Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:06, 7 September 2015

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

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1. How did the article get the way it is? Archives: Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page. Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"? Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case. This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States". If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States": "United States" is in compliance with the Misplaced Pages "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Misplaced Pages naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States. Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States". Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other. This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country. Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Misplaced Pages an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do. The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title. With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Misplaced Pages should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America": It is the country's official name. The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name. The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America." The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America." The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Misplaced Pages articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Misplaced Pages is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States. Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world? 1. Isn't San Marino older? Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution. 2. How about Switzerland? Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848. Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Misplaced Pages articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence. The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut. Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President? The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox. Q5. What is the motto of the United States? There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States. Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy? The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016. Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"? In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas. Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight? The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.

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

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

Template:Vital article

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

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

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

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

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

Phrasing for inequality RFC segment.

I had to start this section because the above one falsely labels Ellen's preferred text "RFC-approved" at the top, when the RFC closer went out of his way to say the material was allowed "in some form", clearly not a rubber stamp approval of her phrasing. Also, I proposed the broader, neutral alternative text during the RFC discussion, not after it, and the above section omits some sourcing involved.

References

1. ^ Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
2. ^ Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation". The Unsustainable American State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
3. ^ Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
4. Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015.
5. "Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.(A collection of articles on various inequality topics by accomplished economists and sociologists who have worked in academia, the government, and the private sector)
6. Stiles, Andrew (May 28, 2014). "The Full Piketty: Experts raise questions about Frenchman's data on income inequality". The Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved 23 May 2015.(Includes essential quotes and links to a Wall Street Journal piece by Harvard economist and NBER president emeritus Martin Feldstein, a widely publicized investigative report by Financial Times economics editor Chris Giles, an article by widely published, influential economist and senior Cato Institute fellow Alan Reynolds, and a National Review article by George Mason University economist Veronique de Rugy that cites views from prominent economist Tyler Cowen and several French economists from the globally prestigious l’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris)

The sources were consolidated into two references with internal breaks to save space in the article.

I made the alternative proposal as a way to include Ellen's sources while avoiding a POV and niche topical skew, particularly one based on a few avante garde, cutting edge, highly subjective research papers of the type we should always be cautious about using as sources. Proposal B deals with the inequality issue in a broader way more appropriate to this article's detail level, neutrally covering opinions on it from all angles, including from a number of established, notable experts. It also includes Ellen's material in a closed way that requires no further expansion, while Proposal A would spark the addition of counterpoints and other controversial talking points deemed of interest to various editors, leading to dramatic article bloat in a page already deemed too long by most and likely contentious edit warring.

A fair discussion can't take place in the above section, where Ellen admits she was pissed off, which may have warped its construction, so I'll ask EllenCT, C.J. Griffin, Casprings, RightCowLeftCoast, Capitalismojo, Mattnad, and anyone else who has participated in this discussion or wants to to do so here. Let's iron out a consensus phrasing. Do you favor one of the above proposals? A modified version? Do you have an entirely different proposal? VictorD7 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Strongly prefer B and oppose A for reasons given. VictorD7 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How many times do you think you can keep calling a new vote while you're losing? I propose including the Wall Street Journal's recent graphic. EllenCT (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Just establishing a fairer baseline. BTW, how many visuals do you want in the Income section, lol? VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you know where to get the time series for the data on pages 12 and 13 of ? It might also be good to present that along with asset ownership by demographic categories from the triennial FRB consumer survey as we had discussed doing elsewhere. EllenCT (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're advocating having at least three and maybe four images in the Income section alone? No, I don't think we should be adding any new images now, especially overly detailed ones on such selectively niche topics. There are multiple editors having a completely separate discussion above about the Income section being way too long and advocating cutting it to maybe a sentence or two. Don't stretch the rubber band too far or you may not like where it lands when you let go. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I prefer A in a copy edited for or this one if not edited. But I also support adding the additional source Ellen provides.

What type of copy editing did you have in mind? And what do you mean by "this one" if not edited? VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see some slight modification:

Increased income inequality and the concentration of capital have resulted in growing individual affluence and created a select economic force, giving business interests more influence over public policy.

But I could live with the original text for now if I had to.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think Proposal A should at least be attributed as opinion rather than presented as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice? And would you support other editors expanding the broader inequality discussion to include views like those from the well credentialed experts I cited above? VictorD7 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I believe that statement A is sourced correctly with expert academic journals. It could be expanded with opinion sources like editorials in support (which in turn would need balance of opposing opinion), but how much weight should be given to opinion or editorials can be very difficult in short summary like this. These do appear to be correct and accurate trends recorded and documented in a number of ways. We could add more supporting primary sources such as the CBO reports and a vast amount of work and research by a number of editors on this subject. I once went to DRN over this subject and the way it was being presented. My main concern is the encyclopedic tone, but the facts were well established in the DRN by two other editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark, you realize that much of what appears in academic journals is opinion, don't you? This topic in particular isn't hard science, and these aren't long established, consensus expert conclusions resulting from a mature discussion. Have you read these articles? These are tentative, recent, cutting edge articles with conclusions that just happen to line up with the authors' political agendas. They're subjectively constructed (being a humanities topic) and filled with speculative assumptions other researchers don't share. What's more, they acknowledge this. Gilens himself states that (564), "Here—in a tentative and preliminary way—we offer such a test, bringing a unique data set to bear on the problem. Our measures are far from perfect, but we hope that this first step will help inspire further research into what we see as some of the most fundamental questions about American politics." Gilens even acknowledges that much of the empirical evidence and many scholars disagree with his views: (page 565) "..a good many scholars—probably more economists than political scientists among them—still cling to the idea that the policy preferences of the median voter tend to drive policy outputs from the U.S. political system. A fair amount of empirical evidence has been adduced—by Alan Monroe; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro; Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson (authors of the very influential Macro Polity); and others—that seems to support the notion that the median voter determines the results of much or most policy making".

Bartels even admits that he hasn't proved the causal link asserted in Proposal A (29-31): "It is important to reiterate that I have been using the terms “responsiveness” and “representation” loosely to refer to the statistical association between constituents’ opinions and their senators’ behavior. Whether senators behave the way they do because their constituents have the opinions they do is impossible to gauge using the research design employed here. It is certainly plausible to imagine that senators consciously and intentionally strive to represent the views of (especially) affluent constituents. However, it might also be the case, as Jacobs and Page (2005) have suggested in the context of national foreign policy-making, that public opinion seems to be influential only because it happens to be correlated with the opinion of influential elites, organized interest groups, or the policy-makers themselves." Like Gilens, he goes on to state "There is clearly a great deal more work to be done investigating the mechanisms by which economic inequality gets reproduced in the political realm", and conceded "the significant limitations of my data and the crudeness of my analysis" meant more work is needed.

Actually these studies are garbage, full of methodological flaws pointed out by me and others elsewhere in previous discussions, but that's beside the point. It's not about whether they "appear to be correct and accurate" or not to you and me, but whether they represent the expert consensus, and the articles themselves admit they don't. The authors are nowhere near as certain as you're suggesting we be with Proposal A. The material should certainly be attributed if it belongs here at all. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That was very extensive, and yet it still doesn't come close to disproving the claims or that the sources do not contain the facts being summarized.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the part where Bartels says his method can't prove that economic elites have greater influence over public policy, completely undermining the factual claim asserted in Proposal A? VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of what you are assuming and a lot of the direction you are taking in regard to the sources but again, you have not demonstrated that they do not support the claims. This argument about academic journals is old is not entirely accurate or we would be removing every journal used to source facts.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, and I'm assuming nothing. I'm also not calling for these sources to be deleted. I'm just saying if we're going to use them we should faithfully represent them, along with other good sources. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A "capitol" is a building in which a legislature meets. EllenCT (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. LOL! Good catch. Capitol is derived from Capitoline Hill.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's 2015. Anyone seriously considering adding the statement "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate" to this article is engaging in outright denial. We know the extent and relevance of income inequality in comparison to other countries. This is not seriously in dispute by anyone other than fringe sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion isn't about "income inequality in comparison to other countries." Try reading more closely, including the sources added from experts who don't share your politics. They're certainly not "fringe". VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is just about improving the article and Viriditas' point seems valid. It would appear like denying facts to use "B".--Mark Miller (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You're saying there's no debate on inequality, lol? How then do you explain all the sources posted by both sides saying there is a debate? It helps to actually read the sources, even the ones your political ally posts. Talk about denying facts....VictorD7 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7, you are intentionally attempting to manufacture doubt about inequality in the U.S. We know there is income inequality in the U.S. and we know about its impact. By continuing to manufacture doubt about income inequality you are engaging in denial. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your vapid name calling is a poor substitute for intelligent, substantive discourse, Viriditas. I manufactured nothing. I quoted expert sources. In fact I appear to be the only one here who's even willing to read Ellen's sources all the way through. No one denied "there is income inequality in the U.S." or indeed in every country. Fortunately. Can you imagine how stifling and terrible the world would be if there wasn't any? But that has nothing to do with this discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Describing your edits as an attempt to manufacture doubt and cast uncertainty on income inequality is not "name calling". For the record, you are the only one who has engaged in personalizing the dispute here in this thread, referring to "experts who don't share your politics" when I have not discussed my politics and referring to other editors who don't agree with you as "political allies". Instead of manufacturing doubt and casting uncertainty on the subject, what you are doing is trying to politicize this discussion by casting doubt and uncertainty on the motivations of participating editors. So when you are not busy manufacturing doubt and uncertainty about income inequality, you try to do the same thing to editors. Yet, here you are accusing others of "name calling"? I'm sorry, Victor, but you aren't playing fair nor are you being reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You engaged in false personal characterizations, and totally dodged the specific substance which I've posted above in abundance. By contrast my description of various editors' politics is accurate, as is my point about you repeatedly not even grasping what this discussion is about (hint: it's a lot more specific than "inequality in the U.S.", and isn't about international comparisons, which are already present elsewhere in the section). I'm being extremely fair and reasonable. Worry less about my motives and focus on actually reading the article, proposals, and sources involved. Think critically about them too. Pay especially close attention to the material I quoted and bolded above. VictorD7 (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal A The evidence is very clear and backed by multiple sources. The "debate" is similar to the "debate" on global warming. Casprings (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you actually read the sources? Because, as I quoted above, even they disagree with your assertion here. Gilens explicitly says "many" (his word) researchers disagree with him, Bartels concedes his method can't prove that economic elites have greater influence over policy, and they both describe their methodology as "tentative", and "crude", calling for more research. In short, they don't support the phrasing of Proposal A. Why would any honest, competent editor oppose attributing this claim as opinion to the authors used as sources, while acknowledging the alternative views even those sources admit exist? VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal B Proposal A, to the extent it's not just a truism, has a bad connotation (that we worry when "business interests" seem ascendant, but not the bureaucracy, academy, etc.), and the sources backing it are insular (two of the three carry Princeton's imprimatur), jargonistic and mathematical (making the argument with labels and mathematical givens, rather than a more accessible historical narrative), and rife with questionable assumptions (that labor unions speak for the workingman, when it's repugnance at labor's tactics—its legal and physical strong-arming, and its corruption—that have cost union jobs, as much as anything). Proposal B is too bland (there is considerable debate on this point) and its sources have their own problems (mockery of liberal academics, but not the authors of the first three papers; aggregation of articles from the Journal, Financial Times, etc., but not direct links to the newspaper articles themselves (probably behind paywalls), and too-laudatory introductions of the authors (this being source 6, Free Beacon something), etc.). But better to say too little than too much that is questionable, and Proposal B does give a more complete array of sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely view B as a lesser evil. VictorD7 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

New source evidence directly contradicting Bartels and co.

Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?, PDF, Brunner, Eric, Stephen L. Ross, and Ebonya Washington, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy: Vol. 5 No. 2 (May 2013), DOI: 10.1257/pol.5.2.53 - Study directly criticizes the methodology used by Bartels and similar researchers and employs its own methodology that contradicts their conclusion; "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation." Study finds partisanship is more important than income in explaining correlation between office holder policy votes and constituent views.

How Poorly are the Poor Represented in the US Senate?, Robert S. Erikson Professor of Political Science Columbia University, Yosef Bhatti Department of Political Science University of Copenhagen, Chapter prepared for Enns, Peter and Christopher Wlezien (eds.): “Who Gets Represented”, New York: Russell Sage Foundation (2011) - While not claiming to directly disprove his thesis, their study failed to replicate Bartels’ findings using a larger sample set and more recent data, indicating the issue is more complex than some may have thought, and sought to correct some methodological flaws in Bartels' work. They found no significant evidence that higher income people are more represented than lower income people, in part because ideology tracked more closely together across income groups within a particular state than in the older data Bartels used.

The Macro Polity (especially Chapter 8; also read this PDF with ideas adapted from the book), Robert S. Erikson, Michael B. Mackuen, James A. Stimson, Cambridge University Press, 2002 - Finds that policies largely reflect the views and mood of the median voter, especially over time; Gilens called this work "very influential", and it better represents the established mainstream scholarly view than the three avant garde primary research papers in Proposal A above. VictorD7 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

New proposals

It's also worth noting the quotes from EllenCT's own sources in the above section where Gilens concedes "a good many scholars" (his wording) disagree with his conclusion (he also admits there is significant empirical evidence supporting the other views), where Bartels concedes his method hasn't proved a causal link (meaning actual "influence" per Proposal A's wording) between economic elites and policy outcomes, and where all her sources cop to the "tentative" and "crude" nature of their methods, calling for more research. I'll add that Hayes (her third source, which I didn't get around to quoting above for space reasons) makes these same concessions, and also produces results that contradict those of Bartels (and the AEJ study above for that matter) in finding that Democrats are more responsive to the wealthy while Republicans are more responsive to the middle class (like Bartels, he finds neither is responsive to the poor, a finding contradicted by the new sources posted here).

There have also been numerous criticisms of the methodologies and political biases of Gilens, Bartels, and Hayes in past discussions here, including contrived definitions, cherry-picked poll (polls can easily yield contradictory results with different question wording) and policy selections, skewed interpretations, disputed assumptions, etc., and Bartels calling anyone with an income over $40k a year "high income" (Hayes uses anyone over $75k a year), hardly what most readers imagine when they see the phrase "economic elites".

Given all this, we'd have to either keep the broad Proposal B (with the new sources added), or at least implement only a modified version of Proposal A that includes the qualification that only some academics believe that, with "many" (Gilens' own word) disagreeing. I suppose we can call the latter Proposal C. The advantage of B is that it would be closed off, while a modified version of A (aka C) would likely lead to article bloat through further expansions and point/counterpoint edits on this and related issues.

Better yet would be to simply delete the entire segment as undue weight for this article and more trouble than it's worth. This is clearly not a mature research field with a firm consensus. There isn't even a consensus on how to approach or define all the pertinent concepts on this issue, let alone consensus results. Indeed there are recent primary research papers producing results that are all over the place. If the various views have to be laid out, that should take place on other, more topically dedicated articles and all significant views should be laid out fully and neutrally.

If there's strong opposition to deleting the segment based on EllenCT's RFC, I'll initiate a new RFC. This would be justified given the new source evidence, the fact that her RFC started with a bizarre apples/oranges false dichotomy that confused respondents, and the fact that her RFC didn't include discussion about what the sources actually said. I'll add that her RFC also failed to mention the previous discussions on this talk page soundly rejecting proposals to include this material. While EllenCT's RFC only saw 8 editors participate, two other recent discussions rejecting the proposed Bartels/Gilens/Hayes material in various forms included at least 12 editors in one and 10 in the other. VictorD7 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support RFC outcome -- Victor is simply continuing his campaign to oppose the RFC outcome, and his advocacy of WP:WEASEL wording which has been soundly rejected by senior editors (although there do seem to be editors who have no history with this article suddenly in support of his anti-RFC drive.) EllenCT (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  How do you think we should incorporate the alternative academic opinions in the new sources I provided above? VictorD7 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

By all means add them as additional references saying that the statements agreed to be added are not unanimously accepted, but not as an alternative to the broader results agreed in the RFC outcome. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That would require tweaking Proposal A (the wording of which was not endorsed by the RFC close anyway) so that it's not asserting the views of a few cutting edge primary researchers as unchallenged fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, to allow room for the disagreement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just restore the edits you reverted and add the challenging references, putting the opposing statements in the authors' voices. That is the "some form" you want. However, I noticed that at least one of your characterizations of the references you found is misleading, so we will need to work on the text. EllenCT (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I said is misleading, and your suggestion doesn't work because the text you want restored simply states the conclusion of Bartels and his two friends as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, without attributing that view to them. The sources directly contradicting them (which you apparently didn't know about when you crafted that wording, or until I posted them) obviously make that untenable, but so do your own sources, who acknowledge that they don't represent the consensus view. We'd need to make that clear even if we were only using your sources. VictorD7 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the sell-by date of RfC outcomes that are sparsely attended, evenly divided, whose closings are equivocally worded, and where few editors defend, or can even define, the RfC in Talk, other than to say it gives them carte blanche? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Every attempt to reverse the RFC has resulted in clear consensus that its outcome should be upheld. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring the multiple discussions here I linked to here where your material was explicitly rejected in discussions involving more editors than your quietly attended RFC pulled, as well as the fact that the RFC only said the material could be included "in some form", and didn't endorse your wording. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You are ignoring the vast majority of admins and users who have since endorsed the RFC outcome and rejected your attempts to disrupt it, including with proposal to topic ban you which seems to be quite popular with admins. What is it going to take for you to ease up on the POV pushing? EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be talking into a mirror here, but since you posted this as a reply to me I'll point out that even fewer people supported your wording in post RFC discussions so far than supported the inclusion of the material itself in the RFC ("in some form"; some of that support even explicitly called for changes to your wording like attribution), and no one has endorsed your wording since I posted the new sources directly disputing your segment. I'll also note that on Casprings' latest ridiculous attempt to have someone who disagrees with his politics topic banned (I've been his latest fixation for a while), there are currently more "oppose" than "support" votes, so it doesn't appear his proposal will gain consensus support. At least one uninvolved person already tried to close it but Casprings reverted. As for POV pushing, I don't even know what to say to that. It's like being accused of irresponsible behavior by Lindsay Lohan. I'm the one opposing POV pushing here. I'm not even the one trying to add items to an already bloated article. I just want to make sure what does get added accurately rather than selectively represents the sources. VictorD7 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the clear consensus supporting the RfC. When I reverted, I did so on the basis of not having seen agreement comporting with Ellen's additions. When I asked to be enlightened as to what the RfC, whose closing found "no consensus to support the reversion" or something seemingly equally equivocal, was meant to authorize, I received no clear direction as to what inference I had not fathomed. The follow-on discussion hasn't indicated that there was a consensus to do much of anything. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You just completely made that quote up out of wishful thinking, didn't you? Some of us care about accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the quote verbatim, from here:

There was no consensus at Talk:United States/Archive 67#Proposal to revert section Income, poverty and wealth to to 13 January version for this revert making the following change, because seven editors supported the 8 February version but only three supported the revert.

Is that not the RfC you're talking about? What were you defending there? Your additions seemed to be outside of merely enforcing either of the texts listed below the closing statement. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the opening statement, not the closing. Each of my inclusions was and has since been discussed above. EllenCT (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Specific excerpts from proposed new references: It took me a long time to read Erikson and Bhatti (2011) and Brunner et al. (2012), netiher of which contradict the existing sources. Erikson and Bhatti's book chapter was not peer reviewed. They say, "Bartels finds that rich constituents are substantially better represented by the legislators in the US Senate than their poorer counterparts. In fact, the poorest third of the population is not represented at all. While we do not find evidence directly contradictory this result, we add some complications." The complications agree with Bartells and the other sources from the RFC, too. Erikson and Bhatti went to great lengths to pose arbitrary hypotheses which came in just over p<0.05 significance, so that they could say that they can't find "statistical evidence." For shame! Brunner et al say, "Republicans more often vote the will of their higher income over their lower income constituents; Democratic legislators do the reverse," which is in contradiction to Hayes (2012) which states, "the major political parties seemed to have recently switched roles as the Democratic Party has become responsive to the wealthy, while Republicans are responsive to the middle-class." While I propose inclusion of those two excerpts on Politics of the United States, they do not rise to the level where they should be summarized in this article. Gilens and Page (2014) address all of the points raised in the 2011-2 papers. Therefore, I continue to support the verbatim RFC outcome. EllenCT (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• False. First, your own Gilens source cited Macro Polity as representing what it calls the views of a good many scholars who disagree with his thesis: ""..a good many scholars—probably more economists than political scientists among them—still cling to the idea that the policy preferences of the median voter tend to drive policy outputs from the U.S. political system. A fair amount of empirical evidence has been adduced—by Alan Monroe; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro; Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson (authors of the very influential Macro Polity); and others—that seems to support the notion that the median voter determines the results of much or most policy making." So you're essentially attacking the reliability of your own source here. And that and your other two sources emphasize that their own work does not represent the established scholarly consensus, but rather is "tentative" and "crude", the issue requiring much more study before firm conclusions are drawn, as I quoted in the above section.

Brunner's peer reviewed journal article most certainly does contradict Bartels, and does so explicitly: (intro) "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation.... Differences in representation by income are largely explained by the correlation between constituent income and party affiliation." (2, 3) "Bartels (2008) regresses the DW Nominate score, a summary measure of the liberal/conservative leaning of a United States senator’s voting record, on the mean liberal/conservative leaning (seven point scale) of lower, middle and upper income survey respondents in the senator’s state. He finds that the ideology of the highest income group enters with a significantly larger coefficient than that of the lowest income group; he concludes that higher income state residents are better represented than their lower income counterparts. Bhatti and Erikson (2011) revisit Bartels’ analysis to address a weighting issue and sample size limitations. While in most specifications the authors find that the liberalness of higher income voters enters with a larger coefficient than that of lower 2 income voters, the difference is not statistically significant. In contrast to Bartels, these authors conclude that higher income constituents are not better represented.1" They go on to conduct their own study also contradicting Bartels' findings.

As I said above, the scholarly book chapter (by Erikson and Bhatti, Columbia and University of Copenhagen political scientists, published by the Russell Sage Foundation) stated that they failed to duplicate Bartels' findings. You left out the portion almost immediately following: "Second, we replicate Bartels’ findings in two recent datasets with larger sample sizes and hence less measurement error. We cannot find statistical evidence of differential representation."

Whether you feel that Bartels has adequately addressed the various criticisms (not that you've made a convincing case for that, or much of any case for that at all) is beside the point. The methodology of Bartels, Hayes, and Gilens has been ripped to shreds by knowledgeable editors here who point out even more fundamental flaws than these contrary sources do. What matters here is that there is strong disagreement among the sources, with even your own three sources conceding that they don't represent the established scholarly view. Frankly none of them belong in this article at all, since we're supposed to be reflecting stable, mainstream, scholarly positions, and not cutting edge recent research involving high degrees of subjectivity and controversy, but I respect the RFC closing, despite it being barely participated in, poorly framed (with a false dichotomy), and introduced with virtually no discussion or attempt by you to find opposing views like those I produced above. However, that RFC closing was intentionally vague, only allowing the inclusion of the material "in some form", which means it was not an endorsement of your wording, wording which the new evidence produced here clearly shows is untenable. Your wording would violate core Misplaced Pages policies that trump a single RFC outcome anyway. The current sentence is an appropriately broad summary for this article's detail level, referenced by sources from both sides. Best to just be happy that you got your sources and the debate into this article at all, and stop pushing to purge disputing sources or alter the wording to make specific, unattributed claims in Misplaced Pages's voice that fail to acknowledge the dispute. VictorD7 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Ripped to shreds" how? And by whom? The results of the RFC have been confirmed four times now. EllenCT (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Even before I posted scholarly sources disputing it, your proposal to include the Bartels and friends material was rejected on this very talk page twice (at least 12 editors participated; at least 10 editors participated), and despite that you ignored these results and kept pushing the material over and over again. Your RFC finally got it into the article (despite only 8 editors participating and there being no preliminary source or other discussion), but since I posted the scholarly sources disputing yours no editors have supported your particular wording (which is untenable given policy) and multiple editors have opposed it. And I and others have posted more detailed criticisms of the methodology employed in your sources on other talk pages, though I won't spend time digging those discussions up now since it's beside the point. VictorD7 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your "scholarly" sources aren't in disagreement with the original three sources. If you say water is wet, and I say I don't have any information to the contrary, but by including ice and steam in sampling I can't confirm your findings statistically at the p<0.05 level, do you think I have somehow disproved you? Or even added anything worthwhile to the conversation? EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

One explicitly stated that it contradicted your source's findings while another criticized your source's methodology and failed to replicate its findings using what it considered to be a superior methodology. And it's amusing that you place "scholarly" in quotes. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the peer reviewed literature reviews on the topic are in agreement, opposed to your non-peer reviewed book chapter and article with it's cherry-picked data set. The subsequent peer reviewed literature addressed and disposed with all of the issues they raised. Why do you constantly suggest that Wikipedians should consider your paid advocacy, non-peer reviewed, and primary source original research to be scholarly? That has never been the standard on Misplaced Pages, but it is often if not usually the standard of those who wish to introduce bias to advance their personal positions. EllenCT (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To what "paid advocacy" and "original research" do you refer? Not only did I introduce you to peer reviewed articles that dispute your sources' findings, but I showed that even your own sources cite numerous scholars who disagree with their conclusion and make it clear that their own "crude", "tentative" methods don't represent the established expert consensus. Even if we just used your own sources your wording would be untenable because it fails to faithfully represent them. VictorD7 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The several advocacy organizations you repeatedly cite expressing opinions in favor of supply side and trickle down economics. You can't find any support for them in the peer reviewed literature reviews, because they are wrong, so you try to pretend that ad agencies are "scholarship." EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. "Ad agencies"? Name them. Nothing I linked to above has anything to do with ad agencies. Also, you should refrain from referring to sources as "paid advocacy", since on Misplaced Pages paid advocacy refers to paid editing, which actually your posting history shows you already knew (e.g. - you participating heavily in the policy discussions on paid editing, and repeatedly using "paid advocacy" to refer to editors being paid to edit , , , ). I'm sure you'd hate for any observers to mistake your meaning, conflate the two accusations, and think that I was being described a paid editor, given the seriousness of that charge here (illustrated by your own strong sentiments in the linked quotes). VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether you personally are paid to edit or not, you know full well that the so-called think tank sources you try to insert as authoritative scholarship are paid to represent their point of view. That is their only reason for existing, to advocate the positions of their donors. Because one of their most prolific and incorrect topic areas is supply side trickle down economics, they belong in the encyclopedia just as much as homeopathy. They are WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in almost any encyclopedic context, other than that of describing them and their activities. By constantly championing their fully discredited views, you play the role of a paid advocate whether you are one or not. EllenCT (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You failed to name any sources, and certainly none of the sources I've supplied above are "ad agencies" or "think tanks" (two very different things, btw), so this appears to be a pointless diversion. Your contention that I "play the role of a paid advocate" "whether (I am) one or not" shows you're happy slapping that label on me even if it's false (as you did with your earlier blunt, unqualified assertion above), a clear violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASS policies. Again, for the record, as I've told you many times before, I am not a paid advocate. I suggest you drop insinuations otherwise. VictorD7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation content supporting supply side trickle down economics which you've repeatedly relied upon and have been trying to insert is worse than the vast majority of paid advocacy. Attempting to insert or rely upon it here is equivalent to a direct attack on the reliability, usefulness, reputation, and quality of the encyclopedia, is equivalent to an admission of a lack of WP:COMPETENCE in creating an encyclopedia, and is equivalent to an admission that the editor repeatedly trying to insert it after being informed of their mistake is WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia, choosing to use Misplaced Pages as a political forum instead. EllenCT (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I posted above is from the Heritage Foundation or any other think tank. I cited a peer reviewed journal article, a scholarly chapter prepared by multiple academics that includes a study they conducted, and an academic book cited in your own source as being "very influential". That said, The Heritage Foundation is one of the nation's most prominent think tanks and a perfectly legitimate source in many circumstances (RS is context specific). You again failed to link to an example, but if it's the home size fact currently sourced by Heritage in the article that's based on easily verifiable government stats and isn't disputed. Think tank sources, mostly leftist ones like Think Progress, CBPP, Brookings (which I've also added), and EPI (featured prominently in the same section you're alluding to), litter this article and others. You've personally sought to add a wide array of much lower quality sources to this and other articles, like this obscure advocacy group called Insight: Center for Community for Economic Development (, ), a lobbying group seeking special benefits for minorities, and of course hotly disputed tax rate charts from the lobbying group Citizens for Tax Justice. Given all this, perhaps the rest of your paragraph is a simple case of projection. VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy section break

If we ban the pro-homeopathy advocacy organizations, does NPOV require that we also ban those opposed to homeopathy? EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I've never supported including anything about "homeopathy", I assume this is an abstract hypothetical question. Your "advocacy organizations" are the fringe ones, though I never suggested banning them per se. RS is always context specific. The problem with your specific proposed inclusions have been that they were inappropriate for a particular article or section, misrepresented the sources, and/or were contradicted by all the other (more) reliable sources. I only mentioned your own inclusion of "advocacy" groups to drive home how bizarre your off topic complaints about me here are. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it in concrete terms for you. If we exclude sources with no support in the peer reviewed secondary literature, does NPOV require that we also exclude sources with peer reviewed secondary support? EllenCT (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I already answered in concrete, far more pertinent terms in my last post. The sources aren't as you characterize them. VictorD7 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So are you claiming that there is support for supply side trickle down economics in the peer reviewed secondary literature, or that the Heritage foundation isn't paid to push supply side trickle down economics? EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean like how your Citizens for Tax Justice and CCED sources are paid to lobby for tax increases and for special benefits for minorities, respectively? Of course there's enormous support for supply side economics in scholarly literature (e.g. like numerous studies showing lower tax rates boost growth), but that has nothing at all to do with this discussion. I don't even recall if I've ever mentioned "supply side economics" in a Misplaced Pages edit, and "trickle down" was a partisan Democrat epithet from the 80s. VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to the OECD, yes, those sources have support in the peer reviewed secondary literature and thus should be favored. The Heritage Foundation and other proponents of supply side trickle down economics should be excluded from any encyclopedia to the extent it is reliable, except to report on their activities. EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing about the OECD. You pulled that non sequitur out of the blue, unless you confused that with CCED, the abbreviation for the Center for Community for Economic Development advocacy group you've used as a source in articles that I just referred to. And no, your material was not "peer reviewed" and has nothing to do with peer reviewed literature. As for you wanting to exclude sources you politically oppose while adding far more obscure sources (like CCED) you politically agree with, I guess you'll have to fight that battle next time it comes up. BTW, it's fascinating that while you're carrying on this discussion you're simultaneously pushing in another section for the inclusion of a column citing a "study" by the Hamilton Project, a subgroup of the left leaning Brookings Institute (a think tank within a think tank) launched in 2006. Barack Obama spoke at the group's launch and most of its leaders have worked for the Obama administration and/or his campaigns at some point. So much for "peer reviewed secondary sources". VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Insight Center for Community Economic Development" in Oakland? They also advocate demand side economics and thus have support from the secondary peer reviewed literature, unlike your supply side trickle down POV pushing. Again, Brookings is centrist and the largest think tank in the world. EllenCT (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

All major economic schools of thought have support in the peer reviewed literature. Heck, the Austrians you always rail against have even collected a boatload of Nobel Prizes, solidifying their "expert" status for Misplaced Pages sourcing purposes. Wanting special benefits for minorities has nothing to do with peer reviewed analysis. It's just a subjective political preference. And the CTJ tax chart you tried to introduce throughout Misplaced Pages has no corroboration whatsoever, and direct contradiction by other, more reliable sources (e.g. the CBO, Brookings' Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation). My expansive reply to your misleading Brookings claim is in the other section. Its ideology is irrelevant to the fact that the study you're pushing isn't "secondary peer reviewed literature", undermining your purported fixation on that sourcing requirement, but I'll point out here that Brookings is liberal and between 2003 and 2010 97.6% of its members' political donations went to Democrats. However, I'm glad to see that you're now a fan of the think tank, and no longer label it "right wing" as you used to when I cited its TPC tax chart to refute your CTJ figures. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not all major economic schools of thought have support in the WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature. Most are firmly opposed by the peer reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses. My "purported fixation" is due to the fact that as tertiary sources, encyclopedias are required to defer to the secondary literature over primary and original research. If your claim had merit, it could be a lot less expansive. You don't need to convince me that you are far enough to the right to think Brookings isn't centrist. EllenCT (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to debate the nuances of economic theory with someone who just claimed elsewhere on this page that Obama was president in 2006, none of this has anything to do with this talk page section. VictorD7 (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I said it's not surprising that a President would speak at the most oft-cited think tank in the world, not that he was President when he did. EllenCT (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that makes a lot of sense. VictorD7 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongly prefer A B is a non-statement that says nothing, and it violates the previous RfC close. Darx9url (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome

I object to this revert because it continues to oppose consensus. I also object to this revert because there have been no compelling reasons stated to omit the fact, against plenty of evidence that it is the most important determinant of economic outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I object to the misleading title of this section, since the RFC close explicitly said the material could be allowed "in some form" and wasn't a rubber stamp approval of the phrasing, which is still being discussed (I just recently initiated the first discussion about what your sources actually say). But I object even more strongly to you telling me you agreed with my compromise proposal on the other issue involving tax progressivity and redistribution, which I led off by stating, "The current long standing Government finance segment stays the way it is..." and you replied to by stating, "I'm completely okay with that," only for you to wait several days after I implemented the other part of the compromise in the Economics section to try and sneakily completely delete the comparative progressivity segment that you had agreed to keep as is. Reprehensible. Honesty and good faith are vital to productive collaboration. VictorD7 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My proposal for an alternate form is better than yours because it incorporates more comprehensive supporting sources. Do you have actual objections to the education statement? The characterization of tax incidence is a separate issue, and I guess you don't like the changes there, either, but similarly, are you able to say why you don't like them? EllenCT (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why did you agree to the compromise proposal ("completely" in your words) and then blatantly violate it a few days later? As for inequality, my proposal incorporates all your sources and a few others, and is a far broader, comprehensive textual statement, so I have no idea what you're talking about. As for your education statement, I might not necessarily oppose some version of it in a vacuum or in other contexts, but I mostly reverted it because every editor to comment on it here opposes it (, ), and because it's just a random statement that doesn't coherently fit into this article. If we allow that then why not segments on the relationship between single parent homes and income, the impact of centralized bureaucracy or teachers' unions on education, or all sorts of other causal statements? VictorD7 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that any of those factors, including single parent homes, or even all of them together, are more determinant of income inequality than education outcomes. I am not opposed to describing the changes in household composition over time, but I would like to see peer reviewed literature reviews or meta-analyses on the extent to which they are a cause of deleterious outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Such research exists on single parent homes and countless other topics (involving income level and totally different subjects) not included in this article, but I think you missed the point. This is a topical/page layout issue, not a sourcing one (recent research papers on complex topics usually don't make good sources anyway). This isn't the place for adding opinions on causality, much less selective ones on selective niche topics, much less to a section most editors already deem too bloated. Let me know if you ever want to explain why you agreed to my tax/spending compromise (at least twice: "I'm completely okay with that" , "I agree with VictorD7's compromise proposal" ) only to completely violate it a few days later. VictorD7 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between recent research papers and literature reviews? I changed my mind about agreeing with you when you made it completely clear that you had zero respect for the RFC outcome. If there is research meeting WP:SECONDARY on your claim of a relationship between household composition and economic output, you have already had ample time to bring it to our attention. EllenCT (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If your agreement to the proposal was contingent on me doing something else on a different issue you shouldn't have stated that you agreed to it without condition and then waited until after I implemented my part of the compromise days later to violate yours, not that I accept the premise that I disrespected the RFC outcome on that different issue anyway (it's why your sources and the general topic are in the article; plus it's not like my position on that issue changed at some point between you accepting and violating the compromise on the much more long running tax progressivity issue dispute). VictorD7 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you seem to think ignoring RFC outcomes is acceptable and would not make ordinary editors immediately see that you have lost whatever remaining good faith you had left, then would you mind if I just make a few edits according to how I wish the last dozen RFCs had closed out instead of how they actually did? It's a hypothetical question because I have no further interest in your opinion until you find some peer reviewed literature reviews instead of just propaganda sites. EllenCT (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it should be clear to any good faith, at least reasonably intelligent observers how fruitful attempts at rational discourse are with you. VictorD7 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We are supposed to be improving the encyclopedia with WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, not as a forum for propaganda discourse per WP:NOT#FORUM. When was the last time you cited a peer reviewed literature review or meta-analysis? EllenCT (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Apart from me citing your own sources and quoting what they actually say? I've put lots of peer reviewed journal articles, reviewed government publications, and other sources that include surveys of existing scholarship on a topic into various articles (not that we're limited to such sources or that you in particular haven't used plenty of other kinds), but instead of continuing this unproductive exchange, whey don't you respond above to my question about what exactly you're opposing, if anything, regarding my proposed caveat to "conservative"/"liberal" (apart from the screenname attached)? BTW, in that section I'm proposing using sources like vetted university level political science textbooks, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.; Also note - "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.".....and....."Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields."). VictorD7 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when have you shown any indication that you are here to write an encyclopedia based on secondary sources that you haven't depended on others to find for you? Your insinuations are false. Until you show respect for WP:SECONDARY and the RFC process, my attempts to compromise with you will be more advantageous to me than to you. EllenCT (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's littered with false non sequiturs and generally makes no sense, but if you refuse to actually register any opposition to my proposal in the above section then I won't count you as being opposed to it, which may be for the best. VictorD7 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question: Have you ever once, in your years of editing, found a single WP:SECONDARY source on your own, which you have used to improve the encyclopedia? Not counting being dependent on others to find them for you. EllenCT (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You know I have, and you of all people presuming to lecture me on research skills is hilarious. Even in this discussion so far I've produced far more sources than you have, in addition to reading and having to explain your own sources to you. Ellen, most sources apart from news articles are secondary sources. Most of the academic papers and almost all of the books I've added over the years are secondary sources, like these several scholarly books I found (actually some of them I own) and added when we substantially rewrote the history section. This section is pointless. I'm not jumping through any more of your hoops when you're being so uncooperative on every front. VictorD7 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You honestly think that non-peer reviewed monograph intended for undergraduates meets WP:SECONDARY? It doesn't even have a bibliography. Is there any evidence whatsoever that you are here to build an encyclopedia based on the best secondary sources, and not just as a forum for primary source debate? EllenCT (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reiteration

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.

I reiterate my concerns above in the enclosing section as the first two of several post-discretionary sanction proposals for improvement to follow. EllenCT (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Any objections? EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Objections to what? VictorD7 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you proposing? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That both edits be reverted due to the lack of any cogent arguments in opposition and the lack of competence evident in the above attempts at such arguments. EllenCT (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You should have "reiterated" precise proposals, since you have yet to construct alternative wording on inequality that would meet the policy minimums given the disputing scholarly sourcing I provided that your earlier edit failed to even attempt to account for, and since it's unclear what other "edit" you're talking about wanting to revert here. You and I strongly disagree about which of us has displayed a lack of "competence", and I'd advise you to refrain from derailing discussion with ad hominem distractions and creating a Battlefield environment. VictorD7 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I refer to the two edits mentioned at the top of #Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome above, as most people find entirely clear, I'm sure. EllenCT (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently not, since the only two editors to reply to you in this separate subsection indicated otherwise, but I appreciate you clarifying. I don't recall seeing anything other than opposition by editors to your "education" proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change or hold a candle to the fact that the RFC has been confirmed four times in four separate polls. EllenCT (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed inclusion was rejected at least twice on this talk page (, ) and was only barely supported once via RFC, each of the discussions rejecting it involving more editors than your poorly constructed RFC did. I have no idea what these alleged "four separate polls" you're referring to are. Despite that, the material has been included per the RFC. However, the RFC did not endorse your wording. We've repeatedly been through all this. VictorD7 (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Subsequent to both of those links, which were different proposals with different text and fewer corroborating references:

1. Talk:United States/Archive 69#No consensus to revert to out of date, inaccurate 2009 descriptions of 2008 recession (RFC) "The consensus is to include both in some form."
2. Influence of the wealthy / RFC outcome (above) unanimous support for the RFC outcome
3. Phrasing for inequality RFC segment. (above) no consensus to reverse the RFC outcome
4. Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome (below) zero support for your proposal that "some form" means deleting the sources you don't like. Additionally, you indicated that you thought a freshman textbook without a bibliography qualifies as a WP:SECONDARY source.

@Golbez: how can this constant back-and-forth be resolved? Can you please make a formal close on all of these post-RFC requests? EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not; I haven't been paying any attention to this, and I'm not in a mood to decipher a political argument at the moment. A neutral third party might be best. Maybe all they need to do is close it but that's beyond even my ability at the moment. --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As for your frivolous off topic claim about the alleged "freshman textbook" from the last discussion you linked to (an exchange that had nothing to do with this topic), leaving aside the fact that textbooks often are secondary sources, and the fact that tertiary and primary sources are both also acceptable anyway, I didn't specifically mention any books, much less a "freshman textbook". You absurdly asked if I had ever supplied a secondary source, so I generously jumped through your ridiculous hoop by linking to an edit on this very article (one of many) where I had added several such sources, more than answering your question, unless you're denying that any of those are secondary sources. That I and other posters have repeatedly had to explain the basics of research, sourcing, and policy to you, along with economics and the other topics which you prefer to edit about for some reason, and read your own sources and explain what they actually mean to you to correct your habitual comprehension failures (assuming good faith) that lead to your frequent misrepresentations, make your failed ad hominem diversions against me even more surreal. VictorD7 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no faith that there is any reason to believe your edits are those of someone who is here to write an encyclopedia. I have filed Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:United States#Reiteration. EllenCT (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Mediation update Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/United States

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

Mediation US territory discussion

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

Mediation sources summary

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

which map should we use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative maps showing insular territories for #2 map:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Just a note to mention that the article currently uses an SVG image that may or may not be the same information as the PNG and the PNG file cannot be edited, while the SVG file can.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• Version A - If I have to choose between A and B. Some suggestions : (a) Add a note below this map that territories are not included and point to the map that includes them. (b) Close this discussion and open another one about including territories into countries maps (not just for this article but in general). Gpeja (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Version A - Looking closely between A & B - A seems to include more green parts as well as grey parts so personally I'd say A is a better choice here. –Davey2010 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Article clean up

Much of the content in this article strays from the topic of the United States. The article should be limited to the Unites States as a political and geographic entity. It should not go into great detail about history, political parties, crime, and several other off-topic issues. In almost all cases there are separate articles to discuss any historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics. Sections for these topics should include only a paragraph or two summary following the main, details or see also templates. Also, the lede is too long.Phmoreno (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not the policy taken at any other country's article; I see no reason it should be the case here. Better to err by providing the reader too much information than too little. Rwenonah (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what other country articles say, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a book. And most importantly, this is not an appropriate place for political and social commentary. I would rate this article as low quality for style and content. No doubt some other country articles deserve the same low rating, but let us focus on improving this one.Phmoreno (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't presented any reason not to include "historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics" in detail, or presented any evidence other than your opinion that the article is less effective as a result. Any understanding of the US (or any country) as a "political and geographic entity" will inevitably be impaired if readers are not provided with the historical, economic, sociological and demographic context. Misplaced Pages's strength compared to conventional paper encyclopedias is that it isn't bound by the space constraints enforced by books. Statistics have shown that readers are significantly less likely to look beyond an initial article for information by clicking on links; by not providing information in a widely-searched-for article like this one, we impair their ability to get information and thus their understanding of the topic they searched for, directly in contradiction of Misplaced Pages's goals. Your opinion of this article as "low rating" isn't justification to drastically rewrite it.Rwenonah (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of this is amateurish garbage based on a very limited understanding of the subject matter and supported with low quality references.Phmoreno (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If we exclude historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics, what should we discuss? TFD (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion is not the proposal. Quote: "Sections for these topics should include only a paragraph or two summary." In other words, instead of spending, at this point in mainspace, ~850 words in the population-subsection of United_States#Demographics, followed by a medium chunk of text about languages, a big chunk about religions, and a relatively-small chunk about family structures (itself ~238 words), we should be able to condense that *entire* demographics section down into a two-paragraph-summary of the demographics-related material. Here's a shot at cutting the first big chunk down to size: "The population is over 320m today, up from 75m circa 1900, and is still growing relatively quickly." "37 ancestry groups have more than one million members: 13% African American, 5% Asian, 1% American Indian and Alaska Native, and 2% multiracial. (Orthogonally, 17% identify as Hispanic/Latino.)" "Something about racial-percentage trends." "Something about immigration patterns, maybe just a wikilink." "Two sentences on sexuality and family structure, respectively." "Two sentences about major cities and percent urbanization and such." That's under 100 words, but includes some handwaving; it would probably still be under 200 words once fleshed out, and once wikilinked, it decently summarizes the topic of United_States#Population (that currently burns up 850 words).

    That is what Phmoreno is proposing, as I understand it: slash the verbiage, and just wikilink to the main articles, for the small slice of the readership that wants all the details, such as the exact number of millions of people in the United States with "exclusively native Hawaiian or Pacific island ancestry". It's 0.5 million, mainspace currently claims. But who is checking that summarized-figure stays up to date? Who comes to the United States article seeking that particular factoid, is also worth asking? We give that factoid in the subsidiary article, Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity, and *there* we say the exact figure is either 481,576 or maybe 540,013 ... with roughly 58,437 of those (we don't say which estimate is "those" unfortunately) identifying as Hispanic/Latino. I'm reasonably certain somebody is keeping up with *that* exacting census-data. I'm not sure the parenthetical 0.5m factoid-estimate at United States is getting anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny. Better to send the readership to the dedicated article, where they can see the exact figures (and the conflicting sources!) for themselves; rather than have it here in this article, just link to the article that properly covers the datasets in question. It is not just a question of whether this article is too long to be read comfortably, it is a question of whether this article is too overly-detailed to be reliably maintained. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is notability to the content about the Hawaiian population and a good amount of readers may well be coming here for basic information in regards to the US State Department's recent declaration and it's actual efforts to regain a government to government relationship to the nation of Hawaii. Of all the states, Hawaii is still considered a stand alone nation, even among the US government officials. The content seems relevant to that section to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the wiki-notability of the government of Hawaii (either the state-of-the-union government or the quasi-independent-royalty-one), nor the population-demographics of Hawaii, I'm arguing that we don't need excruciating detail in this top-level article. Broad strokes for the top-level article, not pointillism. I picked the 0.5 million-exclusively-native-Hawaiian-or-Pacific-island-ancestry number on purpose as an excruciating level detail inappropriate for a toplevel article. Here is the full sentence mainspace has: "In 2010, the U.S. population included an estimated 5.2 million people with some American Indian or Alaska Native ancestry (2.9 million exclusively of such ancestry) and 1.2 million with some native Hawaiian or Pacific island ancestry (0.5 million exclusively)." I'm suggesting that the particular factoid at the end, the parenthetical "...(0.5 million exclusively)" factoid, is excruciatingly detailed. There are 1.2 million Hawaiian-or-other-islander people, so presumably they'd make the cut at getting a mention in the list. But of the 37 ancestry groups with more than a million members, we don't need to list them all, in the top-level article; the exact percentages of German-stock-population, et cetera, are not something that the usual encyclopedias will cover the the thousandth decimal place. You are suggesting that Hawaii is important, and deserves at *least* as much coverage as we already give it in mainspace at the United States top-level article, right? So you want to mention the 1.2 million figure mixed figure, and also the 0.5 million pure figure. But why stop there? We could actually mention what percentage of that 0.5 million is directly descended from specific famous families, and mention notable members of those families. We could do the same for all the other states in the United States, mentioning all the wiki-notable people and families that make up the population of those states, because what is the United States, but the sum of all her citizens? But then the article would be a hundred times longer than it already is, and it would contain duplicative content, that better belongs in subsidiary articles, and is not helpful in the toplevel article. You have to draw the line somewhere. Currently, the article draws the line at 850 words on population-demographics, including the 1.2-million-but-also-0.5-million bit about Hawaiian-and-other-islander ancestry (we need both numeric factoids?), the recent growth of San Bernardino (and four other cities?), the average number of of children per woman in the 1800s (a good statistic for a toplevel article but do we really need that factoid to a precision of two decimal places?) ... and a bunch of other stuff. We have lost sight of the forest, for all the undergrowth. The suggestion that we cut the verbiage by half, is a suggestion that we cut out the details that are better and more accurately left to subsidiary articles, rather than maintaining them imprecisely, twice. p.s. Technically, WP:OR strongly suggests Alaska is more-standalone than Hawaii, no matter what "many" politicians say; Alaska has more oil, and more assault-rifles-per-citizen, than Hawaii.  ;-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statistics are less likely to be updated on a much less high-profile, less edited article like Demographics of the United States, meaning that the problem you mention is just begin shifted off to another article where it is less likely to be solved. There's no objective reason an 850-word section is worse than a 100-word one. In fact, given that most readers don't click links, it's better that we provide more detail in the main article than less. Misplaced Pages isn't a paper encyclopedia limited by page space; as long as the article is fluid, readable and easy to navigate, we should include as much detail as possible, rather than removing things for the sake of removing things. When we cut detail, we aren't "sending readers to the dedicated article"; we're effectively denying them information for the sake of unnecessary brevity. Rwenonah (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that having two sets of statistics, in two places (at least!), is somehow making both sets more likely to be updated, and more likely to stay in sync. Having one set of detailed statistics, and on overview-which-elides-most-details, is the correct way to achieve one reliable set of statistics: put all your eggs in one basket, and then Watch That Basket, is what I'm advocating doing. The reason that readers don't click into another article, is because they believe what they see in this article. But as Phmoreno ... albeit with a rather pointed lack of tact unfortunately ... was pointing out, the problem is that this top-level article has Too Much Information to be completely accurate, the sheer bulk means *some* small bit of it is going to be outdated, at any given time. There are 331,360 bytes of wikitext at present; even if only 0.01% of that is wrong, we're still talking 33 bytes of inaccuracy, aka six wrong words. Whereas for my own argument, per my reply to MarkMiller above, I'm pointing out that this article has too much *excruciating detail* to be completely accurate. Specifically, when we give the rounded mini-factoid "...(0.5 million exclusively)" we are glossing over the *actual* status of that figure -- one source estimates 480k and another source estimates 530k, if memory serves. Sure, those both round to 0.5 million ... but doing the rounding, and conflating the two sources together, to cram the factoid into this already-bloated toplevel article, means that readers don't get informed of the fact that the sources are not in agreement with each other... and their disagreement is fairly significant, tens of thousands of people, is the differential. Anyways, significant pruning like what is being proposed here needs strong consensus, and from the look of EllenCT's push to add more and more details, and other bits of this talkpage, the article is likely to grow even more gigatic than ever in the near term, rather than experience the drastic verbosity-lossage I'm advocating. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

further inconsistencies

• The footnote in the intro includes Seranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank; these are not shown on the map.
• Since the populated territories have been determined by this community to be "judicially incorporated" the territories map needs to be updated to mark them all as incorporated.
• The article mentions acquiring the Philippines but doesn't mention when this notable territory gained independence. That should be fixed.
• "The southern tip of Florida is tropical, as is Hawaii." Are any of the territories tropical? Like Puerto Rico? If so it should be mentioned here, since we're being specific over which states (or even portions of states) are tropical.
• Why include the anachronistic "state" map in "political divisions"? It's ignoring at least a full 1% of the population. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• We should use sources for maps which are readily available from published sources without copyright; those maps reviewed to date do not meet your specific interest in Seranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank, perhaps because their status is disputed, but the US claim is worth a footnote as overwhelming mediation and RfC consensus allows.
  • If sourced maps disagree with sourced data then we need a footnote explaining this discrepancy. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Territories remain ambiguously both judicially "unincorporated" in the US, and politically "within" the geographical extent of its constitutional framework as sourced; it's a federal republic of three branches and multiple agencies; there is no unitary standard enforced across all published databases.
  • "Scholars note that the racist Court of Jim Crow invented the term “unincorporated” by judicial fiat to allow imperial governance of indigenous peoples without the protections of the Constitution except as future Congresses might allow." Why are we pandering to racism by continuing the supposed judicial fiction that the territories are unincorporated? --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Some bold editor is bound take it upon himself to note when the Philippines gained independence sooner or later without impacting readability.
• Florida is part tropical, Alaska is part arctic -- probably too much detail for this summary article except to generally note the country's climate variety.
  • So prune it. Otherwise the territories are being unfairly omitted. Don't you care about islanders? --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• The "state" map in "political divisions" is useful for the general reader for internal purposes such as locating place names for presidential elections or Senate representation, rather like admitting the geographic extent of the United States including territories is useful to the general reader in an international context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • They can go to the list of US states for that; the map here should include the whole country, not just those areas relevant for elections. Also, I don't really see the point of the statehood chart. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Golbez. And there are no "unincorporated" territories, since the overturn of the insular cases by federal court decisions. The independencesecession of the Philippines is surely significant since the U.S. lost 1/10 of its population, similar to when Ireland became independent of the UK. TFD (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Golbez: It'd be good for territories to have a mention in the geographic and climate summaries along with the other regions. Since I've already started looking at some adjustments of that nature for the geography page (and plan to look at the climate page next) I'd be happy to make that addition.

As for things like the map in the political divisions section, I'd be fine with a new one that adds territories, but I'm also fine with the current map as-is. As I see it, just because we recognize territories as part of the US doesn't somehow mean that we must never again use a map of the states. ╠╣uw  20:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do, and soon; the article is internally inconsistent, which is going to confuse our readers. And some here would say it's discriminatory to islanders to give an image of the United States that lacks them. It would be like showing a picture of the UK with Northern Ireland omitted, or Australia with a gap where the Northern Territory is. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the US political map referenced, "USA midsize imagemap with state names", also lacks mapping for the tribal areas mentioned in the political divisions narrative. Further, Hawaii and Alaska are not to scale and not properly located. The presentation is however, an often found convention, even though it has been proven to confuse some students into believing Alaska is south of California and adjacent to Hawaii. If there were a reasonable objection and a viable alternative, perhaps a consensus can be developed as seems to have come about for the info box orthographic map.

Wherever sourced narrative disagrees with sourced maps, a footnote can explain discrepancies which arise in a federal republic with databases generated by three branches and multiple independent agencies. The existing consensus seems to find the map useful, but I would have no objection to another map on whatever grounds seemed to them to be reasonably sourced based on the Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith among editors participating in the new consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not think an often used convention should make us discriminate against islanders. Your first map seems best, but it does not include American Samoa and draws an arbitrary distinction between islanders using now overturned and discredited insular cases' incorporation theory. (See the different borders used for islanders' islands, as opposed to Hawaii.) TFD (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Mock-up maps for the Political divisions section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The yellow markings on the left-hand map signify inclusion in some humorous segment of The Colbert Report TV show. The animation of the middle map - how much slower will the page be to load if we have this, assuming these maps are candidates for inclusion and aren't already part of the article? Dhtwiki (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Something akin to the first map (but with an additional inset for American Samoa) seems best to me.

Wherever consensus ultimately points, it's probably worth taking some cues from the exemplar maps at the Maps WikiProject. As a matter of fact, if we can agree on roughly what we're looking for in a US map, someone there could probably make a new, custom one just for the article. ╠╣uw  19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've changed out the maps per Dhtwiki, substituting EEZ map and Electoral College map. Three maps with different political divisions to replace the existing one political map of states only. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've uploaded the Census 113th Congressional District wall map with includes 50 states, DC and five territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that existing maps draw a distinction between the 50 states and DC, and the territories. Their reasoning is that only the first are part of the U.S., while the territories (with the possible exception of Palmyra) are possessions of the U.S. We however have accepted the argument that the U.S. does not and cannot have possessions, that every area under its jurisdiction is equally part of the U.S. So our maps need to show that. If we are to have one map, it must show the entire country, which requires basically a world map. We should also have one map showing where the bulk of the U.S. is, which means the lower 48 states and D.C. This map shows a possible area to use: it includes the 48 states, D.C., Puerto Rico and the other Caribbean parts of the U.S., while excluding the distant areas of Alaska and the islands in the Pacific. TFD (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no such reasoning in the maps making distinctions of constitutional status, not in the US Economic Exclusion Zone, nor in the Congressional Districts. There is no assumption that the US cannot have possessions. Continuing efforts to exclude Pacific islanders altogether in the "US of 48 states and Caribbean" map is misplaced. The discussion has moved on. See “Political divisions edit” below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Map three has thin borders around Hawaii and Alaska, and thick borders around the Pacific and Caribbean territories. Why do you think that different borders should be used? Also, the concept that the U.S. cannot have possessions is the reason why we know that territories cannot be possessions. TFD (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We use reliable published sources available and follow their conventions in mapping and in terminology. Thick borders on the Census map show a different scale from the center map. The source agreed to (22) by a) super majority in the mediation and b) super majority in the RfC, refers to the US as “states, territories and possessions”. So we are bound by the existing consensus to use the adopted conventions based on reliable sources, because WP is collaborative.

Residents of territories take pride in their self-determined elective self governance within the US constitutional framework which is has not historically been available to US “possessions” under military rule, military courts and representation in a territorial legislature partially appointed by the US president. But we in the mediation and in the RfC have agreed to address the geographic extent of the US, and not split hairs over constitutional status — as the country article is meant for a general reader, not as arcane legal treatise.

In any case, we should use conventions of terminology established in consensus-adopted references, rather than unsourced editor speculation. Why do you ask? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Political divisions edit

As suggested by others above, removed mirror of List of states and territories of the United States map and statehood chart — which is already linked in the Main article hat note to the section Political divisions, and added national maps, including the two (EEZ and CD) recently uploaded from government sources:

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

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The three maps together force my screen into horizontal scroll mode. The second map conveys relatively little information. The third map is useless as a thumbnail and is a very slow to load PDF, rather than PNG or SVG. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point in including the middle map. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The second, middle map conveys the political importance of the state political divisions showing their relative influence by population. The third map illustrates the territorial representation within the US as a federal republic. The source offers GIF and PDF, is there a wizard app to reformat? The triptych can be made smaller. The "Political divisions” section should be copy edited to read as follows (maintaining existing links), removing excessive detail concerning state history belonging to another section and that relating to the territories belonging in the subsidiary article:

The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions. The states and territories are the principal administrative districts in the country. These are divided into subdivisions of counties and independent cities. The District of Columbia is a federal district which contains the capital of the United States, Washington DC. The states and the District of Columbia choose the President of the United States. Each state has presidential electors equal to the number of their Representatives and Senators in Congress, DC has three.

Congressional Districts are reapportioned among the states following each decennial Census of Population. Each state then draws single member districts to conform with the census apportionment. The total number of Representatives is 435, and delegate Members of Congress represent the District of Columbia and the five major US territories.

The United States also observes tribal sovereignty of the Native American nations. Though reservations are within state borders, the reservation is a sovereign entity. While the United States recognizes this sovereignty, other countries may not.

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

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The second, middle map conveys the political importance of the state political divisions showing their relative influence by population. Not really, because the sparsely populated states have disproportionate influence in the Senate with regard to population; and that map doesn't separate Senate from population-determined House membership. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The political character of the states is expressed in the Electoral College related to their population in a meaningful way though the extreme outliers are moderated. The ranked order of states in the Electoral College is the same as the ranked order of states in the House of Representatives and by and large the same as population ranking. The ratios in the Senate (all equal at ratios of 1:1) do not pertain to the Electoral College at all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: I uploaded a .gif file for the Congressional Districts ... it is advertised as smaller. Does it upload quicker? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, much quicker, dazzlingly quick; but at highest resolution the legend is still too small to be comprehensible. It would make little sense to have that map unless it can be read. Also, the middle map still seems unnecessary, because it doesn't show anything graphically that wouldn't be just as well, or better, expressed in a table. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Posting the one map without objection makes for a much more compact section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you listing the states? If not, why are we listing the inhabited territories? --Golbez (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We probably need not; proposal copy edited. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The United States is a federal republic of states, territories..." "The United States also possesses five major insular territories" First of all, not sure we need to repeat that they're insular; the word already appears three times in the article. All of the present territories are insular, we don't need that adjective every time. Second of all, if the country includes territories, how can it also possess them? No one would say the United States possesses fifty states.
• "The bulk of the U.S. land mass" The last two words are unnecessary.
• The phrase "principal administrative district" seems clunky in a way I'm unable to put into words, except that the phrase doesn't really exist in any usage relating to the U.S. In fact, that whole sentence is clunky; the "along with territories" particularly sticks out.
• Hawaii's mention seems random; why does that state get a separate mention and description?
• Why is the number of states hidden until midway through the graf, after the number of inhabited territories?
• Is "Native Nations" usually capitalized such?
• Will there still be a map showing the administrative divisions of the country? Or just this EEZ map? Because we kind of need a map of the divisions in the divisions section. Even countries so complex as France and Russia have that. In fact, the section in France is particularly well put together, we would do well to emulate their example, especially since the situations are so similar (scattered country, territories without full rights, large EEZ, etc.) --Golbez (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And I realize I above urged the removal of the "anachronistic state map"; I admit, I was trolling. shit, I've been trolling this whole time; you wanted the territories part of the country, by god you're going to get it. But. Seeing France's article made me realize that we can have multiple maps, and we don't need to include everything in one map, because that's stupid and I was stupid for urging it, so I'm sorry. --Golbez (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Further copy edit of proposal narrative. I'm looking at the US population density map as an alternative to the Electoral College map, it gets a two-fer by mapping states and counties/independent cities. It also enlarges with a reasonable resolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's too bad that the new map doesn't show Alaska and Hawaii (and the territories). There are some blank maps out there such as this one. Here's an electoral college map, keyed to the last presidential election, which shows graphically what your previous map showed numerically. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, DC, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions." You should say 'a federal district' here instead of DC; also the paragraph is inconsistent with punctuation, it uses "DC" twice but "D.C." once. --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No reason to distinguish between inhabited and uninhabited territories. It was originally made by TVH when he believed the uninhabited territories were not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a substantive difference, though; the uninhabited ones don't have a civilian government or representation in congress. And seeing how this is the political divisions, we should be specific about the divisions and types thereof. Of course, then the question is, ... why treat them as individual territories? Yes, to pick two random ones, Howland Island and Baker Island are both under the jurisdiction of the United States, but are they individual, notable polities of their own, with notably separate jurisdictions and governing policies that warrants mention? Or are they simply two of many minor, uninhabited or almost uninhabited islands that the U.S. has jurisdiction over? To list them individually feels like listing the Florida Keys or Channel Islands individually, or the counties of the country, or listing what the independent cities are. Perhaps we should simply use the grouping "United States Minor Outlying Islands" and not attempt to afford them more status than they actually have. Am I making sense? I feel like I've rambled a bit here. --Golbez (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between the five major (inhabited) and eleven minor (uninhabited) territories of the United States has been maintained on these pages for a two and a half years since the GAO 1997 report on U.S. Insular Areas was introduced for editors to access together in our collaborative good faith efforts.

I note that at France#Administrative divisions, that article enumerates inhabited insular territory represented in its National Assembly.

Copy edit proposal using DC consistently.

I really like the 2012 Electoral vote cartogram map for the Elections section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the difference? TFD (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Electoral Vote map illustrates the results of a two party system elections, rather than nonpartisanly portraying political divisions of states, counties and independent cities -- which can be distinguished in the Population density map. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Any objection if I make some inquiries at the Maps WikiProject? I'd be interested to know what the experts there could come up with... ╠╣uw  09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No objections at all at casting a wider net, I find the categories at Wikicommons somewhat like the wild west. Sometimes google searches come up with results on Wikicommons from search terms that the Wikicommons searches do not find. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the photo of the burning World Trade Center towers

The original twin towers stood for over a quarter of a century, but are depicted here only in their final moments as macabre charnel houses of mass murder -- a photographic monument to murderous Arab/Muslim supremacists. We don't post photos of the bodies of murder victims on other nation's Wiki pages, so why do we let anti-American vandals deface this page with such an incredibly disrespectful and insensitive crime scene photo? Please relegate photos of 9/11 to the U.S. history, 9/11, and World Trade Center-specific Wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.185.50 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Most historic sections once had two illustrations, but the consensus was that two images per historical era was too much clutter. The image which illustrates the ongoing preponderance of American urban life is a skyscraper which is not aflame. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015

I agree too. A picture that depicts twin towers in their former glory would look much better than a picture of its final moments. However, if there's consensus to not to include two images in historic sections it'd be better to simply retain the image of One World Trade Center. -- Chamith (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, at least with the OP's reasoning, and certainly with the tone. I don't think that placing the photo was an act of anti-American vandalism. We don't suppress photos of the Pearl Harbor attack or of the Kennedy assassination (just the moment of his most grievous wounding). Photos of the old World Trade Center burning are iconic, and encapsulate what those buildings have come to signify. We don't have to have that photo, if enough people find it disturbing, but the characterization of its inclusion here is over the top. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal - A quick perusal of the uncurated videos of the World Trade Center attacks on YouTube shows that the comments are rife with anti-Americanism, 9/11 "Truthism", and other examples of hate speech, bigotry, and idiocracy. This, in fact, is a true representation of the response of the average world citizen when he sees images of the World Trade Center attacks. I'm not advocating censorship, but being classy. There are countless Wiki pages devoted to 9/11 and the World Trade Center attacks. By all means, include photos of the World Trade Center attacks there, but not on the United States landing page. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015

From to my experience, the response of the average world citizen was sympathetic. I don't know where you found it to be otherwise without it's being promptly denounced, but you shouldn't read that into why that rather demure picture was placed. We usually rate a picture's unsuitability by its explicit depiction of horror not by what we can imagine is going on, as you seem to be doing further down (because you went out of your way to satisfy your curiosity?). There's a possibly related discussion at WP Village Pump (policy) on placing images apt that are to trigger unpleasant emotions. It might be of interest here. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - The section that the image is located is about contemporary history and talks about the attack on 9/11. So showing what happen and then having the new building next to it shows that we are a strong country and can recover, and show how terror can not keep us down. Reb1981 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal - Why should the casual visitor, who's maybe only interested in looking up population or economic stats, be sadistically reminded with an incongruously placed photo bomb of death and mass murder on the worst day in many Americans' lives? Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015

Disagree - probably one of the defining events of recent American history, especially in terms of its relations to the rest of the world. It may offend some, and it may represent a tragic and unrepresentative moment of American history, but we don't remove Holocaust or Srebrenica photos simply because people might find them offensive, or because they are tragic or fail to accurately represent everyday life in the nations in question, and there's no reason this should be different. Also, OP should know that there's no such thing as an "Arab/Muslim supremacist", and Al Qaeda certainly doesn't espouse any such ideology. Rwenonah (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal - How apropos that you should mention the Holocaust. I, in fact, do not see any photos of the Holocaust on the Germany page, nor even of the Allies' destruction of Germany itself, but I do see a rather classy photo of Hitler. I also do not see any photos of killings of any kind on the Srebrenica page; nor of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the Japan page; nor of starving Russians resorting to cannibalism during the Battle of Stalingrad on the Russia page; nor of Chinese being raped and murdered at the Rape of Nanking on the China page; nor of the genocide of Tutsi on the Rwanda page. It's certainly not because there's a lack of photographic documentation of these events. The issue I am bringing up is not one of censorship, but of context. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015

I prefer two images for each historical era, and that would allow an image of the WTC burning, but that is not the consensus. The modern era should not have more than one, so that would exclude the WTC burning imo.

The IP characterization is over the top, though Al Qaeda does not promote cultural diversity where it holds sway, rather it “espouses” or rather administers ethnic cleansing of non-Sunni Muslims and other nonconformist faiths in its domain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

To the IP: all this page shows is a building with smoke coming off it. That's not even remotely graphic. Other country pages regularly show burnt or damaged buildings; the Serbia page shows a bombed-out courthouse, the Hungary and Bosnia pages bombed bridges; the Netherlands page the remnants of bombed Rotterdam. Equally, the aftermath of tragic events, such as the aftermath of the Utoya massacre on the Norway page, the aftermath of Srebrenica on the Bosnia page, or the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge killings on the Cambodia page. So other country pages clearly have no issue with including photos of tragedies; why must an American tragedy, which had a smaller impact than the massacres in Cambodia or Bosnia, be removed from the page? Rwenonah (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Not one of your examples is that of an active massacre in progress; moreover, I'd support demoting some of those photos to sub-Wikis as well, if they are in fact showing the active killing of people. What you callously regard as being a "building with smoke coming off it" and "not even remotely graphic" is me seeing thousands of souls dismembered, blown out of 90-story windows, and incinerated alive. That the enormous size of the Twin Towers relegates its trapped occupants to mere subpixels of human anguish doesn't sterilize the image. Much as that photo of a stupa on the Cambodia landing page is reminder enough of the Killing Fields, the current photo of the Freedom Tower is reminder enough of the events on 9/11. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.187.1 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't remove images solely because they represent tragic or bloody events; we remove them because they are graphic. This image isn't; it simply doesn't show anything anyone would find controversial if they didn't know the context. On the whole, I think this image better represents 9/11 than simply an image of a fairly generic skyscraper, so if we were to show a photo of something involving the event, this image is better. You're not protesting about the Rotterdam image, or the clear image of genocide victims on the Armenia page, or the picture of the bombing of La Moneda on the Chile page, or the images of bombed houses on the Saudi Arabia page, or the pictures of executed civilians on the North Korea page, suggests that you find this one somehow more deserving of removal than these equally (or in some cases far more) graphic images. I'm not sure why. Rwenonah (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is this "we"? Is this the royal "We"? I haven't bothered to visit every single one of the pages you mentioned -- there are, after all, almost two hundred countries and thousands of major cities in the world, and millions upon millions of Wiki pages. As I said, if someone has a similar problem with photos on those other national landing pages, I support their removal. I suspect someone from Armenia is going to have a much better idea about whether a particular photo of her country from one hundred years ago is going to be as offensive to living Armenians as this photo of the burning World Trade Center is to me. Let each citizen police his own country's pages. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015

I completely agree with you Rwenonah it was a tragic day that no one will ever forget that was around that day. I feel having both pictures show how we triumph over evil. It was a major event in our county's history. Just like the other picture showing the landing in normandy. You know there is death in the distance.Reb1981 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I also believe in the right to forget. It's why authorities in the U.S. try to prevent photos of murder/accident victims from making it onto the Internet (albeit not always successfully). What's drama and documentation to the average person can be searing trauma to loved ones, and the latter have spoken of not being able to use the Internet for fear of coming across such photos. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of living eyewitnesses to 9/11 along with an enormous number of bereaved. If someone wants to go actively looking for snuff images, then let them wallow in it, but someone simply looking up summary information on the United States should not be compelled to see this atrocity all over again. I have no problem with having the event mentioned in the text, with links to more detailed accounts, but photos are too eye-catching to ignore. And make no mistake, the photos of 9/11 "inspire" psychopaths around the world. The images of suffering from the first World Trade Center bombing didn't chasten the Islamists; nay, the images quickened their black hearts and inspired them to try again. It's precisely for this reason why we dumped bin Laden in the Indian Ocean and the Soviets destroyed Hitler's remains: the less inspiration for nutters and other copycat killers, the better. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015

Terrorism is not featured in other country articles as descriptive of their societies. I have searched through the France article and find no double images for historical subjects. There need not be any double image for New York skyscrapers. France has had a continuing problem of terrorist attacks since the Algerian revolt continuing to the present day, and it does not feature illustration documenting their successes.

The US article does not need a representation of terrorist successes, foreign or domestic, until they become more commonplace in everyday life on trains, at worship and in bakery shops as they are in France, or Iraq, for instance, which also does not feature any illustration of terrorist attacks which have caused far more deaths there than those in the US, over a longer period of time, more generally throughout the country, and at a greater ongoing frequency. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks in France or Iraq, however tragic, never had anything like the same impact on the countries they occur in - 9/11 on the other hand, caused massive changes both in the US and internationally. It caused a global shift in attitudes toward terrorism, resulting in changed domestic policies, such as airline searches, throughout the Western world. Not to mention it caused the Bush administration to embark on an invasion of Afghanistan, intervention or involvement in numerous other countries, and the widespread use of summary executions through drones. That's why we're showing it in a picture, I would assume. It's strange that you find it objectionable if a "terrorist success" is shown on the US page, but perfectly okay for the aftermath of successful genocides to be shown in other country's articles, especially when these images are far more graphic.

IP, that's not how[REDACTED] works. If we treat the Armenia article differently than the American one based on the objections of wikipedians, we end up with systemic bias differing standards for the same thing in different national or cultural contexts. This image isn't a snuff image - it's impossible to tell than anything particularly bad is going on unless you know the context, which is far less traumatic than the context of the Armenian genocide photo, (an event in which hundreds of thousands died), or the Korean War photo, (a conflict in which more than 2 million civilians died). That being the case, it seems your objection to the image isn't that it shows a tragedy, but that it shows an American tragedy. Rwenonah (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Significant as it is, the American photo is appropriate to September 11 attacks. Country articles do not illustrate major atrocities. The Turkey article mentions major atrocities against Armenians, but it does not picture the Armenian tragedy in the country article. Germany does not feature an image of the Holocaust. You refer to the Armenian article? You may have meant Armenian Genocide, which is comparable to the September 11 attacks article. You linked to a disambiguation page, not a country article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Armenia or North Korea both contain far more graphic photos. Rwenonah (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. Also, the 911 attack, though technically part of our history, did not involve the 'actions of Americans', as did the Civil War, moon landing, etc. It was simply a terrorist attack. The 911 attack has about as much to do with American History as a bank robbery that happened to take place on Broadway. Seems we could find far better examples to represent American History. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement above is a bit off...as both the domestic and international aftermath was big. That said many other images can be used. -- Moxy (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I again agree with User:Rwenonah also this is more than just a terror attack, comparing it to a bank robbery is more than a bit off too. This is defining moment in our domestic and global policies. It also caused a increase in patriotism throughout our great country. Reb1981 (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The photo has historical significance and for that reason I'm against its removal. Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I also oppose the removal of the images. While 9/11 was a tragic event, it is also perhaps the most significant event worldwide in the 21st Century. Showing a picture of the towers intact does not demonstrate the gravity of what happened. Removing the picture does not erase history. ISIS followers will just get the image from Wikimedia Commons or some other site. Even as a New Yorker, I believe that showing the towers burning to the ground is vital to the understanding of the American mindset after 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this picture is fundamental to the section of the article on 9/11. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Parties and elections edit

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

Add to the one sentence third paragraph to read,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation for "Very long" template?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redundant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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