concern the places still apportioned by community, "among the states". Stated positively, the distinction is drawn by saying, "The American people are represented proportionately among the states in the House of Representatives by a decennial reapportionment according to population. In the Senate, two senators are elected from each state for six-year terms, their terms are staggered to reelect a third of their number every two years to coincide with the House elections." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you think the article should reflect the extent to which US election outcomes are influenced by gerrymandering? EllenCT (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
As there is no actual definition of what "gerrymandering" is -- and a great number of odd-shaped districts are court-mandated, what would you use as an excuse for such a claim? Collect (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Do any dictionaries agree with your premise? In any case, my question was to User:TheVirginiaHistorian. EllenCT (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Um -- posts on an article talk page may be answered by anyone -- you do not get to choose who will respond to your posts. And I am surprised you were not aware of mandates for "minority control districts" which are generally ill-configured. The sources for such court mandates are not dictionaries but learned treatises, which I trust you will accept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This is too much detail to mention. The U.S. is an extremely complex subject and we only have a short page. TFD (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Gerrymandering in the United States rates a top hat note See also. Many attribute the partisan "gridlock" nationally and in the states to gerrymandering crafting only single interest or party voting bases --- voters who then elect extremist representatives voting "no" on everything but their favorite hobbyhorse, regardless of the general interest or of the long term interest of each community, state or national. The anomaly, not to say perversion, results in representatives who refuse to deliberate with other representatives so as to accommodate the interests of any citizens unlike their narrow gerrymandered base.
I propose that the article Gerrymandering in the United States rates a top-hat note in the section as a "See also" just below the "Main article" top hats in the in the section Parties and elections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Still work to do

In addition to whatever adjustments and sourcing/wording cleanups we do, I'll note that we still need to figure where and how to reinsert the Washington and Lincoln mentions, as well the population updates. The Lincoln mention should probably include his party, since we established but never updated the earlier party system with this segment: From 1820 to 1850, Jacksonian democracy began a set of reforms which included wider male suffrage, and it led to the rise of the Second Party System of Democrats and Whigs as the dominant parties from 1828 to 1854. VictorD7 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln

I agree with you that Lincoln's mention should include his party. Let me throw this out there as a possible replacement for the current second paragraph in this subsection (excluding refs):
Abraham Lincoln of the relatively new Republican Party, which largely opposed the spread of slavery, was elected as president in 1860 with negligible support from Southern states. Beginning soon thereafter, conventions in thirteen states declared secession, then formed the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians.
--Philpill691 (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Or, "The Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln on a platform opposing the spread of slavery. He was elected as president in 1860 with negligible support from Southern states..." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Or: "In 1860 Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party ran for president on a platform opposing the spread of slavery, and was elected with negligible support from Southern states..." --Philpill691 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a slightly shorter alternative, though I could live with any of your proposals too:
Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, conventions in thirteen states ultimately declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians. VictorD7 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I like it, though I would remove the word "ultimately" and perhaps add the word "Southern" after "thirteen". --Philpill691 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Some qualifier such as "ultimately declared", "purportedly declared", "assumedly declared" is required, since both Missouri and Kentucky had ordinances of secession passed by rump minority factions of their legislature, but those Confederate shadow "governments" were in absentia from the early months of 1861, traveling out-of-state with Confederate armies for the duration of the war with no de facto administrative jurisdiction in those places. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were slave-holding states whose people remained represented in the U.S. Congress the entire war voted in by free elections in the regular polling places. While Kentucky and Missouri on the other hand, had pro-Davis army-elected slates of representatives in the Confederate Congress voted in without opposition. see Kenneth Martis in The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not necessarily wedded to "ultimately" but added it for the reasons TVH laid out. I didn't want us to imply that all those conventions voted for secession between Lincoln's election and the war's outbreak. I'm not sure we need "southern" since the previous paragraph focuses on the "north"/"south" divide, but I'm not opposed to adding it either. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been toying with adding a clarifying sentence that would have the segment read...Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, seven states declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. After hostilities commenced four other states joined the Confederacy, while two closely divided states had delegations in both governments. The ensuing war....
Or would that be too much at this detail level? On the up side it would hint at the "brother versus brother" aspect of the war that threatens to get totally lost with the pat emphasis on sectionalism. VictorD7 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Each southern state has its own pockets of Unionism, mostly in uplands and mountains. (Fantasies of guerrilla movements in the mountains require a sympathetic population, that it precisely where the population was not sympathetic to rebellion.) Rather than count the states with Resolves of Secession, why not simply link to the Confederacy at this level of summary account? "Rebelling states formed the Confederacy and fought on until spring, 1865." --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
That might be too short, and I'm not sure how it would integrate into the paragraph. I'll take your reply to mean you do think the extra clarifying sentence would be too long then. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Until and unless we can come up with further changes, I figure we should adopt an approach of minimal change to get Lincoln in. I'm close to implementing this:

Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, conventions in thirteen states ultimately declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians.

It mostly keeps what's already in place. Does anyone have any objection? VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Added with a minor tweak eliminating a comma. VictorD7 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Washington

I figure it might be easiest to tack the Washington sentence to the end of the Constitution paragraph, following the Bill of Rights sentence. I think it's important to identify him as the revolutionary army leader and first president. I also think we should mention his precedent setting voluntary relinquishment of power, since that was such a departure from how things were usually done in the world at the time, and highlights one of America's major contributions to global political development. Here's a two sentence proposal:

George Washington, who had led the revolutionary army to victory, was the first president elected under the new constitution. He set numerous precedents that shaped the country's future, including voluntarily relinquishing power after serving two terms, a rarity in the world at the time.

Thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we'd want citation for the rarity part, as well as a link or source mentioning the other precedents. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but since all this stuff is basic and verifiable, I figured we'd agree on text first and then worry about sourcing if necessary. The more pertinent question is whether it's too long. VictorD7 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's just it. You say it's basic, but I'm unfamiliar with these other precedents. So I can't sign off on text that I don't know to be true. And I know it was a rarity in the world at the time, but just how rare? How many elected leaders even were there in the 1790s? In the entire time Washington was president, how many other leaders in the world voluntarily left power? It might be "a rarity" but it might also be completely unheard of. These are questions that need to be answered before I can sign off on the prose. --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The ideal of Cincinnatus was not upheld by enlightened despots of the day. Maybe we could use Gary Wills' book, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment? --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I am unsure myself as to the unprecedented nature of relinquishing power, either. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had already been doing so for quite some time. I will grant that was not their king, but there weren't exactly a ton of Republics kicking around at the time that come to mind. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It might be better to say that Washington established precedents important to the United States. Even if he didn't establish the voluntary stepping down principle globally, he did do so for the United States himself, in so doing helping to define the relationship between the national leaders and the nation itself. He also established things like civilian supremacy over the military in the United States through his deferring to civilian leaders as commander in the Revolution, and resigning his commission and disbanding the Army at the conclusion of the Revolution, rather than maintaining a post-war commander role. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"there weren't exactly a ton of Republics kicking around at the time" That's sort of the point. Heck, even contrast it with the French Revolution and Napoleon. There were calls to make Washington a king, which he rejected. There was sentiment among his officers, frustrated over ineptitude by the Continental Congress, to launch a military coup, which he defused. There were no presidential term limits at the time, so when an astonished King George III heard that Washington (the head of state, not the equivalent of the British PM at the time) was voluntarily stepping down from power, he said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." We take that for granted now, but it wasn't inevitable and was certainly a rarity (cautious language if anything) in the world back then. It'd be good if we could capture some aspect of that "Cincinnatus" impact he had in what admittedly little space we have. These characterizations are common in writing about Washington. I haven't read TVH's linked book, but it looks like it would probably be a good source. VictorD7 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and add the first sentence. I don't have time to dig up sources now, and don't have access to TVH's source, but if he or someone else wants to add some variation of the additional segment I'd likely support it. We should revisit this at some point since Washington deserves more mention than simply being the "first", but right now it's important to at least get the mention in. VictorD7 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I added it before the Bill of Rights sentence for chronological reasons. VictorD7 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Study that has determined the US is an oligarchy

Hello, there is this study that was posted on reddit that says the US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, I would like to know if this should be included in the article and within what context, keep in mind the study is not subjective, is scientific.

link-pdf

Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's subjective in construction, fringe in conclusion, and has no place in this country summary article. Plus, while not necessarily disqualifying, it's worth pointing out that the two authors are rabid partisans. For example, here's a column Page wrote for the far left blog alternet in early 2013 claiming that the impending sequester would lead to such a worsening in the economic crisis that "progressives" would have a golden opportunity in 2014 to "flush the GOP" out of majority status ("science"?). He's enthusiastic about this and encourages "progressives" to take out Republicans. His tone is that of an activist, and, if current trends persist, a deluded one on multiple levels. VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It is actually a review study of papers that have discussed the topic and will be published in Perspectives on Politics, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University Press. I do not know how that equates to fringe. The Koch brothers and George Soros each have more political influence than the average guy sleeping in a homeless shelter. I just think it is too detailed analysis for the article. TFD (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a fringe conclusion because most people wouldn't define "oligarchy" as a country where a billionaire has more political influence than a homeless guy. That's setting the bar in an interesting place. One can argue that a major network managing news editor has more influence than Soros and the Koch brothers combined. "Influence" is a slippery, subjective issue. Most people, even most political "scientists", describe the US as a "democracy", or at least a representative republic (a subset of democracy broadly defined) due to the electoral mechanics in place, regardless of the (sometimes paid) free speech people choose to consume or practice, or how much responsible diligence they apply when choosing whom to vote for or whether to run themselves. VictorD7 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any room for that kind of coverage in this particular article, which is meant to give an overview of everything including government; with the conventional wisdom being that the government of the United States is structured as a republic based on representative democracy because the people elect their representatives, who then make laws for them (theoretically) based on their interests and concerns. As such all republics are ruled by these "few" representatives and those who can successfully influence them, as our country was never meant by our Founding Fathers to be a direct democracy. There are plenty of decades-old opinions regarding who "really" has the power in America, there just isn't any room for them in this summary article, and the bottom line is that as long as Americans continue to have the ability to elect their representatives in free and fair elections, the country will remain explicitly labeled a democratic republic. Cadiomals (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
<Insert> Cadiomals, if you don't pitch in to help stop this the article will likely go down the toilet again. BTW, looks like my guess about MSNBC was right, lol. It got a media pop for a couple of days that brought the driveby propagandists and trolls out of the woodwork, but as long as we actively weather the storm it should fade away after a while. This one labeled the US transitioning from a representative democracy to an oligarchy a "minor" edit, so at least I guess he's not too broken up over it, though in fairness he's labeled all his edits that way.VictorD7 (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You may recall that when the U.S. assumed some of the characteristics of an oligarchy in the Gilded Age, the lack of responsiveness in the republic at the Congressional level led to a majority of the people's representatives in three-fourths of the states to remove election of U.S. Senators from the corrupt state legislatures. They placed U.S. Senate election directly in the hands of the people voting in the states by the Seventeenth Amendment.
This study is a useful wakeup call to expand the electorate and reform Congressional districting among corrupt state legislatures. It may not be appropriate to a summary conclusion in the sense of removing the characterization of the U.S. as a republic. But it might fit somewhere in "Parties and election". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting article, but as a primary source, difficult to incorporate into an encyclopedia that should defer more to secondary sources. In academia, there are all sorts of writing that can be pioneering and eventually become agreed upon, and other that fall by the wayside. It's probably too early to tell at this point whether the US is an oligarchy. Right now it's a democracy.Mattnad (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Scientific study? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It is actually a review of studies. I guess the fact scientists promote such theories as evolution, climate change, special relativity and smoking causing cancer discredits them. TFD (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay HiLo48, but it is a rigorous scholarly statistical study. I take it your objection is that significance is found at one standard deviation (64%) in the social sciences versus three standard deviations (99.5%) in the hard sciences? Nevertheless, mathematically rigorous statistical treatment of data have brought significant contributions to economics, political science, sociology and history (cliometrics). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
All of the studies' findings were shown to be significant at the p<0.001 level, including the main finding that the preferences of economic elite minorities are reflected above the demographic center of the same preference scales. If it passes peer review then I would be strongly in favor of inclusion, but at present I believe policy recommends including news media summaries of the story. EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Weinstein's use of "oligarchy" is far broader than most people understand the meaning. Here it is used to state that organized groups of people (corporations, special interests, unions etc.) wield more power than individuals - which is true in a d'oh way to just about every nation on earth. Normally, "oligarchy" implies power held by a small number of individuals, ho do not generally represent groups (here I note that corporations are "groups" as representing millions of shareholders as are special interest "groups.") Weinstein does not use the term in the traditional sense here, but notes something which is pretty obvious - groups wield more power than individuals, but using the term as a normal English word in Wikipedia's voice is simply misleading to readers. ( Most recently, Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of “Oligarchy,” in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection from Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizen) Some of that paper, in fact, appears to be opinion, such as its statement that pro-life and pro-gun groups favour policies opposed by average Americans, and that labour unions and the AARP favour policies favoured by average Americans, which would seem debatable.) All in all, I suggest we not use "oligarchy" as a term here as it appears to be used in a specific non-standard context. [7] makes a leap asserting an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious “electoral” “democratic” countries which is a strong redefinition of a term which is not the meaning assigned in the actual source. I suggest globalresearch.ca is likely not a reliable source as it makes claims which are not found in the source. Collect (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

New edit uses sources and states what they say without using the term of art "oligarchy" and also note that we do not use Wikilinks within quotations. Collect (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Collect's new edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the segment because it's inappropriate in any form and there's certainly no consensus for adding it. It's absurd that we're even having to discuss this. Perspective, people. This is a summary country article, and the Gov. section gives the basic, undisputed outlines of the mechanics of American governance. It's not a place for avant-guarde political opinion papers on niche aspects of American society that happen to get a recent pop in a few media outlets (Telegraph, maybe MSNBC?). Such opinions (which are totally wrong regarding the 2nd Amendment and pro life sentiment, not just debatable, and omit countless other issues and formulations of the issues they do cover) would be out of place and would open up the flood gates for counterpoints and commentary on other topics throughout the page. "Peer review" doesn't mean a conclusion is endorsed, particularly a highly subjective one contingent on contrived definitions. This is just a political opinion piece, not a claim about the atomic weight of chromium. It might merit a mention in more topically dedicated articles and sections, along with opinions on media/entertainment bias, the impact of ideology on the education system, and countless other topics inappropriate for this article.
While we're at it the segment on the so called "Democracy" and "Corruption" indices should be removed too (though I haven't done so since it was added a few months ago), for being a waste of space that transmits no useful information to the reader, using an opaque, highly subjective methodology (which includes secret judges), representing an obscure outfit's personal opinions, not appearing in most country articles I've seen, and other reasons I laid out here back when other responsible page stewards unfortunately weren't paying attention to the article getting wrecked. Such removal would certainly be more in line with the general sentiment in favor of streamlining than expansion and opening the floodgates to random political opinions would be.VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic remarks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I strongly disagree with VIctorD7 and have no confidence in his ability to accurately identify or summarize the reliable sources. He has repeatedly attempted to insert the same paid and inaccurate advocacy which leads to the state of affairs described in the study's findings. EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You are asserting that VictorD7 is "paid" to insert "inaccurate" information into Wikipedia? You have no confidence in his ability to identify and summarize reliable sources? Wow. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
<Insert> Ellen, you've been reported to the admin noticeboard ([8]). I gave you two fair warnings after you falsely accused me of being "paid" to edit before, but you ignored it and did it a third time. VictorD7 (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the personal attacks, Collect fairly represented mainstream scholarship which documents organized interest groups effect political activity and legislative results in the United States. Even the recent study shows two-thirds of interest group activity aligns with majority views in the nation, so most are mostly benign by the analysis of both the majoritarian and special interest schools of political science thought. It is not only the left that says activists capture innovative legislation. FOX news suggests there may be something amiss with the Affordable Care Act based on their polling of the general population's understanding of it, and their "pop" reactions to it before implementation.
The idea is to fairly represent undisputed outlines of the mechanics of American governance, as you say, and voluntary organizations of various interest groups have had a say in that arena, at least since the observations of de Tocqueville in the 1830s. The reason that there is no formal oligarchy is because there is no permanent ruling group, there is not only upward mobility in America, there is downward mobility. But it is fair to say at any given time that various interest groups influence legislative outcomes in an activist way independent of majoritarian views at any given point. That is why Collect's rewrite is appropriate.
The beauty of a democratic republic over time, which is outside the scope of the study under discussion, is that the people can bring their own independent judgment on the consequences of innovative legislation, --- regardless of its genesis ---, by choosing a new government through frequent elections, which can then determine to extend beneficial innovations or to curb any untoward developments --- say deregulation of financial institutions in the 1990s, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Collect's rewrite would be preferable to the original version, but neither is necessary, and I suspect he added it as a last resort since at the time no one was helping him revert. The situation you describe exists to varying degrees in all free nations, so it would be frivolous to add to this already long summary article, especially since it doesn't optimally fit topically in the section and would invite similar niche opinion commentary on countless other issues in that section and elsewhere. VictorD7 (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Denmark is a free nation with effective public campaign finance and political preferences of leadership much closer to the demographic center of opinion. In that sense, they are more free than the US. EllenCT (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
In your opinion maybe, but opinions about the most "effective" campaign finance laws are beyond the scope of this country summary article. VictorD7 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been added back into the article apparently against the consensus[9]--71.170.100.11 (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed. Jansenlee has just added back a comment about the U.S. being an oligarchy which is not exactly what the study says. I merely observed in the discussion that we can take from it, that interest groups have influence at the initiation of legislation apart from the majority one-third of the time, which is what the study says.
The study is narrowly focused on decision making surrounding innovative legislation at the enactment of law, without any consideration of how unfolding regulations, administration or subsequent modification of the legislation takes place.
The consensus on Talk is clearly against adding the study at all -- just on technical or editorial grounds, -- never mind adding a misleading synopsis of it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no such consensus. Here is how the mainstream media has summarized the study:
  • "The wealthy move national policy, and average Americans are effectively powerless." -- US News& World Report
  • "policies supported by economic elites and business interest groups were far more likely to become law than those they opposed.... Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and the more recent McCutcheon v. FEC have made it easier for corporations and wealthy individuals to spend money for political purposes, which could increase their influence over elections and eventually policy decisions." MSNBC
  • "There can be no doubt that economic élites have a disproportionate influence in Washington, or that their views and interests distort policy in ways that don’t necessarily benefit the majority: the politicians all know this, and we know it, too. The only debate is about how far this process has gone, and whether we should refer to it as oligarchy or as something else." The New Yorker
  • "Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it. In contrast, the preferences of economic elites and interest groups — especially economic elites — are each quite influential, when the preferences of the other two groups are held constant." Vox
  • "the U.S. government represents not the interests of the majority of citizens but those of the rich and powerful." UPI
Any objections to those summaries? EllenCT (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I have already expressed my opinion on this above and won't repeat it again, but I second this. It is inappropriate to reassign such a label when the government's structure has not fundamentally changed at all. There is clearly consensus with several people against it and only 1 or 2 for these changes. Cadiomals (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"Several"? "1 or 2"? You can't count any better than you can follow WP:TALK re chronological ordering of comments. EllenCT (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what you say, the contentious source and its POV misrepresentation by editors within the article will not be re-added as long as several (at least six as of this comment) are opposed and there is no agreement as to how the source would even be accurately summarized/interpreted within the article. Cadiomals (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to including this. Aside from issues with the POV of this "study's" authors, it would be undo weight to include it an article that is supposed to present a broad overview of the topic. Calidum 02:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposed inclusion as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Governance

I object to this deletion because the facts are corroborated and it is in VictorD7's interest to suppress them in order to add a false veneer of respectability to his pattern trying to suppress the topic. EllenCT (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:AOBF.. Again Morphh (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I would normally refer to the very poor quality of the content, not the contributor, but in this case the pattern is clear and if VictorD7 wishes to seek dispute resolution because of my assertion, his recent edits to my talk page leave no doubt as to the outcome. EllenCT (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I object to the attempt to hat this section, because in this case, failing to communicate about the contributor's pattern and practice of poor contributions is likely to harm the article more than merely failing to revert him. EllenCT (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I gave clear, rational reasons in the appropriate section for my opposition to including the frivolous editorializing. This section is just a personal attack devoid of facts or merit, and should be closed or deleted. Your op isn't even a coherent sentence. I don't recall addressing this "topic" before (though I haven't gone back and checked), much less enough to establish a "pattern" of "suppress(ion)", and I won't bother asking how such suppression would enhance my alleged "veneer of respectability". VictorD7 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Charts

How do people feel about these charts? EllenCT (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A study by Larry Bartels found that Senate votes in 1989-1994 were more responsive to the opinions of high-income groups and were less and even negatively responsive to the opinions of middle and lower-class groups.[1]

How do these charts relate to the first theme of this thread? (E.g., "Scientific Study that has determined the US is an oligarchy".) With WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in mind, how might they be used? – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

To illustrate the subject matter you quoted. Are you able to read the legends and axis labels? Someone reduced their size considerably so please have another look. EllenCT (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it is absolutely fascinating stuff. --- I am currently reading "The American Senate: an insiders history" 2013 by Neil MacNeil (PBS, Washington Week) and Richard A. Baker (U.S. Senate historian, retired). --- but,
Oppose --- the charts are too deep into the weeds for here in a summary article. Where does the "Oligarchy" study and these charts belong? in a new section in United States Senate? The two charts now appear in Politics of the United States#Political pressure groups and the subsidiary article has a hat note link at "Parties and elections" in this article as it is. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - reading the actual study for the fists, high income is defined as $40K+ (about $60K in today's dollars which is close to the median income) and middle income is $20 to $40K. Plus, the charts are completely unclear on what's being measured which are results of regression analysis that need detailed explanation. On the low income columns, the confidence level is such that they could just as well be similar to middle income as not. They are confusing and misleading for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Not helpful – the threshold question (should portions of the article discuss oligarchy in the US) is difficult enough, and the paper presented (Gilens & Page) had little discussion about oligarchy per se.. Even if they did, seeking to describe the US as an oligarchy is fraught with problems. (Oligarchy implies corrupt and selfish governance.) This is a broad summary article about the US, not a platform. Also, including the charts presents SYNTH problems. (e.g. A = Gilens & Page say elites & business groups have influence; B = the charts show senators pay more attention to wealthy people; therefore C = the US is an oligarchy. (PS: clicking images allows for easy viewing.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course I am opposed to the inclusion of these vague, poorly-constructed charts from obscure sources which do not relay any actual concrete data, but that doesn't matter because there wouldn't even be any place in this summary article for these charts to be relevant enough to fit in anyway. I am at least glad discussion mostly remains on proposed content and not getting too far into a political forum, and that other editors are able to spot poor attempts at POV pushing and soapboxing; but it all still results in a waste of people's time. Cadiomals (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
[Moved up from bottom of page and de-sectionalized as this IP posting looks like a continuation of the ongoing discussion.] – S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Does the study have any scholarly citations in the citations indexes? It may be too recent for proper consideration. Has the study been incorporated in a scholarly, peer reviewed publication which can be used as a secondary source? The critique may be too new to be placed in proper context.
I still think a scholarly reliable source reference to influence of interest groups apart from the majoritarian view is appropriate, just not the 'oligarchy' term of art for innovative legislative "action" which does not take into account subsequent regulation, administration or succeeding corrective legislation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Deletion would have been more appropriate for obvious trolling, unless the IP address was looking for the "Murica" article and landed here by mistake. VictorD7 (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
We learn from the unscholarly "New Yorker", a) "The paper is a provocative one, and there’s sure to be a lot of debate among political scientists about whether it wholly supports the authors’ claims. One issue is that their survey data is pretty old" during a Republican administration. b) "Another issue is that, in a statistical sense, the explanatory power of some of the equations that Gilens and Page use is weak." even for a study such as this one. --- The upshot is that this 'oligarchy' study, from yet another source, does NOT meet the requirement at WP for an exceptional claim to have multiple reliable sources before it is introduced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What EllenCT did not mention is that I had removed these charts from Income in Equality in the United States for the various reasons people have opposed them here, which she then reinserted with large expansion relating to the recent Princeton paper. I imagine she was trying to create an informal RFC to justify her edits on other articles. Since this is topical, I encourage other editors to take a look at these other recent edits by EllenCT in Oligarchy, Plutocracy, and Politics of the United StatesMattnad (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding the same material to as many articles as possible is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. She well ought to initiate an RfC at the single article she finds most important, and abide by that consensus. This bit of using as many articles as possible in hopes that one set may "stick" is abhorrent. That she believes in BRRD for the exact same material in multiple articles may end up at AN/I. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
is there any reason to believe that the charts or text are inaccurate or inappropriate for a summary? EllenCT (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. They are a) primary research, b) non-notable, c) unclear in what they are really measuring (ie, High income, when examined, represents households with $40K+ income - not high income by most measures), d) partially dated, e) overweight POV.Mattnad (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Guess what the secondary reviews on the subject say. You've already read some of them, over at Talk:Government spending or Talk:Progressive tax. Better yet, look it up. EllenCT (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

US – in decline

This is in desperate need of incorporation in to the article:

US middle class no longer most prosperous in world; American dream fades as data shows middle classes falling behind Canadian counterparts

86.180.45.65 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Every time someone reads some single opinion piece or article that says "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT THE US IS WRONG" we don't have to incorporate it. Instead, we need to use only those sources which have widespread acceptance in mainstream scholarship, not singular studies or the dubious conclusions of a single journalist based on those studies. --Jayron32 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it an opinion piece or a WP:SECONDARY summary of this primary research? Do you have any reason to believe that the authors lack widespread acceptance in mainstream scholarship in any way? EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It isn't the requirement of anyone to prove the negative. If you want to include the information, you need to establish consensus that it is both based on reliable, mainstream scholarship (and this is also important) relevant, appropriate, and correct to put in this specific article (as opposed to another article, such as Economy of the United States. I don't see where either condition has been met yet. Even if I were to concede the first (I'm not saying I do, but I'm also not saying I don't), but the second condition doesn't seem likely. This is an overview article which doesn't need this level of detail. --Jayron32 23:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for proof, I was asking whether you have any reason to think, believe, or even suspect what you implied by what you wrote when dismissing the source. And why is the middle class loss of dominance not appropriate for an overview? I am also curious why you would suggest that anyone would think this falls under the category of "everything you know about the US is wrong." Are there any sources which say that the US middle class is the world's richest? EllenCT (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually the Income, poverty, and wealth section already has almost the same info regarding income and wealth distribution at a reasonable level of detail; there is no need for even more elaboration in this article as we have plans to streamline sections, not make them more bloated. Cadiomals (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
No. I read this NY Times "analysis" when it first came out and wondered how many days it would take for someone to post it here. The piece's easily spotted flaws include things like not mentioning immigration's impact, the impact of countries aging at different rates (older people almost invariably earn more money; the US has retained a higher birth rate than Europe), unemployment rate trends, other bias through omission (e.g. Sweden is singled out for praise and described as a "welfare state", with no mention of its center-right government engaging in multiple rounds of tax cuts and deregulation in recent years), cherry-picked dates, disingenuous peak to trough comparisons that skew trends and hide intervening growth, etc., and I haven't even yet examined it closely enough to judge whether its treatment of benefits like social security and medicare is internationally consistent (sometimes in these studies it's not), but Cadiomals is right. Its salient, most legitimate info is already covered in the article. Its own data shows that the US has a relatively high median income; higher than every European nation studied and even with Canada. That's already represented in the article more comprehensibly by the more reliable OECD source. The other point is that US median income has fallen dramatically in recent years, which is also already covered. Even the "inequality" theme is hammered hard more than enough in the section. Jayron32 is also right. We don't "desperately need" to rush to add every fresh headline. This isn't a breaking news page. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not from the NYT, it's from Harvard demographers in Luxembourg. EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The original story was a NY Times analysis of LIS data, the latter compiled specifically for the story in a manner requested by the NY Times. Not that it matters. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Including a "US is in decline" subsection, even as a small part of the broad description of the US economy, is fraught with problems. Mainly, we'd get POV pushing, soapboxing, and UNDUE, as editors fought over "is/isn't" & "why/why-not" issues. Moreover, such sub-sections do no fit in with suggested article layout guidelines found here. IMO no consensus is possible. Accordingly, arguing about sources, etc., is a waste of time. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we are not allowed to report on recessions or recession-like dips in other measurements than economic growth? EllenCT (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that as a recession is published in reliable scholarly secondary sources a summary country article should include it, such as the most recent Great Recession in the United States.
But since first figures are often revised 3-6 months after regardless of party in power, this article should not be disrupted by news reports parroting press releases -- they are without any scholarly citations in peer reviewed books or journals to their credit. Weekly current events reports are not substantial, high quality sources for use in a summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What claims from the proposed source are you suggesting might not be corroborated in your preferred high quality sources? EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I am for including something concerning inequality, gaps among the American population having grown wildly since the WWII generation began turning over the reins...attributed in part to the deregulation of the financial system and global financial trading, which is opposed altogether by some, said to be already accounted for by Cardiomals.
My point here and elsewhere is that I am for using a high quality source, one which has been used as a citation by more than one peer reviewed scholarly source such as a book or journal, versus more than one newspaper account uncritically reporting the study exists. Does this inequality study meet such a test? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
No, but other sources that do agree with it. Take the median individual or family income or asset values in Australia compared to the US since the 1970s, for example. There is nothing in the source which isn't in complete agreement with any mainstream summary of those statistics, including the highest quality sources available. EllenCT (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the exceptional

Exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. Both in 'Oligarchy' and 'Decline' above, there is a reliance on single, recent, primary research or news sources.

I propose an editorial bias here towards books of WP:scholarship as a standard for high-quality sources. a) secondary sources rather than primary research b) vetted by the scholarly community rather than news organizations. c) multiple scholarly citations in citation indexes rather than newly published papers. d) multiple high-quality sources for exceptional claims.

For a summary, country article, at the minimum, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, not merely the most recent news cycle media frenzy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. The article and Talk are disrupted by various forms of recentism. Too many short-term or incidental aspects of United States social, economic and political life are promoted in the country-summary level article. Without some sort of procedural guideline agreed to by community consensus they will continue to have the effect of disruption. Recent development updates of a characteristic which is substantiated in the literature is appropriate, such as GDP, but an innovative index without any scholarly citations is not appropriate, however promising it may be. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are all decades-long studies. What do you mean by recentism? EllenCT (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
No claims require more than one source. Using more than one source is a form of fact-checking. We use reliable sources that have already been fact-checked. While this may be a minor issue, lets avoid having multiple sources posted, when the real issue is not whether the claims are correct but whether they are of significance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
If a study has been around for decades, there should be some trace of it in scholarly citation indexes. If no scholarly publication picks up the claim, it probably is unreliable.
Multiple sources need not be posted, there just needs to be more than one author who has ever made the same claim. The media cycle echo-chamber is still reflecting only one study. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Are there any such sources supporting the idea that the US middle class has not declined from their previous dominance, or contrary to the #Charts supporting the oligarchy claims? Why is either claim exceptional? EllenCT (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The substantial sources previously attributed the United States with a substantial middle class superseding other national economies, do they not? If they do not, the discussion about the middle class should be removed. Until then, the assertion that the middle class has declined from that international status, based on one study unreferenced in the scholarly community, is exceptional.
The substantial sources previously attributed the United States with a democratic republican form of governance, do they not? If they do not, the discussion about the form of government should be removed. Until then, the assertion that the U.S. is now an oligarchy, based on one study unreferenced in the scholarly community, is exceptional. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
TVH, sometimes sources are wrong, but the way to prove that is to find subsequent sources that come to different conclusions. That a fact reported in one source has never been repeated may however mean that it is not significant. This "study" btw has not "been around for decades", it is being published in Fall 2014. And it is a review study, not a primary study. IOW it summarizes studies that have been carried out over the decades. TFD (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
A related but important theme - there's a reason that wikipedia guideline recommend using verifiable secondary sources. Primary research, including those summarizing other research to argue a new finding, should be used with caution. This Princeton study is a good example - it draws certain conclusions that have not yet had time to be evaluated by other experts.Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
No, they do not. See pp. 93-96 here for example. But why does that mean the discussion of the middle class must be removed? If the US middle class isn't the richest and hasn't been getting richer, then we aren't allowed to write about it? That is unbalanced in the extreme. Similarly the #Charts corroborate the findings of oligarchy. EllenCT (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Responding to your original question (decline of the middle class or oligarchy), the income of the middle class has certainly plateaued, and even declined in recent history. That can be readily demonstrated with reliable sources. What does not follow is that the middle class not longer dominant, or the US is an oligarchy which is really the issue that we are advising caution about adding based on a few, unconnected charts or the single Princeton paper. To summarize:
  • The Princeton paper is exceptional and it remains to be seen whether its conclusions are embraced by others (news coverage of same source does not count). It could be used in other articles such as Oligarchy, sparingly, as part of discussion that notes it's academic theory and not the conventional meaning of the term.
  • The charts are primary research, cover different periods and topics, and should be use with caution, if at all. My conclusion after reading the sources is that they are esoteric primary research and not appropriate for most articles except possibly small mention in prose when combined with corroborating secondary reliable sources.
  • Combining the Princeton paper with the charts to make the case that the US is an oligarchy is a perfect example of WP:SYN (once again) since no reliable source has made this same point, using the same or similar material.Mattnad (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the sources all reached the same conclusion. What are you saying has been synthesized? Can you find a source which says that the wealthy do not have more political power than the middle class in America? EllenCT (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not needed – our editorial bias regarding exceptional claims is already covered by WP policy. See: WP:REDFLAG. And consensus cannot trump policy. With these factors in mind, the editing analysis must turn on RS and DUE/UNDUE factors. If there is particular material that supports our WP:SUMMARYSTYLE presentation, then let's look at it in context. (Also, "exceptional" in the WP sense has fringe aspects to it (as per the See also.) In this case we do not have fringe claims to deal with, much less WP:FRINGE claims.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • A review study that summarizes the findings of other reports is not considered a primary source. See "Scholarship": "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." The view that we need to await a review study that reviews the review studies is disingenuous. Because then one could argue that one needs to await a review study of the review studies of the review studies. TFD (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources, the point of this thread. The unpublished study must have at a minimum one other concurring reliable scholarly source using it as a citation, before it is used here. Which is not to take away from the need to relate something in the narrative, properly sourced, about interest group influence, in my opinion.
From the New Yorker article we learned to take this particular study cautiously. a) "The paper is a provocative one, and there’s sure to be a lot of debate among political scientists about whether it wholly supports the authors’ claims. One issue is that their survey data is pretty old" during a Republican administration. b) "Another issue is that, in a statistical sense, the explanatory power of some of the equations that Gilens and Page use is weak." even for a study such as this one. --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Are those supposed to be reasons that the claim that the American middle class has been losing out to the rich politicaly and economically relative to Australia or Scandinavia is "exceptional"? It's been getting worse along a trend line far steeper than the tax code changes since 2009 has made it better. How many decades before it isn't recentism anymore? How many mainstream sources reporting on mutually corroborating peer reviewed studies before it's not exceptional or a red flag? EllenCT (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, concerned editors – how about suggesting edits along with supporting references. Then we can evaluate in context. These discussions about the tax code, middle classes, rich classes, oligarchy, etc. are interesting, but they should focus on article improvement. Right now it's impossible to get consensus because there is no issue to determine. – S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I just suggested an edit below. Please take your own advice and suggest an edit which would accurately reflect the decline in economic power and political influence of the American middle class since WWII. Incessantly trying to boss others around about policy while ignoring it yourself seems very much like intentional disruption to make a point of attempting to shout down other editors. I continue to await User:TheVirginiaHistorian's answer to my questions. EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Your "oligarchy" study wasn't internationally comparative and your NY Times income analysis shows Americans with a higher median income than Scandinavians. It didn't give the Australian figure. VictorD7 (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The oligarchy peer reviewed studies (plural) are all US-specific, and thus appropriate for this article, showing comparisons over time instead of with other countries, as exemplified by the #Charts above. Which NY Times source are you referring to? [10] on pp. 93-96 says median wealth in the US is $40K, compared to $194K for middle class Australians, $120K for Belgians, $82K for Canadians, $87K for Danes, $73K for Finns, $141K for Japanese, $62K for Dutch, $63K for New Zealanders, $79K for Norwegians, $41K for Swedes, and $115K for Brits. EllenCT (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I was addressing your "political influence" comments, which, unlike the source, were internationally comparative. My median income sentences referenced the NY Times income analysis behind the "Decline" proposal you've been supporting and commented on. Your Us Against Greed blog link here was to the half assed Credit Suisse "wealth" report, which is basically cheap advertising for the company, the many flaws of which I patiently explained to you months ago. Among other things it doesn't even adjust for PPP, the norm in international analyses. VictorD7 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Which source are you referring to as "the source" and "the NY Times income analysis"? And which developed countries have PPP coefficients of more than 10%? EllenCT (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
<Insert> Context clues. Try rereading my comments before asking me to repeat myself. VictorD7 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Good mawnin all. On my last with @EllenCT:, (we have two strands going now in this one, harder to follow). So, relative to the New Yorker piece brought forward by the IP, it was pointing out two reasons for not using the unpublished "oligarchy" study: a) it's provocative and its sampling old and truncated, and b) it's statistically weak, even for political science. I'm with Ellen and TFD that something on non-majoritarian influence, including finance, regulated corporations, unions, ought to mentioned, --- but with reliable scholarly sources, not so much media echo chamber.

Economic inequality and the middle class: Googling books, ‘decline of the middle class' brings at the bottom of the first screen, “Income inequality in the United States, 1947-1985”, asking the question, is the middle class declining, (it is declining as of 1990) because of a) transitory aging of the baby boom or b) permanent changes in industrial-occupational employment? Nan Maxwell answered both economic and demographic factors play a part. Is that 1990 volume substantial, and is there anything else later over the last twenty years of comparable scope and multidisciplinary study? and do the two books align in their conclusions? Inquiring minds want to know. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I still think the #Charts do a good job of measuring oligarchy. And I agree we need better sources about the median individual wealth of all countries over time. EllenCT (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

World's largest economy

Within the observed error of measurement, it's already inaccurate to say that the US economy is the world's largest.[11] EllenCT (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you in a hurry. Eventually China might overtake the US, but that's still a forecast.Mattnad (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The extrapolation uses a very strong "purchasing power" multiplier as well and is not "GDP in dollars" which most people use as an economic measure. "When, for example, we measure international purchasing power expressed in dollars, which matters in international trade, the U.S., Europe and Japan continue to be the dominate economies in the world." [12] Collect (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The new data for China are "extrapolated from 2011 onwards" -- does that mean it is three year's old data, if the trend three years ago is extrapolated... but I thought there was a slowdown in Chinese productivity over the last two years...growth off by a third? The extrapolation curve shows asymptotically increasing rather than a straight line or with little two-year bumps up and down, solid line implying data versus dotted line to denote extrapolation...is this what my old college professor called How to Lie with Statistics?
But it is well that a world population four times greater than the U.S. approaches its GDP, the U.S. cannot shoulder the world's economy, we learned that in the Great Depression. For half a century U.S. policy has conscientiously fostered world economic development, and China has been perhaps the biggest beneficiary, including open oceans commerce.
Mission accomplished, or one-quarter of the way there, depending on how you look at it, maybe by the end of this year if China recovers successfully in a pivot to a consumer economy ... and that recovery shows in updated data from reliable scholarly sources, we could reflect any change in national GDP rankings here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
As Mattnad said, no need to rush. It's an extrapolation based on an old future estimate. And that is a big increase. The World Bank's latest figures, released this past April 9, show the US with a PPP GDP of $16,244,600 to China's $12,268,638. The IMF has it in the same ballpark. This current revision would boost China's 2011 GDP to $13,495.9 trillion, an increase of well over $2 trillion from its previous 2011 figure. Let's wait and see how the actual published numbers play out for 2013 and 2014. VictorD7 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the European Union is the world's largest economy, the discussion above more properly addresses the world's largest national economies. Canada Jack (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
By that logic the global economy is the world's largest, though NAFTA and various other entities outrank the EU. But of course we're obviously talking about national rankings, per the article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The EU is often described now as being "the world's largest economy" as, unlike any other trade aggregate, it acts as a unified economy. Nafta or the world is never described in that way, so it's not a matter of "logic," it's a matter of how its economy is frequently described. The EU is a sui generis entity which has no current or historical parallel. NAFTA, for example, doesn't have a flag, an anthem, a parliament or a common currency. The EU has all of these. And, when the United States enters into trade negotiations, they typically do so with other countries, like Canada, Mexico, Israel, South Korea. But not so with Europe. They didn't go to Paris or London - but to Brussels. While it suffices to stick to "world's largest economy" in terms of the article as we understand that to mean America (or China), increasingly, the EU is given that mantle so there will come a point soon that we'll need to clarify we mean "national" economies. Soon, "world's largest economy" will be understood to mean the EU, and "world's largest national economy" will mean America (or China). (Though China will pass the EU too!) Canada Jack (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Properly informed people don't describe the EU that way. Yeah, the EU has a blue flag, like NATO and the UN, both of which significantly outrank the EU in GDP. But having a distinct governmental body seems like a bizarre and arbitrary place to draw the line when defining an "economy" when you're already in an international context. People speak about the "North American economy" (or "free trade zone") or the "global economy" all the time. As for currency, almost half the EU, including the UK and Sweden, don't use the Euro, while widespread casual use of the US dollar in Mexico and Canada makes that a wash at best from a European common economy standpoint. Actually, according to the IMF's recently published figures for 2013, the USA by itself has already surpassed the entire EU in GDP, $16.8 trillion to $16.3 trillion, and even other sources that don't say that yet show that the US has been gaining for a long time. But this is tangential at best, so maybe we should end this discussion before S. Rich lectures us. VictorD7 (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
World's largest economies and China poised to overtake US as world's largest economy, research shows Economists previously expected the US – number 1 since the 19th century – to keep the top spot until 2019 -- Moxy (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Properly informed people don't describe the EU that way. Sure they do. Indeed, your very source shows the EU as a single economic unit! They don't put Nafta or NATO on that list. Making specious comparisons to NATO or the UN miss the point: multiple sources routinely describe the EU as the "world's biggest economy," (subject to year-to year fluctuation as you point out) no one describes those other bodies as a single economy. For the purposes of this page, while I agree that while it is understood that "world's biggest economy" refers to the United States - or China - that is no longer strictly accurate as the European Union is routinely described that way, and as per the strictures of wikipedia, we go by our reliable sources. Maybe we don't need to make that distinction yet, i.e., specify "national," but we may down the road. Canada Jack (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You replied in the wrong place since you're quoting me, not Moxy, but did you miss the part where I observed that the IMF figures for 2013 show the USA has already passed the EU in GDP? No, the EU having the "world's biggest economy" talking point was never legitimate for reasons I laid out, but it will be increasingly even less valid as time goes on and more individual nations surpass the EU. The EU is losing its contrived "#1 economy" status (if you ignore the other transnational economies) even sooner than China's long forecast passing of the US. And what "source" are you referring to? The Wiki page I linked to? Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source, by its own rules. I only linked to it because it had the IMF list I described, along with a link to that source. I figure the EU is included on that Wiki page because there are a lot of aggressive, parochial European editors on Wikipedia, some of whom embrace a sort of continental nationalism, or maybe it was added by one of the even more numerous Commonwealth types who see it as their mission to take Americans down a peg, and who are misguided in seeing that EU/"largest economy" proclamation (back when it was true that it was least larger than the US economy) as somehow doing so. Regardless, the IMF source itself doesn't just list the EU, but many aggregate groupings, including "Advanced Economies", "Euro Area", the G7, "Emerging market and developing economies", and "Emerging and developing Asia", all of which, except for "Euro Area", have a larger GDP than the EU. VictorD7 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I like the style “one of the largest economies” tried out by Victor falk earlier., or perhaps “one of the top three world economies by any measure”.
It avoids economic data base controversies which are fleeting, often amending previous reports and which often contradict one another. It would thus stabilize the article. How the U.S. may be the largest economy by which metric in what context over what period of time, can be sorted out in subsidiary articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I figure the EU is included on that Wiki page because there are a lot of aggressive, parochial European editors on Wikipedia, some of whom embrace a sort of continental nationalism, or maybe it was added by one of the even more numerous Commonwealth types who see it as their mission to take Americans down a peg... The EU is on the lists because the sources put it on the lists. Actually, the most cogent argument for inclusion of the EU, notwithstanding your rather paranoid "Take Americans down a peg" argument, comes from that noted America-basher, the CIA[13], who, it should be noted, currently lists the EU as the world's largest economy on their country list[14], as does the World Bank, and your IMF measure only works against the EU if you measure by PPP. But, whatever, Victor. My point is not to argue who is the largest economy, it is to point out, whatever the merits, the EU is often called "the world's largest economy." As I said, I don't see it as a pressing issue currently and as other economies grow, the issue may become moot anyway as you note, though the other economies which realistically pass that size of an economy are China (soon) and India (a decade or two down the road). Canada Jack (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
<Insert>Actually the World Bank source page only lists nations, Canada Jack, though elsewhere the site includes nation groupings like the EU, OECD, etc.. The CIA also has an article on the United States Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges. PPP is the norm for international analyses, though the US (and other nations) will likely pass the EU in nominal terms at some point too. And no paranoia, just an educated speculation based on years of amused observation. VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Since an Economy can have differing boundaries, depending on the definition, there's no harm in either qualifying the statement to include "national economy" or "one of x largest economies". Europe is very much an economic union with a single currency and free movement of labor and capital. So we really should be precise here.Mattnad (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This entire tangent is pointless since the article's lede already says "world's largest national economy". There's even already a (increasingly out of date) US/EU GDP comparison later in the Economy section: Though larger than any other nation's, its national GDP was about 5% smaller at PPP in 2011 than the European Union's, whose population is around 62% higher.[319] Everything's alright. This was just a Talk Page side discussion initiated by Canada Phil and indulged by me. VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Canada Jack: This article makes it very clear that the United States has the world's largest national economy, not that it has the largest overall economy over any economic union. The EU is an economic organization and not a single nation governed by one government. Therefore your point and everything you're saying to try to defend it is moot. Cadiomals (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Gee whiz -- the Soviet Union had a far larger "economy" than Russia has today -- but that does not mean much at all. For most real people and economists, per capita productivity is the yardstick to use -- otherwise just adding huge areas and vast numbers of people to any grouping results in a "larger economy." Collect (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
By that measure, Qatar is #1 List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita with the US much farther down the list, depending on the source.Mattnad (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Which seems to suggest that a list might reasonably be (say) "nations with over 1 million population" to avoid what appears anomalous otherwise. F'rinstance, if the US and Canada were to join economically, the "economy" would grow, but the per capita figure would not be higher then the current higher of the two values. I.e. annexing other countries does not intrinsically "improve the economy." Collect (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
GDP per capita is a good yardstick for economic health and other factors, but it is not a measure of outright economy size, which does have its own implications (power of the currency, whether otherwise will invest in that currency, etc.). It may very well be proper to say that the Soviet Union had a larger economy than modern Russia. If that is a true statement, then you still have to be careful what you conclude from it. It may not mean that the USSR economy was healthier, but just that it was bigger since it had more people/territory/industrial base. That doesn't change the absolute size of the economy, though. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this is complicated. The disputed sentence already makes it clear that the US has the largest economy of any nation which based on this thread, is still the case.Mattnad (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
When China finally passes the US GDP either in PPP or nominal terms, and all/most mainstream sources affirm it with certainty, we will modify the statement that the US has the world's largest national economy. Predictions are predictions are predictions. Cadiomals (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Misleading Gini figures

The United States wiki page is the only country profile to show before taxes and transfers gini figures. All other countries show post-tax figures. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/19/global-inequality-how-the-u-s-compares/

You can compare them to the above data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the United States' gini figures to keep in line with how other countries' gini figures are reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Census report source says 2011 (and is dated 2012). The Pew Report says the data is 2010, even though it is dated later. The Census reference is restored. (Also, if you are going to change the links & titles of references, please change the dates in the citation.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
But it looks like he's right, though I've only had time to take a quick glance at it. If the Gini index is to be in the info box at all (which I'd argue against) it should be at least somewhat comparable to the other country articles, because readers will assume it's comparable, rendering an apples and oranges situation misleading. Look how big the differences between those pre benefit/post benefit numbers are in that OECD data set in the Pew link. The small sample of foreign nation articles I've checked have been sourced by outfits like Eurostat or the CIA World Factbook. By contrast the Census reference looks to be a US only version of the term rather than an international comparison. We should probably replace it with the most up to date source that's international in scope regardless of the year. VictorD7 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The best place to handle this is at Template talk:Infobox country. That way we can get consistent guidance on what or which Gini figures to use. At present, the template parameter options for the Gini are not described. The example given simply uses the CIA Worldbook. But are there other sources? It seems so. NOTE: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#To do list has a "Wikify Gini" on their to do list. (Note, the archive for the Template talk has some hits for Gini, but I have not examined the comments to see if they discuss the parameters & Gini possibilities.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
But in the meantime we should probably switch to the latest OECD figure to remain consistent with practice on other articles, maybe with the year parenthetically added. VictorD7 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Victor, your edit summary mentioned other methodologies. And I see there are "more than a dozen" variants of the Gini coefficient. That said, this is a Wiki-wide concern because the infobox (and Gini parameter) is used in a few hundred articles. I suggest we open a thread on the infobox template talk and advertise it in the Country & Economics WikiProjects. Can you assist in wording the issue? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll be happy to answer any questions I can and assist you in such an effort in whatever time I get to briefly check in, though I don't think what we do on this page as a stopgap should wait until if and when we get a resolution on the other page. I'll also note that it doesn't seem like that template page receives much traffic, so I'm not sure how much participation we'd get. Maybe it's about advertising in the right place. VictorD7 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
You could help by giving insight on what are the most likely candidates for Gini coefficient "variants" for use in the template. The Gini article itself is listed with 5 different WikiProjects, so posting a notice on their pages may get the notice we need. Also, an RfC might help. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I've started an inquiry at Talk:Gini_coefficient#Gini_in_Template:infobox_country. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Family Structures

Is there any good historical data that can be added for this section ? Can we find anything about average family size,relations, etc. I find it ridiculous that 90% of the info in the section is about gay marriage and abortion. What are they trying to say ? Scatach (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Health by political preference

Consensus is firmly against using the material in question. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are the graphics at [15] correct representations of [16]? EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the lamer cherry-picked political talking points you've tried to insert into the article (unless you're not proposing that, and are just shooting the breeze). First, it's not by "political preference", but state. A breakdown of health (or obesity, or many other metrics) by political affiliation would look a lot different. The leftist study authors assign political labels to the states. They claim that liberal states are "healthier" (according to subjective self reporting and average sick days taken) and assume this is because those state governments spend more money than "conservative" states. The conclusion's absurdity is illustrated by a glance at your liberal blog's own pictures, which show a huge spread among "conservative" states, with ones like Utah and Wyoming among the healthiest in the country. Going by your blog and the portion of the study I bothered to read, they apparently gave no consideration to variables like race (huge metric disparities within every state, but very different racial population ratios in different states, especially between New England and the Deep South), immigration status, or cultural aspects like....say...regional diet (minor details, I know). The "liberal" states only consist of New England and a couple of others, including New Mexico, which, geographically separated and ethnically different from the other liberal states, ranks much lower. I was amused to see states like Alaska and the Dakotas, which rank high in health, classified as "moderate". I was also amused to see states like California, which ranks relatively low, labeled "moderate". Nothing much to see here. VictorD7 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It is already corroborated, and the source starts with a literature review. The review in the popular science press by a noted authority in the field was professionally edited by a staff with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The treatise states that it is preliminary only and that its limitations mean that it is not definitive in any way at this point. By the time we add all the "limitations" specified, I suspect it is of exceedingly limited utility here. The next part is that the MotherJones graphics elide the other likely bases for people's view of their own health -- such as climate, unemployment etc. NM and AZ are quite different politically, similar climatologically, and similar in view of health (in fact AZ outranks NM on that basis). On a statistically significant basis for assertion of any single reason for views of health, it fails. It is of anecdotal value only, and epidemiologists tend not to try making "correlation equals causation" arguments in any event. Were I to hazard a guess, the healthiest states all have relatively high hospital availability density (and doctor availability density) (that is percentage of population within 15 minutes of a hospital, and 15 minutes of a doctor). CDC has lots of stats onthat sort of stuff. Collect (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which specific passage in the text are you referring to, in relation to the literature review WP:SECONDARY introduction, and which example CDC statistics do you have? EllenCT (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I copied this to Talk:Politics_of_the_United_States#Health_by_political_preference for discussion of corresponding improvements there. EllenCT (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Inadequate and non-utile. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am also interested in opinions which address the central point of the demography with specific reasons. EllenCT (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the opinions expressed above, more than one of which does not characterize the findings or their significance correctly. But some of them do have merit. Therefore I am going to try another RFC. Maybe it will work better this time than it has at Talk:Progressive tax.

How should [17] and/or [18] be summarized? EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • No use of them is needed hence no need to specify how they should be "summarized." The question presupposes a WP:consensus to use those sources. I note "motherjones.com" is not generally accepted as a source for claims of fact on Wikipedia, but only for opinions cited as opinions. The journal article is complex, and makes specific statements about its own limitations. And its conclusion section makes this abundantly clear - that there are several models which would cover the findings. Collect (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you say that Mother Jones is not generally accepted for claims of fact? They have a decades-long history of fact checking and editorial supervision, the reporter in question is a widely acknowledged expert on the subject matter, and both have a reputation for accuracy. The paper has a secondary literature review which does not agree with your characterization of it above. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I usually disagree with Collect, but this time I have to agree that these sources are a bridge too far for this article. Isn't there some other article where they'd be more topical? Homunq (࿓) 20:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs such as this one.
Yes, there are several which have been suggested, but this is the only place where there has been any discussion forthcoming. The question was about how to summarize, but I am also interested in opinions about where to summarize. Thank you for the pointer. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, to, too, two far. The article has 3 paragraphs on health & healthcare in the US. They present a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE overview. The weeds of politics, as it impacts health & healthcare, are much too complex for a general overview article such as this one. – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Even if, as a risk factor, the magnitude is confirmed greater than obesity? EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No Agree with Srich, Homunq, and Collect. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No Not in this article. Rich and Collect have it right regarding Summary style and also the reliability of Mother Jones. AIRcorn (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, per Collect, et al. I've no real objection to Mother Jones depending, just not in this instance. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • They shouldn't be summarized I would support including a sentence or two about this topic of "who's healthier/happier/etc?" in the Politics of the United States article, but not here. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: As this thread opened on 1 April, we are approaching the 30 day default closure time. So far little/no support has been generated for using the material. Oftentimes the WP:SNOWBALL clause will allow for early closures, but this may not be a good thread for such a closure. With these factors in mind, EllenCT (as the original poster) may want to publicize this RFC on some WikiProject talk pages & generate more commentary. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy is one such project page where a notice might be helpful.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: I have removed the rfc template – overall the discussion is now 30 days old; there is no support to use (other than from OP). Nor was there any effort to publicize this discussion/rfc as I had suggested. 17:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the respondents answered the question. EllenCT (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
In terms of article improvement, the question is "do we want to use this particular material, and if so, how?" The answer so far is "No". – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestions for WP:SUMMARY style articles. EllenCT (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA status removed

I find it appalling that this article has not reached the GA status on the English WP. May be a collaboration problem between editors? I am ready to contribute to the economy and technology sections but someone new should take the lead and make an updated "do-list" to get the USA article featured. See WP:FA for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not the only one; the article was GA until mid-2012. Over the years it has just become gradually filled with tons of unsourced info and irrelevant details through incremental edits by various editors (something that plagues many former GA's/FA's), and had to be brought back to a better place. Collaboration between me and a few others has resulted in great progress in terms of streamlining and improving the content of various sections over the past few months, especially History, but we still have a ways to go. Right now we are not focused on expanding content nearly as much as we are focused on making everything clean and well-sourced. At our current relatively slow rate of progress I have a goal of submitting it for GA review by the middle or end of this summer. As for FA, that may be a less realistic goal as this article has failed several FA nominations for the past 8 years. Cadiomals (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It would help if editors would stop trying to push pseudo-centrist points of view between two manufactured positions, 1+1=3 and 1+1=4, when the reliable sources support 1+1=2. In such cases, WP:NPOV does not mandate 1+1=3, it mandates 1+1=2 featured prominently as a controversy, including citing the reliable sources and citing the organizations paying for the views opposed to the reliable sources as such. EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Time to start working towards GA again, and eventually to FA. We need to make sure that all the images have context, proper license and adhere to image use policy. references need to be checked and redundant mentions removed. Much work and we may not all agree on exactly how to best work towards GA but I am beginning and will attempt to collaborate with others even if we disagree on points.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The article is no where near being GA. I will not support a GA review and the stability of the article would certainly gain a quick decline at this time. Far too many violations of policy and guideline for reasons that do not improve the article. This article is a horrible mess and barely meets the current rating.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It's funny you should say this article is a "horrible mess" considering the state it was in just last October, shortly before I came around and pushed for its shortening and streamlining. As you can see for yourself, many sections bloated with excessive detail by tendentious editors, non-stop content disputes and more cluttered images. A few of the editors that had bloated the article over that past year fought me tooth and nail to keep all that content in. Since then I and just a few others have made huge progress overall, and you have pranced in at a time when the article is at its best in probably 2 years. This is not to say the article doesn't still have a long way to go or is anywhere near Good status, just thought you could use some perspective since you only just got here. Progress has already been made, and when work is done incrementally, section by section, over the next several months, the article will only get better over time. But there are absolutely no plans to submit it for GA review at this time. Cadiomals (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Cadiomals, EllenCT and all other regular editors: please make a list of the sentences that need to be reviewed if you can and I am sure there are many competent editors here who are ready to help you get this article to GA status quickly (including myself may be). 67.87.50.54 (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest to list below some sentences that are controversial according to editors:

If not I will nominate this article for GA review in a month. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please definitely don't nominate it for anything. This article is no where near being done, let alone in a month. Cadiomals (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Based on Larry Bartels's study Economic Inequality and Political Representation, Table 1: Differential Responsiveness of Senators to Constituency Opinion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_62&oldid=1090584657"