Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:55, 2 April 2014

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: 30 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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 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 was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

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 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: Delisted 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

Template:Maintained

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: 30 days

Archives (index)

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, 116

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

edit. Industrialization

Edit 'Industrialization' section. proposal:

In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe supplied a surplus of labor for the country's industrialization and transformed its culture. Immigration policies were Eurocentric by restricting Asians from immigration and naturalization beginning in 1882. National infrastructure including telegraph and transcontinental railroads spurred economic growth, greater settlement and development of the American Old West. The end of the Indian Wars further expanded acreage under mechanical cultivation increasing surpluses for international markets. Mainland expansion was completed by the Alaska Purchase from Russia in 1867. In 1898 the U.S. entered the world stage with important sugar production and strategic facilities acquired in Hawaii, then Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines were ceded by Spain in the same year following the Spanish American War.

The emergence of many prominent industrialists at the end of the 19th century gave rise to the Gilded Age when the U.S. economy became the world's largest. It was a period of extravagant affluence, worker injury and concentrations of monopolistic power that led to the rise of Populism, Socialism, and Anarchism in the U.S. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, a period of significant reforms in many societal areas, including alcohol prohibition, women's suffrage, regulatory protection for the public, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition and attention to living conditions for the working classes.

end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to leave in the sentence on immigration being Eurocentric and barring Chinese. This is fairly notable as the US has always struggled with how and to what extent it should accommodate its many immigrants. Cadiomals (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Worthwhile it is. Eurocentric policy against Asian immigration and naturalization is replaced with its source. I hope no one believes the 1882 statute is still in force; the WP U.S. lede should not make it seem so. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

--- Aside. Still, no source obtains for WP U.S. lede policy, blanking those who have chosen to be naturalized as U.S. citizens in Pacific island territories of Northern Marianas, Guam and American Samoa. I will await another editor's initiative before resuming the discussion. But the question remains, What could be the unsourced POV behind it, why do islander referendum, legislatures and constitutional conventions not count at WP --- so that they are excluded in the lede in this 21st century article though sourced by U.S. Code in force ---, not even in a footnote? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This subsection just like the civil war subsection is already very small. I do not think removing hard facts such as "In 1914 alone, 35,000 workers died in industrial accidents and 700,000 were injured" improves the section. Also, deleting the last armed conflict of the Indian Wars is not an improvement and why have you made this strange language change regarding Hawai? Why has Hawai gone from being "overthrown in a coup" to being vaguely "acquired"??? This kind of language change somehow makes the subsection more concise?Lance Friedman (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why include that strangely specific sentence on immigration policy when the section doesn't discuss it otherwise? Are we going to add exposition on immigration policy shifts at various other points in history? VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose combining 'Civil War and Reconstruction' with 'Industrialization' under a new heading, Civil War and industrialization. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm against merging the sections. They are two distinct subjects that are pivotal in understanding American history and only marginally related. They should not be scrubbed of hard facts and unpleasantness and then mashed together.Lance Friedman (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Lance Friedman. What are the reasons for these changes? TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It started with the Native American, Settlement, and Expansion sections being too detailed relative to the rest of the History section and also written in such a style that it read like a middle school textbook. The rest of the History sections were/are not as dire, but I raised my issue with how the Cold War section was structured and TVH went ahead and did condensed versions of the other sections. As these are not unilateral changes controlled by Virginia alone, you guys are free to add your input about what info you think should be kept in or how you think things should be worded. Also, I think it's fine to keep Civil War and Industrialization as separate sections even if they are shortened, as they are quite distinct aspects of US history (though they overlapped). Overall, our ultimate purpose is in reclaiming and doing a major clean-up of this article by going through all the sections one by one and making sure everything is well-balanced, so it becomes worthy of at least Good status again. Cadiomals (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Two sections it shall remain, although 'settlement and expansion' could be broken into two were we addressing a history article, but we are not, so I thought it economical to combine sections as we can for this survey summary, inasmuch as Civil War, Reconstruction and Industrialization overlap chronologically.

"Worker injury" is more concise than "In 1914 alone, 35,000 workers died in industrial accidents and 700,000 were injured". Who says 1914 is representative of the period 1860-1920? Is Worker's Compensation to be addressed here or in the economic safety net? Too much detail for here.

This section is not to compete with History of the United States in hard facts of detail. In any case, it should not be revealing facts not salient enough to cover there. Likewise at the first Hawaiian coup, Queen "Lilli" Liliuokalani successfully petitioned the Democratic President Cleveland to restore her throne, at the second coup she unsuccessfully petitioned the Republican McKinley. The palace guard was British-trained and surely a match for the off-loaded Marines in the event, had it come down to fighting. --- But "Hawaii was acquired" is more concise for this summary survey.

I agree with Cadiomals, the first few sections were marred by triumphalism, the last few sections by presentism. I want to shorten the too-long article, and for a modern country article it seems to me the first place to start is with the lengthy "history" section which is treated in much more elaboration and detail in History of the United States. This subsection is not to replicate that feature article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The purpose is streamlining what consensus determined was an overly long section in an overly long article, addressing quality concerns, and coherence. I'd ask Friedman not to make erroneous assumptions about TVH's motives, though the former should examine his own since a desire to add "unpleasantness" isn't any more legitimate than a desire to "scrub" it (and one man's "unpleasantness" isn't necessarily another's, as issues like abortion, tort law, affluence, single parenthood, business regulation, and certain wars illustrate, so that's an unhelpful characterization anyway). Here TVH mostly just consolidated a few sentences. And being a "hard fact" doesn't automatically merit inclusion in a brief summary section. There are countless "hard facts" we could add. VictorD7 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The last paragraph needs rewriting for neutrality. "Gilded Age" is propagandistic language and its presence here is frivolous, though I'm fine with linking to that page since it includes lots of useful facts. The entire last paragraph is sourced only by Howard Zinn's book. As the GA page observes, wages and living standards increased dramatically during that period, which isn't mentioned here. Our focus should be on the dramatic economic development, which saw the US become the world's largest economy (another salient fact worth mentioning), benefiting consumers and workers as well as "industrialists", rather than just regurgitating political protest signs. We should mention that there was a rise in industrialists and in movements like socialism, progressivism, etc., but not use Misplaced Pages's voice to state that one caused the other. Revolutions and reform movements have often started among relatively well off classes and people (see the French Revolution, or the recent student heavy US Occupy Wall Street crowd), and it's easy to argue that late 19th Century workers were better off than previous generations had been. I support removing the "fact" about worker injuries since there was no historical context (earlier or later era numbers to compare it to), but if we're to retain mention of "worker injury" here at all (which certainly existed in the grueling farm work of the previous several millennia), it should be in the context of saying that reform movements arose to address x, y, and z (injury, monopoly, etc.), rather than accepting the premise that x, y, and z caused the reform movements to arise. That may seem like a subtle nuance but it's an important one for the sake of neutrality. Frankly the final sentence already seems to handle all that adequately, so the earlier segment may be unnecessary. Here's a potential alternative:

Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century produced many prominent industrialists and the U.S. economy became the world's largest. The period also saw the rise of the rise of Populist, Socialist, and Anarchist movements. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, which saw significant reforms in many societal areas, including women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, regulation of consumer goods, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition, and attention to worker conditions. VictorD7 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I added the temperance mention which was a huge deal at the time and ultimately resulted in the 18th Amendment. VictorD7 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how mentioning the "Gilded Age" is "propagandistic" at all, as it is a very commonly used word in academia that encapsulates the affluence that was built on top of terrible working conditions and widespread corruption, alongside the overall increase in wages and eventual increase in living standards. We should not just say that certain movements arose (such as socialist and progressive movements) without clarifying the events and conditions that spurred them. It is universally accepted that the Progressive Era was spurred by the widespread corruption and exploitation that existed at the time. Shying away from mentioning the dark sides of industrialization is not helpful to the reader at all. Cadiomals (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The rest of your post underscores the propaganda I mentioned. Most of what you said is BS (speaking of grade school text books...). Regardless, that type of opinionated description is POV language. Neutrality, remember? It's also unnecessary. If we're no longer quoting the Declaration of Independence, we certainly don't need to include a colorful literary quote used for political effect. BTW, do you have an answer for my question above about the cherry-picked immigration policy sentence? VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you get off calling well-documented facts BS/propaganda when there is extensive primary evidence documenting the tough conditions for many laborers and immigrants at the time alongside the overall increase in wages. It would take no more than one or two sentences to mention the circumstances driving change in those times to clarify for the readers, and I would agree with adding mention of rapid economic development and population growth and adding "reform movements arose to address x, y, and z" rather just saying "reform movements arose". If you're just going to "call BS" on salient and well-documented facts because you don't like seeing capitalism portrayed as anything other than good, I will just wait on input and consensus from others. As for the immigration sentence, I'm not married to it. Cadiomals (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I called BS on your characterization--"terrible"; "affluence..built on..widespread corruption"; etc.--not on the actual fact you repeated about wages simultaneously going up in what was America's greatest period of economic development. The first was mostly myth perpetrated by leftist historians for much of the 20th Century because they had an ideological interest in promoting the perception of need for expansive government economic interventionism. Sure there was corruption, but that was true before and since. Jackson started the spoils system, and the opportunity for corruption and abuse has grown with government's size. Heck, Obama's IRS was caught red handed suppressing conservative groups, the administration opted to investigate itself (the old special prosecutor law was allowed to expire), and it recently came out that the woman in charge of the investigation (whose identity had been a secret) has made numerous separate campaign donations to him, so no one's shocked by a lack of indictments or interviews of victims despite a key figure already having pled the Fifth. Corruption never went away. Worker conditions back then may seem "terrible" by the standards of our time, but that would be true of earlier times too, and whether the improvements since owe more to government regulation or free market response is highly debatable. Regardless, "terrible" is an opinion. Even if every academic agrees with the sentiment it's still inappropriate POV for our purposes.

Just because a protest movement arises at a particular time doesn't necessarily mean we should make assumptions about its causality. A rise in wages might "spur" the creation of a movement, if it's accompanied by higher expectations and more leisure time for certain people than previously existed (more free time for agitation). That doesn't mean things are really worse than they had been before. The French Revolution largely started among the elite classes and France had one of the most well off populations in Europe anyway. The "99%ers" camped out in New York a couple of years ago were themselves among the world's top 1%. My point is that true causality can be debated, and we shouldn't necessarily equate it with whatever the group's stated purpose is (no matter how sincere). However, as I said, I'm fine with stating said purposes, as long as we phrase it that way (e.g. "campaigned for higher wages" and/or "wanted improved worker safety") rather than as cause or by embracing their political arguments at face value in Misplaced Pages's voice.

And shelve your bias accusations. I sometimes state my political views on the Talk Page to illustrate points but I'm the one editing for neutrality here. You're the one defending the insertion of pure political opinion. Is that because you're determined to make capitalism look bad? We've been removing details, but the text should still be factual rather than opinionated. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

One fact we should consider adding is total population, possibly around the turn of the 20th Century (give or take a couple of decades), as a rough guide for scale since the section doesn't mention population after the "2.1 million" on the Revolution's eve. VictorD7 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The point of editing for conciseness, saving some few hundreds of characters each section, is meant to be neutral without altering the substance of the pre-existing text, hence almost all citations remain in place.

I like the addition of Prohibition because a) women’s movements noticed men beat their wives under the influence, so it should stop, and b) worker’s movements noticed drinking a quart of beer (that's how it was bottled) at noon on the farm as a habit --- cost the loss of a hand in machinery in the factory, and c) Evangelicals thought the stuff should be shelved til the Second Coming or be damned.

“Gilded Age” coined by Mark Twain, is a pretty standard reference, found in American historiography in chapter headings and book titles. Again, links to key concepts such as "Gilded Age" incorporate hard facts that do not lend themselves to a summary account.

Total populations might be limited to four mentions akin to our rationing to a limit of four presidents. At the first census 1790, the Civil War 1860, the end of the Third (?) Wave of immigration 1930(?), and at the millennium 2000? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember my textbooks as a little kid having a chapter called "The Guilded Age". I'm hoping more recent books have matured beyond that, but either way it's POV, and delivered with sensationalistic literary flair at that. One thing cadiomals got right above is that the phrase essentially means things were "terrible" for most people. That the facts seem counter to that is beside the point. Virtually everyone of all political stripes, including most history writers, would agree with the statement "Hitler perpetrated great evil", but that doesn't mean the sentence is appropriate for his bio in Wiki's voice (though a similar sentence near the end uses quotes and is attributed). Should we toss in a "robber barons" reference too? Because my textbooks also had that claptrap, and some academics still use the once popular but equally stupid phrase. That said, again, I am fine with retaining a link to the page for the reasons you state, but we frequently alter link titles in the text here for contextual appropriateness and I'm still waiting for someone to make an affirmative argument for keeping the literary POV "guilded age". If we can alter the wording of the Declaration of Independence, why stay wedded to Twain's direct quote? VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And I support your four points proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I would agree to your revision to "economic development" -- can we get a third editor to sign on? My original intent was to simply edit for conciseness, with minor tweeks for completeness or balance. "Gilded Age" seems to have its aficionados, I left it in.

I note that you used the link to "Guilded Age" in the phrase "Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century", so at some level you have already offered a collegial compromise, a link to the 'hard facts', but using language in the narrative which is actually more descriptive for the general reader -- for those who were not raised on the "Gilded Age"-chapter-heading textbooks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Virginahistorian, I think you should have posted a second draft of your disputed civil war/reconstruction era changes before instituting your major alteration of that important section Please do not make major revisions to the industrialization section without first posting a second draft of your disputed proposals on this talk page. Unless you are for example correcting inaccuracies, there is no rush to make these changes and unlike the previous history subsections these sections are not overly long. I'd also like to add that lack of current coverage or mention in the mediocre History of the United States article is not good reasoning for not mentioning something in this article. Both articles need improvement. Both articles need a mix of broad themes and important facts. The history section of this article should not become a smaller/vaguer duplicate of that mediocre article. One final word about recentism, throughout its history the U.S. has grown in physical size and has grown exponentially larger in population. Taking that into account the later subsections of the history section are kind of smallish and they earlier subsections are probably still too big.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But early generations had a disproportionate impact on shaping the culture, laws, and society, so it'd be a fallacy to assume a period where the population happens to be larger merits more coverage in the history section. By that logic world historians would mostly just focus on the present and recent past, and would have to switch jobs and become reporters. Regarding sectional quality, the later sections are worse than the early ones were (except for the chaotically constructed NA contact section). The Cold War/Civil Rights section and Contemporary Era sections are especially messes. Currently the article doesn't mention George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln, but does mention Joseph McCarthy, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Malcolm X. That's an untenable situation that needs rectifying. VictorD7 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please note that the term should be spelt, in links, "Gilded Age" or "Guilded age", not "Guilded Age". Creating a link to the last links to a twenty-first century fantasy comic, which could result in some strange mix-ups.Rwenonah (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ha Ha, that's what I get for typing too fast while multi-tasking. I'll note that I had spelled it correctly in my other comments above though, and in all my links. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lance Friedman. The Civil War edit had your input, your input was preserved in the extended quote as you wished, and placed at the end of the section as a summary conclusion of the entire section. You did not dispute that emphasis, I took you at your word and incorporated it. The estimate of loss in our source is underestimated, but the object is to edit for conciseness without making any substantial changes. One may say 'and aftermath' because one need not merely parrot the source in a near plagiaristic paraphrase, and these estimates are just that, approximations in time and space.

What now? The proposal is more concise without leaving out any editor's objection. The section is important, it is important that it be well written with all editor imput. The proposal did not alter the assessment that the Civil War Amendments, or Reconstruction Amendments, belonged in the Civil War section. Modern Historians such ad Eric Foner date reconstruction from 1863, hence the title of his 1988 volume, Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution: 1863-1877. He treats the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments there in a narrative rooted in the Civil War, which is commonly done in American hisoriography.

But you chose to edit the Amendments without discussion. Please do not edit this important section without discussion on this page, --- while telling me not to do what you are doing, --- when I am not doing it. That is a kind of WP page disruption. To what common purpose? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Historian, As you well know, I have been discussing these edits in the relevant section above this one. And unlike your edits, my recent edits have been relatively minor. Unless someone choses to dispute an edit, this talk page obviously doesn't need to be clogged up with discussion of an edit.Lance Friedman (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revision notes are longer than your discussion here, and your edit reversions are a sign that they were too abbreviated to be persuasive. Use this space instead for discussion. See another effort at accommodating you above relative to your interest in the KKK. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Is anyone going to continue this discussion? I'd hate to see all of this discussion be archived and forgotten about without any resulting changes being implemented in the article. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely returning to it. I think people may have needed a break after doing the previous section. It'll be picked again soon, maybe after the Olympics. It would be untenable to leave the History section halfway finished, worse overall than it was before. VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm all for the continued improvement and streamlining of the History section, but I took a break and ignored the discussion when the pettiness began to return (wherein how one sentence is worded had to be a days-long argument) and as I also began focusing on other articles. I will soon be proposing in a new section a condensed WWI and II section, removing some least necessary details while not sacrificing big events. We should also begin to look at how "Cold War and Civil Rights era" is going to be restructured to conform with the changes in prior sections. And if so we should also not revert to long-winded political discussions by keeping the wording as neutral and concise as possible. I propose condensing the section into two long paragraphs (one discussing civil rights and the other the Cold War) or three short paragraphs as we remove the unnecessary listing of the achievements of recent presidents and focus only on big picture events. Cadiomals (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the following is the draft as discussed thus far:

In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe supplied a surplus of labor for the country's industrialization and transformed its culture. Immigration policies were Eurocentric by restricting Asians from immigration and naturalization beginning in 1882. National infrastructure including telegraph and transcontinental railroads spurred economic growth, greater settlement and development of the American Old West. The later invention of electric lights and telephones would also impact communication and urban life. The end of the Indian Wars further expanded acreage under mechanical cultivation, increasing surpluses for international markets. Mainland expansion was completed by the Alaska Purchase from Russia in 1867. In 1898 the U.S. entered the world stage with important sugar production and strategic facilities acquired in Hawaii. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were ceded by Spain in the same year, following the Spanish American War.

Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century produced many prominent industrialists, and the U.S. economy became the world's largest. The period also saw the rise of the rise of Populist, Socialist, and Anarchist movements. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, which saw significant reforms in many societal areas, including women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, regulation of consumer goods, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition, and attention to worker conditions.

So is there a consensus to implement these changes to the Industrialization section? Are there any further comments about this new version? --Philpill691 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with that. I would have returned sooner but I'm still trying to wrap up a couple of things. I think a few of us agreed that the "Asian" immigration line could be removed since it lacks context and the section doesn't deal with immigration policy shifts at other points in history. VictorD7 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• This looks just fine. Nothing major is stripped away from the original version, all main points remain covered, it's just significantly more concise. The only thing I would leave in is mention of light bulbs and telephones, considering they were landmark inventions. Discussion has been extensive enough, we've waited weeks and we can't remain at an impasse leaving the section half-finished, lest our efforts were in vain. Later I'll submit a proposal for the restructuring of the Cold War and Civil Rights section so we can finally finish up with this section. Cadiomals (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the Asian immigration sentence, and the later mention of the 1965 immigration bill for equity (which didn't explain what the bill was), but since the article does describe late 19th Century immigrants as largely coming from "Southern and Eastern Europe", and some origin is covered in the Settlement section, we could restore the 1965 mention with a sentence explaining that since then (or following it, depending on wording and placement) most immigration has come from the third world. VictorD7 (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Victor's deletion of the Asian immigration sentence. Why should this article discuss where immigrants didn't come from? Seems out of place to me. --Philpill691 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. There is no context as to WHY these socialist, populist and anarchist movements were so popular during this period, such as corruption, extreme disparities of wealth and terrible living/working conditions for the working classes. This context existed to some extent in the previous version. Not only that, the wikilinks now are to generalized articles on socialism and anarchism, whereas the previous version linked to articles that pertained to the development of these movements in the United States. This minor tweak, with an additional citation to a reliable source, would resolve the issue:

Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century produced many prominent industrialists, and the U.S. economy became the world's largest. The excesses of the unregulated economy created extreme inequalities and social unrest that prompted the rise of populist, anarchist and socialist movements. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, which saw significant reforms in many societal areas, including women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, regulation of consumer goods, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition, and attention to worker conditions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the links in detail, but the extra prose you want would be excessive detail containing POV causal assumptions. VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Those additions come right out of a popular university-level textbook, which counts as a reliable source. But fine, I'll revise further:

Rapid economic development at the end of the 19th century produced many prominent industrialists, and the U.S. economy became the world's largest. The excesses of the unregulated economy created The extreme inequalities and social unrest during this period prompted the rise of populist, anarchist and socialist movements. This period eventually ended with the beginning of the Progressive Era, which saw significant reforms in many societal areas, including women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, regulation of consumer goods, greater antitrust measures to ensure competition, and attention to worker conditions. C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, I can tweak the wikilinks so they point to US specific movements. Second, is there a way for us to provide more toned down context that you would agree with? Though I would not word it exactly how CJ did because it is a tad POV, I would agree that some context is helpful instead of saying movements and events simply popped up from no where. All movements arise from disillusionment. Though this may be a recycling of lengthy discussion that already took place, what do you think would be safe wording to augment that sentence? Cadiomals (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the part about the unregulated economy (see above) which presumably was the source of the controversy. What's left seems entirely reasonable to me. Few would dispute that significant income/wealth disparity and social unrest existed during this period. We are, after all, talking about the Gilded Age.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that actual causes of movements can be complex and debatable. When a specific legislative change takes place and a movement to combat that change develops, it's clear cut. But broad political movements like "anarchism" and "socialism" are complex ideologies that grow for many reasons. The much broader "populism" comes in countless varieties and is even harder to pin down. There are many who argue that such movements are at least as likely to arise because of increases in prosperity and free time as worsening conditions. Sometimes it's purely the result of new ideas rather than underlying societal changes. It's easy to argue that some Central/Eastern European immigrants bringing Marxist sentiment had as much to do with it as anything. This seems to be about Griffin wanting to stamp the period with the label "extreme inequalities", and one of the textbook sources already used there is Zinn's, a notorious Marxist polemic and part of a New Left movement that defines itself as standing in opposition to what it calls "consensus history". If we get into the root causes of socialism and anarchism, then proper perspective would demand that we spend even more time explaining America's far more dominant ideology of free market capitalism, which the current section really doesn't get into at all (the closest it comes is the land privatization mentioned in the early colonial period). After all, socialism and anarchism were ultimately fringe ideologies, lucky to get a mention here at all. I think simply mentioning their appearance and linking to their US version articles (which I am fine with) is sufficient for this quick summary article. All that said, I'm willing to compromise as long we use vaguer, less POV language. No one denies that the industrial revolution (particularly the second phase of the mid to late 19th Century) was accompanied by cultural shocks in both the US and UK; indeed many scholars credit the once maligned Victorian era values with helping society remain stable through the transition. How about we say:

Dramatic changes were accompanied by social unrest, and the rise of populist, anarchist and socialist movements. That way we provide the temporal correlation while remaining neutral on causality. People who want more details on the fringe movements can click on the articles. It also has the benefit of getting us out of starting consecutive sentences with "The/This period...". Better flow. VictorD7 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Victor's last. The word 'inequality' and 'unequal' does not appear in the populist, socialist or anarchist articles. I would list them in the order of their membership numbers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we gave relatively neutral context without making unsourced assertions. That's that. Cadiomals (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The flag field is wrong.

65.32.200.86 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It seems fine to me. Hot Stop 04:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The field is in the correct position. Kap 7 (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

New Netherlands? New Amsterdam?

Why aren't the Dutch even remotely mentioned in this article? Why mention the English and the French but not the Dutch? It's a little disrespectful even... One of the smallest nations in the world which controlled the biggest naval force in the world? And let's not forget that even Britain was once under Dutch government. I mean no offence or disrespect toward the other nations who played a part in US history, but the biggest part was played by the Brits and Dutch.

Quote: "In 1602, the government of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands chartered the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie), or VOC with the mission of exploring it for a passage to the Indies and claiming any uncharted areas for the United Provinces, which led to several significant expeditions which led to the creation of the province of New Netherland."

ref: ] 217.121.86.187 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to understand that this is a summary article meant to be an overview of major points including those on history. The Dutch are mentioned in History of the United States where there is a lot more detail, but ultimately their presence was only in the New York area and had too little impact on overall American history to be salient enough to mention here, especially since we are trying to keep that section quite brief. Once the British took control they were obviously the ones who caused the rest of American history to unfold the way it did. At most one sentence can be added in Settlements to mention that Dutch territory in the Northeast was taken by the British but only if someone else wants to add it. Cadiomals (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Dutch basically made the loans which made the American Revolution possible. And we got two Roosevelt presidents out of the deal. Maybe a sentence would be fair, all things considering. You shouldn't have to go to war to make it into the history section. The Dutch territory of New Amsterdam was absorbed by the British into their New York colony in 1665. or The British absorbed the Dutch territory of New Amsterdam into their New York colony in 1665.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If the Dutch are to be mentioned (which I'm neutral on), I prefer the following wording: The English gained the colony of New York with the capture of New Netherland from the Dutch in 1664. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

washington d.c.

There is no such thing. Its D.C. for district of columbia. Hence the license plate DC and not WDC. Also no official mentioning from the government. People might call it that way, but its not correct. 3 march 2014----- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.33 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages favors using the most common name for a subject, not it's "official" name. Which is why he's called Bill Clinton and not "William Jefferson Clinton". Likewise, since all reliable sources refer to the city as "Washington, D.C.", we'll continue to do so at Misplaced Pages. That some sources note the correct (but trivial) fact of the official name of the city is irrelevant to practices here. --Jayron32 05:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

After the incorporated town of Arlington, DC was returned to Virginia, Anacostia, DC, Georgetown, DC and Washington, DC were later consolidated into Washington, DC. And that is what street addresses read throughout the District, including correspondence to the government of the District of Columbia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian wars

Last time i checked, indians are from India. Wars in this country have been with the native Americans. Just because "someone" was looking for India when they "discovered" america, doesnt mean we have to continue to call them what they are NOT, Indians.

3 march 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.33 (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources still call them the American Indian Wars. Your personal distaste over the name itself doesn't appear to affect reliable scholarship on the matter. --Jayron32 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Natives of the continent in question have no more direct relationship to Amerigo Vespucci than they do to the Indian subcontinent. The hundreds of native communities who were consulted in the development of a national museum dedicated to their cultures elected to call the museum the National Museum of the American Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.227.102 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Condensed version of World War I, Great Depression, and World War II

I don't think this takes away much at all, it is basically a more condensed version of the same section, taking away just a few details that are not immediately relevant or salient and merging some sentences to be more concise.

The United States remain neutral at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, though by 1917, it joined the Allies, helping to turn the tide against the Central Powers. President Woodrow Wilson took a leading diplomatic role at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and advocated strongly for the U.S. to join the League of Nations. However, the Senate refused to approve this, and did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles that established the League of Nations.

In 1920, the women's rights movement won passage of a constitutional amendment granting women's suffrage. The 1920s and 1930s saw the rise of radio for mass communication and the invention of early television. The prosperity of the Roaring Twenties ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression. After his election as president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with the New Deal which included the establishment of the Social Security system. The Dust Bowl of the mid-1930s impoverished many farming communities and spurred a new wave of western migration.

The United States was at first effectively neutral during World War II's early stages but began supplying material to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program. On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to join the Allies against the Axis powers. Though the nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers, it emerged from the war with even greater economic and military influence. Allied conferences at Bretton Woods and Yalta outlined a new system of international organizations that placed the United States and Soviet Union at the center of world affairs. As an Allied victory was won in Europe, a 1945 international conference held in San Francisco produced the United Nations Charter, which became active after the war. The United States developed the first nuclear weapons and used them on Japan; the Japanese surrendered on September 2, 1945, ending World War II. -- Cadiomals (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we change "ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that triggered the Great Depression" to "ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression"? The causes of the Depression are too complex to be boiled down to a stock market crash, though this adjustment would remain neutral about the cause. Also, we should lose the part about the war supposedly enriching the US. That's fiercely debated, especially given the era's widespread rationing of basic consumer goods. What's universally accepted is that the US emerged with even greater relative economic strength. How about saying instead that "Though the nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers, its homeland escaped significant damage and it emerged from the war with even greater relative economic and military power."? As for the rest, the detail level may be too high compared to what's happening in the rest of the History section (nuclear weapons yes, but do we need to list the specific bombed cities?), but those are the two main points I wanted to make now. VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'll note here that there was an agreement between at least TVH and I that no one explicitly disagreed with to later go back and add a few population updates at periodic intervals, maybe four or five in all, to provide a sense of scale in growth. There was also an agreement to end up with four named presidential mentions, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. Keeping Wilson would make that five, which I can live with, but we should be conscious about what we're doing. VictorD7 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I made tweaks with respect to some of your above concerns. I don't know how to remove mention of president Wilson without sacrificing a good chunk of detail, so maybe we can up it to 5. As for mentions of population growth, I'm not sure where to fit that in right now, but it isn't highest priority and I think we can consider where to fit them in once all sections have been streamlined. Cadiomals (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. Yeah, we're going to have to go back and reinsert the early presidents anyway at the end, so I figure we'll deal with the population mentions then. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Cash Rules Everything Around Me" critique

This article is full of puffery and outright exaggeration. The main points of this critique by Quinn Norton should be incorporated into the article and the most significant controversies should appear in the introduction as per WP:LEAD. EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not going to include points from some twenty-something woman's rant blog. Not sure if joking/trolling but still have to answer seriously. Cadiomals (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also interested in opinions which address the points raised in Quinn's article and the guideline, and which do not attack living people. Why should this article be exempt from the guideline about summarizing controversies in the introduction? There are an abundance of them. EllenCT (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You already know that Misplaced Pages does not accept amateur self-published media such as blogs as a reliable source unless it is a professional news blog. As for the post itself, none of it contains new or groundbreaking revelations and none of it would be deemed appropriate for this article or its lead. This is my last reply to this topic as it is not even worthy of further consideration by anyone. Cadiomals (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Quinn is a professional journalist with an editor these days. It has really improved her work. Can we please address the points raised instead of the author? EllenCT (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What other country articles could be used as a model? On the other hand, it is hard to get past the third paragraph of a rant that wants the reader to believe that the U.S. pollutes more than China. Nonsense. Seems the editor needs a fact checker. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Which points? This personal opinion piece covers a lot a ground. The best we can say is the writer thinks the US is bad and abuses it's power. Nothing new there. I can find similar opinion pieces for every country in the world. Here are examples of Sweden's failings , , , that are just about as valid by your metric. There will always online criticisms. But this particular article does not warrant inclusion anywhere, much less the lede. Mattnad (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If most countries' articles don't follow the guideline of calling out the biggest controversies, does that mean the guideline should not apply to them? If so, would you support a change to the guideline making that exception clear to editors? Do you believe China has produced more total accumulated pollution than the US, or just started doing so on an annual basis in the past few years? EllenCT (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

On country controversies in their article introduction, I wonder what the[REDACTED] country project would say, I suppose. I'm not sure the introduction is the place a general reader looks for them. Controversies are generally of a political nature related to the governmental regime as represented in political parties, or by their absence, depending on the practice of fundamental human rights found there. The reader would look under a section on governance were that of interest.

Interesting questions, whether the pollution fogs in Shanghai equal those in early industrial London, probably so, and whether we should hold industrialists 150 years ago accountable for today's pollution equally as culpable as the Chinese today. Probably not --- and it is easier to work with the living concerning the problems of our time. Today we know the pollution harms the environment, and the 21st century Chinese have not chosen to match the 21st century standards in their anti-polllution controls as yet.

I do believe the Chinese will pollute less in time, --- but for now, the writer needs a fact checker for current pollution or for aggregations of pollution per capita supplied, pollution per kilowatt produced, over years or decades on a comparative bases, depending on what the writer is trying to say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two concerns I have. 1) the source - a personal opinion piece, whether or not an editor is involved, is not generally the first place I'd look for material, and 2) putting a list of criticisms in the lede of a country article is not encyclopedic. Here's the Britannica article as an example of how a lede gets written. This is a macro level article and it should reflect that.Mattnad (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: what is your opinion on the cumulative amount of pollution currently affecting human health? EllenCT (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A controversy about a country, to me, would be legitimacy. For example, whether Crimea's declaration of independence was legitimate. But it is proper to mention in the lead how the U.S. differs from other countries and other industrial countries, which is already done particularly in the last paragraph. Incidentally much of China's pollution is caused by providing cheap goods for the U.S. TFD (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am struck by the fact that in the U.S. where pollution was less regulated, rivers could catch on fire. And when the pollution stopped, life recovered in the rivers. All pollution is not forever, some of it can be mitigated when man stops continuous augmentation. In a curious way the earth seems to be able to balance itself if given a chance.

As TFD suggests, it is well that it is the U.S. negotiating with China to pollute less. Perhaps it will have some influence because of their economic connectedness. One could imagine a carbon tax in the U.S. applying to imports, not just domestic regulation --- which has on balance produced a cleaner environment here and downwind --- remember "Canada's" acid rain? when it stopped, the foliage returned to the Shenandoah National Forest. Hawaii and Pacific territories are downwind from China. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of federal district

The correct name of the federal district is the "District of Columbia," not "Washington, D.C." Washington is a coterminous city within the District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.227.102 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You see, you must have sources to change the way things are written here, or resources to change the way things are done. You will get the same answer as to the previous unsigned "washington, d.c." section above, Misplaced Pages prefers common usage, in this case, Washington, DC. is what street addresses read throughout the District, including correspondence to the government of the District of Columbia and the United States Government.

First, change all their letterhead addresses, then update Misplaced Pages to the new order you have imposed --- or ---, when all the electronic and hard copy forms for 'city and state' are rewritten to allow for "DC" in the state blank to omit a city in the required field, whichever comes first. You have a kind of geopolitical logic on your side, but we will await events. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with sources in the intro.

The sources given for the following statement; " being the world's foremost economic and military power, a prominent political and cultural force, and a leader in scientific research and technological innovation." does not in any way mention that the US are in any way superior, and certainly not a leader of, neither research nor technological innovation. 29 does mention military power and passingly mentions military technology when speaking of the past (i.e. not the present), but even then does not mention anything regarding actual scientific research nor modern technology: i.e., the latter half of the statement completely lacks sources and as such gives a biased impression. 81.227.4.20 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern regarding citations. The US is a military and economic power and the current sources support this. Note that the last part of the sentence says the US is "a" leader of scientific research and technological innovation, not "The" leader, as in, it shares the spotlight with several other developed countries in this respect. Regardless, this can be supported with a wide range of sources and statistics that show the number of patents in the country and the amount of research it produces annually leads the world. Nothing in the sentence claims the US is superior, it just acknowledges the country's notable standing in the world as a "superpower" which is not denied by any international sources. If the current sources are deemed unsatisfactory I could easily find a couple more. Cadiomals (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, the number of patents a nation holds/creates/etcetera per year does not, as such or in-and-of-itself, in any way prove or support the claim that a given nation is scientifically significant or even good; it merely means that there's a lot of patents, nothing less, nothing more. Even further, a lot of research (almost all of the research in philosophy, the fine arts, the humanities etcetera) does not lead to any form of patent-making, as progress in those areas rarely lead to new products: hence, having a lot of patents applied for (or having a lot of patents) does not in any significant way speak of academic or research excellence. I shall not argue about the US "being a military and economic power", as I never intended to say (and indeed, said the opposite of) that that claim was not supported by the sources, since, well, it was (and is). And, as a side-note, the amount of "research produced" does not imply that the research is of any significant quality or even has any impact in the world of academia or research at large; just that there is a lot of it. If you can "easily find" a couple of sources that support the statement that the US is a "a leader of scientific research and technological innovation", I would recommend that you add them. 81.227.4.20 (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can read any history book or article or any scientific journal and you will find the huge amount of transformative contributions the US has made to science & technology in the past and present. It's not up to me to look up information for you or to find sources that you as an individual find satisfactory. There are a variety of sources within the body of the article that are not included in the lead. In fact, it has never been necessarily required to include sources in the lead since it is (ideally) supposed to be a summary of sourced information in the body. As such, the brief claim made in the lead is more than valid and far from biased. Cadiomals (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or just look at hard science Nobel Prizes over the past half century. Aside from a few online message board posters, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone anywhere who would dispute the lede's understated observation. VictorD7 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Somehow, the Transatlantic Slave Trade is not mentioned in the history of the United States of America - over 500,000 Africans were brought to the U.S. by forced migration, and descendants of these enslaved Africans brought to the United States by force make up the largest minority. Africans and descendants of Africans were responsible for the economy dating all the way back to the 1600's (bringing agricultural methods to the south that were unknown previously), hence the perpetuation of slavery for over 200 years. They played a large part in the American Revolution, and the Civil War -just to name a few - and it's sad that this group, who is INTEGRAL to the history of this country, is completely missing from the entire description. 173.3.160.212 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Already done Although the federal government criminalized the international slave trade in 1808, after 1820 cultivation of the highly profitable cotton crop exploded in the Deep South, and along with it the slave population. this is already here. The history sections on this article is definitely going to be somewhat limited as the article's scope is much broader, there are separate articles regarding History of the United States and Slavery in the United States where that sort of detail would be much more thoroughly discussed. Cannolis (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This person obviously barely read into the article. Slavery is already mentioned in the lead and by doing a simple Ctrl + F I found there are 16 mentions of slavery and slaves in the History section. Cadiomals (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A side issue brought up by the requested edit, I thought the largest ethnic minority was German, followed by Irish, Latino then African-American and Asian (east and south), African and Middle-eastern. Do we have current statistics, how is the world now conventionally divided for the purpose? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for condensed & streamlined Cold War section

The current version of the Cold War section is a mess of fairly random details incongruous with the rest of the section. I removed some domestic details with the goal of leaving mostly "Big Picture" historical events. As such, a recentist focus on political scandals and shifts in domestic policies such as taxation and spending that have happened throughout history are not as pivotal as the social movements and Cold War events that had the biggest impact in shaping world and national history and which are given higher priority. Another peculiarity I want to fix is the only double image left in the History section, and especially with content shortening I wish to simply replace it with one iconic image of MLK Jr. in his "I have a Dream" speech. Feel free to voice your concerns so we can quickly reach an agreement and have these changes implemented:

After World War II the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed for power in what is known as the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact, respectively. While they engaged in proxy wars and developed powerful nuclear arsenals, the two countries avoided direct military conflict. The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored. American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–1953. At home, the US experienced sustained economic expansion and a rapid growth of its population and middle class.

The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race" in which the United States became the first to land a man on the moon in 1969, via the Apollo Program. A different government initiative oversaw the development of ARPANET and TCP/IP, the basis for the Internet. Amidst the presence of various white supremacist groups, particularly the Ku Klux Klan, a growing civil rights movement used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination, with Martin Luther King Jr. becoming a prominent leader and figurehead. The movement would see the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the ultimately unsuccessful Vietnam War. Meanwhile, a counterculture movement grew which was fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. In the 1970s, the American economy was hurt by two major energy shocks and complicated relations with the Middle East. The 1980s brought a "thaw" in Soviet relations. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. Cadiomals (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple quick thoughts:

• How about we replace your Space Race sentence with something slightly more concise: The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race," which culminated with the United States landing a man on the moon in 1969 via the Apollo Program.
• Should this article really name specific individuals from the Civil Rights Movement when it doesn't even name individuals from the Revolutionary period? The mentions of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X seem unnecessary for this broad summary article. What's truly important to the country's history overall is the movement, not the individuals involved in it.

--Philpill691 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If others can agree I can remove mention of Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and the Black Panthers while leaving only MLK Jr. who was the iconic figurehead of it all such that it would be unfair to remove him. The condensed version of the Space Race statement can be easily implemented except I would not use "culminated" as many space missions were initiated after. Cadiomals (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad attempt, but I'm going to have some commentary and maybe alternate proposals later when I get some time, within the next couple of days at most. There should be no rush to implement. We all knew this would be the hardest section to do. I think the old Cold War/Civil Rights section needs more rewriting than the others, not just streamlining. I agree with you in principle that it should cover the basic events rather than be a list of people or incidents. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In what way do you feel the cold war and civil rights parts need re-writing instead of just condensing?... It is already pretty bare bones with my version and I did plenty of re-wording. As a matter of fact I did not find it very difficult at all, it was just a matter of leaving in the most prominent historical events. I further modified the civil rights part with this reply. Cadiomals (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If anything I think it trimmed too much on balance. See below. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposals

Here are some concerns:

• The current article completely omits the Cold War's vital ideological component.
• The new proposal gives short shrift to the period's last couple of decades in what may be overtrimming.
• There was an agreement to end up with 4 presidential mentions, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan, a relatively stable dynamic due to its chronological balance. I apprehensively went along when a single editor decided to retain Wilson (more important than Jefferson, who doubled the nation's size?) but there's no way Reagan gets cut. That would leave a partisan as well as chronological imbalance and lead to inherently instability. Editors would come along and think, with justification, that we were stacking up mentions of Democrats. For good or ill, most analysts see FDR and Reagan as the century's two political giants. Reagan's shift from "containment" to "rollback" alone was a huge deal that's vital to mention in a Cold War section. They're still building monuments to him in Eastern Europe, and he's more identified with the Cold War's climax than at least any other American figure. His role in shifting domestic policy for the long term was huge too. It wasn't just "a shift in taxation and spending". It was a combination of tight monetary policy (soaring inflation vanished and we've enjoyed relative price stability since), dramatic tax reform (ending inflationary bracket creep that had automatically raised taxes on most Americans for years, reducing brackets, simplifying code, capital gains reduction, taking TMR from 70% to 28%, etc.), deregulation, and domestic spending restraint, though I umbrella all that under "free market oriented reforms" and link to the "Reagonomics" article, sort of like the FDR/"New Deal" treatment. Partial reversals in the following two decades left most of Reagan's reforms intact. His influence was such that Clinton later proclaimed that "the era of big government is over", and in recent years even Democrats with completely different ideologies have started to publicly associate themselves with Reagan, Obama saying that "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not", and that he wanted to be such a transformational figure. Several years ago in a Discovery tv series/contest Americans voted Ronald Reagan the "Greatest American" of all time, beating out guys like Lincoln, MLK, and Washington. The guy was reelected in 1984 with the biggest landslide in US history (since electors started being chosen by popular vote), and is undeniably iconic.
• The current article focuses on some niche developments (like the 1960s counterculture) while ignoring some far more important broad trends, like suburbanization, women entering the workforce, etc..

To address these concerns I threw together a rough draft that combines elements of the current article, Cadiomals' proposal, and some stuff I added. Since it's all verifiable, sourcing can wait until after we agree on text. Proposal B shaves off about 600 characters in length from the current article version, and at 2268 is roughly halfway between it and Cadiomals' proposal. It would also be close to the character average of the subsections we've already streamlined (sans the short Native American prelude, which doesn't contain specific history), and would be shorter than Ind. and exp. (3290) and Settlement (2810), and a little longer than the others. I also added an even shorter version that's 1530 characters (not counting whatever ref. numbers get added, which would have only marginal impact) and is almost exactly the same size as Cadiomals' proposal, though lacking in some of proposal B's broad societal information. In both I replaced the isolated "oil shocks" mention with "stagflation", since that was the broader phenomenon, and had multiple causes. The shorter version would be shorter than every streamlined subsection but Industrialization (and the NA prelude). The final versions would have more links; I just added a few to some of the key new concepts. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal B (longer version)

After World War II the democratic capitalist United States and communist Soviet Union jockeyed for power and ideological supremacy in what is known as the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact, respectively. The U.S. developed a policy of "containment" toward Soviet bloc expansion. While they engaged in proxy wars and developed powerful nuclear arsenals, the two countries avoided direct military conflict. The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored. American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–1953.

At home, the US experienced sustained economic expansion and a rapid growth of its population and middle class. Construction of an interstate highway system transformed the nation’s infrastructure over the following decades. Millions moved from farms and inner cities to large suburban housing developments. Rock and roll's development in the South revolutionized popular music and spawned numerous globally influential subgenres. The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race" in which the United States became the first to land a man on the moon in 1969.

A growing Civil Rights movement used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination, with Martin Luther King Jr. becoming a prominent leader and figurehead. A combination of court decisions and legislation, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sought to end to racial discrimination. A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the ultimately unsuccessful Vietnam War. Meanwhile, a counterculture movement grew which was fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. The launch of a "War on Poverty" expanded entitlement and welfare spending.

The 1970s and early 1980s saw the onset of stagflation. After his election in 1980, President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free market oriented reforms, and transitioned from a foreign policy of containment of Soviet influence to a more aggressive "rollback" strategy. The end of stagflation was followed by robust economic growth. The invention of the transistor by Bell Labs in 1947 had ushered in the era of consumer electronics, and by the 1980s personal computers were becoming common. After a surge in female labor participation over the previous decade, by 1985 a majority of women over 16 were employed. Increasing Soviet weakness led to a "thaw" in relations in the late 1980s. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal C (shorter version)

After World War II the democratic capitalist United States and communist Soviet Union jockeyed for power and ideological supremacy in what is known as the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact, respectively. The U.S. developed a policy of "containment" toward Soviet bloc expansion. While they engaged in proxy wars and developed powerful nuclear arsenals, the two countries avoided direct military conflict. The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored. American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–1953. At home, the US experienced sustained economic expansion and a rapid growth of its population and middle class.

The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race" in which the United States became the first to land a man on the moon in 1969. A growing Civil Rights movement used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination, with Martin Luther King Jr. becoming a prominent leader and figurehead. A combination of court decisions and legislation, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sought to end to racial discrimination. A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the ultimately unsuccessful Vietnam War.

The 1970s and early 1980s saw the onset of stagflation. After his election in 1980, President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free market oriented reforms, and transitioned from a foreign policy of containment of Soviet influence to a more aggressive "rollback" strategy. Increasing Soviet weakness led to a "thaw" in relations in the late 1980s. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of proposals

I prefer the longer version at this point. I'd suggest moving the internet sentence to early in the Contemporary section. The internet didn't become historically relevant until the 1990s, so having its primary mention tucked into the 1960s can mislead readers. Maybe something like: The internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's 1960s ARPANET project, became widely available for popular and commercial use in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. Also, I prefer keeping the double image, but if we can only keep one it should be the Cold War one. The Cold War directly impacted far more people and certainly had more global impact. Thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also prefer the longer proposal B over the skeleton that is proposal C, but I think we can find a middle ground with some of my concerns based on B:

• I feel the descriptors you used in the first sentence of B are overly simplistic and should just be left out.
• Would rock and roll really be considered a "big picture" detail?... given that the overall subject of the section is about the cold war and civil rights, its inclusion seems out of place. We really don't mention music at all in the History section, something like that would go in Culture.
• We should remove "The end of stagflation was followed by robust economic growth. The invention of the transistor by Bell Labs in 1947 had ushered in the era of consumer electronics, and by the 1980s personal computers were becoming common" Lest we mention every high and low in the US economy, and the development of the revolutionary internet easily trumps higher consumption of consumer electronics
• We should change Increasing Soviet weakness led to a "thaw" in relations in the late 1980s. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. to the shorter The 1980s brought a "thaw" in relations with the USSR, and its collapse in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. You yourself were advocating against unsourced causal assertions.

Those are the only issues I have with that one. I think it would be a good compromise to agree with them. I also agree with transferring mention of the Internet to contemporary history. Cadiomals (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The transistor is seen as one of the most important inventions in human history, and the broad electronics consumer industry is more important than the internet, since it includes the machines on which the internet exists, but I can compromise by agreeing to that deletion. For the record with the rock segment I was going for a salient example of American innovation with enormous global cultural impact, but I can also compromise by removing that and the "robust growth" sentence. One exception - I would prefer mentioning Soviet weakness rather than just have the USSR suddenly collapse. What if we said Increasing Soviet weakness was accompanied by a "thaw" in relations in the late 1980s.? If you're strongly opposed to it though I can drop the "weakness" segment entirely and just use your latest sentence. The only thing I'd insist on is qualifying the 1980s with "late", since the "thaw" occurred later in the decade.

Regarding the opening Cold War "descriptors", I'm open to changes but we really should mention the struggle's essential ideological component, instead of just pretending it didn't exist. Maybe it'd be different in an even shorter summary, but here we've actually got a section with "Cold War" in the title and enough space to mention the ideological divide. The current article does mention the US opposing "Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored", but relying on that alone leaves the section's ideological coverage cherry-picked and confusing. Only the "third world" is mentioned, and the relevance of "left wing" isn't explained. Identifying the USSR as "communist" would do that. I'm not sure what you mean by "simplistic"; it seems like a broad, accurate description appropriate for this detail level. The USSR was evangelical communist. The USA was evangelical democratic capitalist (and is mentioned as the chief example of democratic capitalism in the linked article). I chose that label because it captures both the democracy and capitalism aspect that differentiated America's system from the Soviet Union's. Do you have an alternative wording suggestion? VictorD7 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Below is the modified version based on your agreements. It includes my alternate wording in the first two sentences. It is better for this copy-paste to be the draft we shape. Once everything is in order we can wait a day or two for possible input from a third party:

After World War II the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed for power during what is known as the Cold War, driven by an ideological divide between capitalism and communism. They dominated the military affairs of Europe, with the US and its NATO allies on one side and the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies on the other. The US developed a policy of "containment" toward Soviet bloc expansion. While they engaged in proxy wars and developed powerful nuclear arsenals, the two countries avoided direct military conflict. The U.S. often opposed Third World left-wing movements that it viewed as Soviet-sponsored. American troops fought Communist Chinese and North Korean forces in the Korean War of 1950–1953.

At home, the US experienced sustained economic expansion and a rapid growth of its population and middle class. Construction of an interstate highway system transformed the nation’s infrastructure over the following decades. Millions moved from farms and inner cities to large suburban housing developments. The 1957 Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite and its 1961 launch of the first manned spaceflight initiated a "Space Race" in which the United States became the first to land a man on the moon in 1969. A growing Civil Rights movement used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination, with Martin Luther King Jr. becoming a prominent leader and figurehead. A combination of court decisions and legislation, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sought to end racial discrimination. A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, a counterculture movement grew which was fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. The launch of a "War on Poverty" expanded entitlement and welfare spending.

The 1970s and early 1980s saw the onset of stagflation. After his election in 1980, President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free market oriented reforms, and transitioned from a foreign policy of containment of Soviet influence to a more aggressive "rollback" strategy. After a surge in female labor participation over the previous decade, by 1985 a majority of women over 16 were employed. The late 1980s brought a "thaw" in relations with the USSR, and its collapse in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. Cadiomals (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism is an economic system, while communism in this context refers to both the economic system and form of government, leaving an unbalance. Is there a graceful way we can mention the liberal democracy element too? After all, it's no coincidence that every NATO member was a democracy while every Warsaw Pact nation was a totalitarian regime with one party rule and/or sham elections (ala Saddam Hussein or North Korea). VictorD7 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to put it in "graceful" neutral terms without adding a whole new sentence. You're referring only to first world countries, but third world countries played as much a part in the cold war, with both powers helping to support authoritarian regimes so long as they conformed to their respective economic systems. While NATO countries were mostly democratic, if we are saying what "drove" the cold war and take actions in the third world into account it seems to have been much more a rivalry between right-wing and left-wing economic systems than governance systems, as the west did not care if a third world country was authoritarian or not so long as they were anti-communist. So to me, leaving it simply in terms of "capitalism" and "communism" is more broadly encompassing. Do we need to get hung up on this though? Cadiomals (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's overstating it. The US generally encouraged liberal democracy where possible (it sometimes wasn't one of the options in the third world), while the Soviets really never encouraged pluralistic liberal democracy long term since it was contrary to their ideology (like Hussein, they gave lip service to "democracy", but it wasn't liberal democracy). A classic laboratory example is Korea. Which one is democratic, the US or Soviet ally? The Cold War was driven by broad based ideological differences, including individual liberty, rule of law, and pluralistic democracy. "Capitalism" (an old Marxist term) is a vital component of that, but I'm not sure it's adequate. Radio Free Europe was pro capitalist, but was hardly merely capitalist. The immediate concern was often whom a country might side with, not the economic system per se ("better our authoritarian than theirs"), with socialists tending to side with the USSR, but that doesn't change the fact that the overarching concern driving the conflict was broad ideology, including liberal democracy. Those "first world" nations were largely democratic because the US rushed to prop them up and ensure they were so in the chaos following WW II, when it looked like chunks of western Europe might go communist too. I still might propose alternative language on this point in the future, but since we seem to be at least very close to an agreed on text, for now I'll stay pat and see if others have input. VictorD7 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, what I mean is that "anti-communist" doesn't just refer to opposing an economic system, communism also being a political system (with economics as a subset). Take Afghanistan. The Mujahideen were hardly raging capitalists, but they opposed the communist regime and were fighting Soviets so it was in the US interest to support them. That strategic move doesn't mean the US didn't care about capitalism. A struggle being ideological in nature doesn't mean that every single tactical move on the board has to totally represent the primary players' fundamental ideological divide with precision, particularly in cases where that wasn't possible. But the nations under US influence generally became more democratic over time; certainly the ones they had direct military control over did (including in the third world). Look at Japan, West Germany, South Korea, Taiwan (heavy US protection at least), Grenada, and Panama. Even Nicaragua has been a stable democracy since the Sandinistas were finally forced to hold real elections and voted out, the people voting the widow of a Contra leader into power. And of course the Cold War started soon after US calls for free elections in eastern Europe were rejected by the Soviets. Ignoring that basic reality of the Cold War's character diminishes this article's quality. VictorD7 (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

a) Overall, the passage is much improved. --- “ideological divide between (liberal) (democratic) capitalism and (totalitarian) communism” is a pretty conventional way of describing the divide, I would concur with Victor, and go with “…between democratic capitalism and totalitarian communism…”

b) “A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the ultimately unsuccessful Vietnam War.” is a sentence that fails to comprehend Vietnam’s largest trading partner today is the United States. That is a different outcome that in Iraq, where the same French, Russian and Chinese have oil contracts before and after Saddam Hussein following U.S. withdrawal. "A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia around the unification of Vietnam, and following U.S. withdrawal, the U.S. became a united Vietnam's largest trading partner."

c) The proxy hot wars with major U.S. troop involvement against Russian advisors and technical support would include Korea, Vietnam and First Gulf War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

a) Hmm, I still consider those words to be uncomfortably loaded and simplistic. Even Victor admitted that supporting democracy in third-world countries while fighting the threat of communist takeover was not often an option even if it was ideal. After I implement the changes maybe we'll think of something, but overall it seems you are in agreement with the passage as a whole... b) It is considered "ultimately unsuccessful" in that the US did not succeed in defeating the Viet Cong, but I can still remove those words and it won't have much of an impact. c) We removed mention of the Gulf War; it doesn't seem to be a big chapter that fits in the context of the rest of the section.

Thank you for you replies, I will go ahead and implement overall changes and any future concerns can be addressed. Cadiomals (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Voice of America (VOA) and United States Information Agency (USIA) both promoted liberal democracy across totalitarian and dictatorship borders in multiple languages and through U.S. Embassy reading rooms, -- and independent of any military sales by treaty which Victor referred to before. Yes, the revision should be put into place. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if it publicly expressed support for democracy through such instruments, would you describe the US's handling of the Cold War in Latin America, and the overall history of latin america, as one in which the it helped sustain transparent liberal democratic governments with freedom of expression, based on this source?

Your linked column has a propagandistic skew to say the least, and is short on facts, conveniently remaining vague about the precise nature and level of US involvement in the various countries it lists. While there were certain significant interventions by Washington (like Nicaragua and Grenada, which I mentioned), in most cases the "coup" stuff is BS peddled by Marxists for decades, and there's a history of exaggerating US support and even knowledge of events in Guatemala and other places during periods of upheaval. That said, even if you accept the piece at face value, it doesn't change the fact that the democracy/totalitarian divide was a major driving force during the Cold War. Heck, the US and Soviets cooperated on certain things, like spaceship docking in 1975, but that didn't mean the Cold War wasn't going on. Exceptions are just that. Besides, the separate, later "third world" sentence is ambiguously enough worded to leave room for your alternative view of the Cold War even if the democracy/totalitarian language was included in the opening segment focusing on the primary NATO/Warsaw Pact theatre. VictorD7 (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The scholarly distinction at the time held totalitarian regimes were more abusive of human rights than dictatorships. Dictatorships would admit some participation in world free market economies, whereas totalitarian regimes would not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary history

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

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

Propose replacing "George W. Bush administration" with "United States". This is not one of the few instances where we clearly need to mention a specific president's name.

I'll also throw it out there that we may want to reconsider mentioning Barack Obama here; we don't make specific note of John F. Kennedy being the first catholic president (which was once also considered a big deal), so why is it necessary to make specific note of the first African-American one? --Philpill691 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I can concur with your first statement but I do think the latter should be kept in. In the coming decades, as newer more profound events unfold, it may be considered inconsequential, but for now the election of the first African-American president still remains a highly significant event in most people's eyes as it exemplifies the nation's progress in terms of racial views. Removing it would be risky and almost certainly a step too far for many editors. Cadiomals (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Phil that no presidents should be mentioned in the Contemporary section. Bush and Obama are both important presidents, but their legacies are still in flux. I take the opposite view that Cadiomals does; in the unfolding of time one or more of the recent presidents may be deemed important enough to warrant inclusion here, but simply being the "first" of a group falls short at this detail level. The Obama mention is recentism. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

At the very least the Obama sentence should be shortened. The "wars" segment is frivolous and at least mostly redundant, and we don't currently mention economic downturns apart from the Depression and the general stagflation phenomenon (which was a special kind of downturn involving soaring inflation). The current dismal economy is discussed in the main Economy and Income sections. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

The reason ARPANET is mentioned is because it gives context as to why that statement should be included in a history of the United States in the first place. Not every country article mentions the Internet in their histories even though most countries have been impacted by it, but the origins of the Internet are connected to projects within the US. Otherwise it seems like a generic statement that could be applied to all of the developed world during the 90s. Cadiomals (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but mentioning ARPANET still seems far too specific for this article. How about something like this: The Internet, which largely had its origins in the United States, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. This is more concise, and not overly specific. --Philpill691 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A few further changes

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

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

Specifically, this draft removes:

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

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

I support these changes, though I still think we should lose the Obama sentence altogether. It was perhaps the most salient example of presidential recentism in the section, so it would be a shame if we went though all this just to leave it. VictorD7 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with these changes, except there's the issue about the shortest History subsection having the only double-image, and Castncoot insists on keeping both with support from a couple others. If the section is shortened to this little both images would ideally have to be removed as they would not even fit anymore without pushing into the next section, which would be further disputed. With these current complications it is probably not the best time for further shortening, but it will definitely be kept in mind for finalized changes in the future before I plan on submitting it for a GA review. Cadiomals (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that if we follow previously agreed on plans, we would probably be adding a population update sentence soon (maybe the 2010 Census count). As for the picture, shrinking would be an option of necessary. Not ideal, but better than keeping bloat that should be trimmed. VictorD7 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Still work to do

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

Lincoln

I agree with you that Lincoln's mention should include his party. Let me throw this out there as a possible replacement for the current second paragraph in this subsection (excluding refs):

Abraham Lincoln of the relatively new Republican Party, which largely opposed the spread of slavery, was elected as president in 1860 with negligible support from Southern states. Beginning soon thereafter, conventions in thirteen states declared secession, then formed the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians.

--Philpill691 (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Or, "The Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln on a platform opposing the spread of slavery. He was elected as president in 1860 with negligible support from Southern states..." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Or: "In 1860 Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party ran for president on a platform opposing the spread of slavery, and was elected with negligible support from Southern states..." --Philpill691 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a slightly shorter alternative, though I could live with any of your proposals too:

Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, conventions in thirteen states ultimately declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians. VictorD7 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I like it, though I would remove the word "ultimately" and perhaps add the word "Southern" after "thirteen". --Philpill691 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Some qualifier such as "ultimately declared", "purportedly declared", "assumedly declared" is required, since both Missouri and Kentucky had ordinances of secession passed by rump minority factions of their legislature, but those Confederate shadow "governments" were in absentia from the early months of 1861, traveling out-of-state with Confederate armies for the duration of the war with no de facto administrative jurisdiction in those places. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were slave-holding states whose people remained represented in the U.S. Congress the entire war voted in by free elections in the regular polling places. While Kentucky and Missouri on the other hand, had pro-Davis army-elected slates of representatives in the Confederate Congress voted in without opposition. see Kenneth Martis in The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not necessarily wedded to "ultimately" but added it for the reasons TVH laid out. I didn't want us to imply that all those conventions voted for secession between Lincoln's election and the war's outbreak. I'm not sure we need "southern" since the previous paragraph focuses on the "north"/"south" divide, but I'm not opposed to adding it either. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been toying with adding a clarifying sentence that would have the segment read...Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, seven states declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. After hostilities commenced four other states joined the Confederacy, while two closely divided states had delegations in both governments. The ensuing war....

Or would that be too much at this detail level? On the up side it would hint at the "brother versus brother" aspect of the war that threatens to get totally lost with the pat emphasis on sectionalism. VictorD7 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Each southern state has its own pockets of Unionism, mostly in uplands and mountains. (Fantasies of guerrilla movements in the mountains require a sympathetic population, that it precisely where the population was not sympathetic to rebellion.) Rather than count the states with Resolves of Secession, why not simply link to the Confederacy at this level of summary account? "Rebelling states formed the Confederacy and fought on until spring, 1865." --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That might be too short, and I'm not sure how it would integrate into the paragraph. I'll take your reply to mean you do think the extra clarifying sentence would be too long then. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Washington

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

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

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

I think we'd want citation for the rarity part, as well as a link or source mentioning the other precedents. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but since all this stuff is basic and verifiable, I figured we'd agree on text first and then worry about sourcing if necessary. The more pertinent question is whether it's too long. VictorD7 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's just it. You say it's basic, but I'm unfamiliar with these other precedents. So I can't sign off on text that I don't know to be true. And I know it was a rarity in the world at the time, but just how rare? How many elected leaders even were there in the 1790s? In the entire time Washington was president, how many other leaders in the world voluntarily left power? It might be "a rarity" but it might also be completely unheard of. These are questions that need to be answered before I can sign off on the prose. --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The ideal of Cincinnatus was not upheld by enlightened despots of the day. Maybe we could use Gary Wills' book, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment? --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure myself as to the unprecedented nature of relinquishing power, either. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had already been doing so for quite some time. I will grant that was not their king, but there weren't exactly a ton of Republics kicking around at the time that come to mind. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be better to say that Washington established precedents important to the United States. Even if he didn't establish the voluntary stepping down principle globally, he did do so for the United States himself, in so doing helping to define the relationship between the national leaders and the nation itself. He also established things like civilian supremacy over the military in the United States through his deferring to civilian leaders as commander in the Revolution, and resigning his commission and disbanding the Army at the conclusion of the Revolution, rather than maintaining a post-war commander role. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"there weren't exactly a ton of Republics kicking around at the time" That's sort of the point. Heck, even contrast it with the French Revolution and Napoleon. There were calls to make Washington a king, which he rejected. There was sentiment among his officers, frustrated over ineptitude by the Continental Congress, to launch a military coup, which he defused. There were no presidential term limits at the time, so when an astonished King George III heard that Washington (the head of state, not the equivalent of the British PM at the time) was voluntarily stepping down from power, he said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." We take that for granted now, but it wasn't inevitable and was certainly a rarity (cautious language if anything) in the world back then. It'd be good if we could capture some aspect of that "Cincinnatus" impact he had in what admittedly little space we have. These characterizations are common in writing about Washington. I haven't read TVH's linked book, but it looks like it would probably be a good source. VictorD7 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary history issues

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

The thing is an image like that has less relevancy in a summary article about the broader United States. It would be more relevant in an article like New York City and World Trade Center (where it already exists in both). The single 9/11 image already clutters that area especially being in such a small section, and if there is enough agreement I would be find with removing that one altogether. Cadiomals (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding, correct???!!! - 9/11 was an event of national (and international) significance - it was an attack that included the Pentagon and a site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania as well. That being your reasoning, the image needs to be re-inserted, if not there, then elsewhere, as a matter of great significance. Independent of 9/11 as well, One WTC is the tallest skyscraper in the United States (and the Western Hemisphere) and is worthy of imaging based on this fact alone. Castncoot (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 9/11 was an event of national and international significance. That is why the 9/11 image is there and that is why it will not be removed if people don't want it removed. But it does not at all justify the addition of a second image of a completed skyscraper which is of far less significance than the image of the actual attacks, and which is so large that it actually ends up being pushed into an unrelated section: Geography, climate and environment. In an article with limited room and one which is already saturated with images, we need to prioritize, and I known most people will agree with me on this. Cadiomals (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Points expressed here reconciled. Castncoot (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent change makes the two images almost too tiny to distinguish any detail and deviates from the formatting of the rest of the section, however I will let other people express their opinions. Cadiomals (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I find them more than clear enough for their intended purposes. Castncoot (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What's this about a previous discussion to eliminate Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy from the contemporary history section? Those were the two most monumentally expensive natural disasters in U.S. history. The real problem that I find here actually is that this particular section is way, way too (ridiculously) short, even for a "summary" article as you describe it. Castncoot (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To elaborate on another recent addition you made, WP:RECENTISM is the reason we chose to leave out mention of any hurricanes, storms or other natural disasters in Contemporary history or the History section in general. Almost all natural disasters in US history have been local or regional, not national, and you will notice none of them are mentioned here. Recent efforts in shortening and streamlining the History section involved making these decisions, and it will have been in vain if such details were allowed to creep back. Whatever your opinion on this there was a broad consensus that History had become too long, and Contemporary history is kept exceptionally short due to concerns over recentism bias. In fact this History section continues to be significantly longer than any found in Good or Featured country articles, and that is the long term goal we are aiming for. Cadiomals (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Points well taken but keep in mind that collectively, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy witnessed nearly 200 MILLION people impacted and 200 BILLION dollars in damages - in my book, this represents national rather than regional significance. Perhaps an exception should be made to allow just these two as a line in the text, otherwise it seems that the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. Any other changes can always be carefully monitored such that the section still maintains its brevity. Castncoot (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hurricanes are considered Acts of God by the insurance companies, and not proper subjects of history. We will not treat the various comets portents during the Civil War section, for instance, or the great Missouri earthquake. They are footnotes, lost at this level of summary account. Much of the hurricane damage suffered was in flood plains or drained swampland --- which should not be built up in the first place for environmental reasons. The damages will be reduced whenever the mistaken policy becomes costly in any real sense that matters to the public, and the building policy changed. The U.S. spent TRILLIONS on its last two wars and CUT taxes. There does not seem to be anything of wide ranging public interest regarding costs related to hurricanes, even at numbers greater by orders of magnitude for war. Wars are included because they are manmade and so properly the subject of a general narrative history, regardless of their costs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty insulting that you equate earthquakes and hurricanes with "comets portents", as if they had the equal effect on life and property. --Golbez (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the material just spewed out by TheVirginiaHistorian is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Let's try a single, concise statement for these two specific hurricanes given their magnitude and national significance in the period of contemporary history specified by the article. And let's keep the threshold for mentioning a natural disaster somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million affected or 100 billion dollars in damages. This will ensure both A) that the section is short and not overloaded with every single disaster that inevitably occurs based upon statistical probability, and B) that we do indeed mention the rare natural disasters which are so catastrophic that they warrant mention and that not mentioning these would make the article a joke. Will proceed as such. Castncoot (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well, it's great to engage in this lively discussion. First of all, the damage caused by Sandy was actually pegged at $82 billion (including insured losses) and rising, as opposed to the $68 billion in uninsured losses alone, and that's why I phrased my threshold as being in the neighborhood of $100 billion in damages, OR 100 million people affected, which there were as well by this storm, as well as separately by Katrina. Furthermore, the 1988-1989 drought is outside of the range of the Contemporary history time frame, namely "1991-present."

As far as the 9/11 image goes, I don't mind increasing the sizes of both images, but I sincerely believe it would be remiss to portray only the destruction and not the very deliberate and painstaking but triumphant rebirth of the site, which is also highly significant on a national United States level. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What do people think of placing this image?

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

The point of the terrorist attack was to disable New York as a financial center. However tragic in the event, the attempt failed. New Yorkers still go to work in the financial capital of the world in skyscrapers. Only the rebuilt image need be shown. If the destruction is shown, the rebuilt must be shown, otherwise showing the act of terror alone is terrorist POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: It's funny how a 9/11 image has been there for years by itself and neither you nor anyone else has ever complained about it being "terrorist POV" until someone came along and decided they wanted a double image there to throw off the formatting of the rest of the History section. If this article ever hopes to see Good or Featured status again, I guarantee one of the requirements by reviewers will be to reduce clutter by getting rid of a few images. But since we're not overly concerned with that right now, I'll leave it be. Cadiomals (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So now at least one person agrees with me on showing the duplex image, if not using the same reasoning that I have, although the more I think about it, his reasoning makes sense as well. Therefore, it is fair play for me to post this new image; others who have commented above have had a chance to reply to this and still do; and nothing is etched in stone, anyway. Castncoot (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gone through this discussion and weighed the arguments, but at a glance of the images before / after in the article, I like including both pictures. Morphh 17:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Castncoot, in the future you should give discussion more than a few hours before rushing to change a long established item so people have a fair chance to express disagreement. A counterargument (one that doesn't necessarily involve supporting jihadist terrorism) would be that the 9/11 attacks weren't just about a couple of buildings. They were far more important and defined this era. While the construction of a new building at one of the attack sites is nice in keeping that real estate from being wasted, it's hardly an act of equivalent historical importance. It's even questionable how triumphant a symbol of New York strength it is given the bureaucratic delays, changing the name from a supposedly too charged "Freedom Tower" to "1WTC", and various other controversies. That said, I won't revert it because I personally like the picture's aesthetics and its size seems to fit better. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with you, VictorD7, as well as with Cadiomals indirectly, that this size is better than the way I had it before - thanks for the suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

The aesthetics are irrelevant to me as well. But simply omitting the reconstruction wouldn't tell the whole story (or complete the history) accurately. Castncoot (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is true that omitting the reconstruction image wouldn't tell the whole story of the World Trade Center, but that isn't the goal of this article. This article is about the United States overall, not the World Trade Center. By your logic we should also include an image of the WTC before 9/11, and perhaps also under construction. Adding those pictures would indeed tell the whole story of the WTC, but this article does not have room for such images that do not directly pertain to overall U.S. history. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I second this, but for some reason User:Castncoot insists that the rebuilding at Ground Zero is of the same national significance as the attacks themselves. The reality is that the building of a new skyscraper in New York had no concrete direct effects or consequences on the rest of the US or the unfolding of its history the same way 9/11 did, other than the sentimental feeling that a "wound has been healed". Sentimentality, and not reason, has been the only justification for cramming a second image in there and the "terrorist POV" thing User:TheVirginiaHistorian came up with out of the blue when he/she never had a problem with it before sounds ridiculous. In the coming months when I and others have finished going through every section to clean up and qualify this article for Good status it will almost certainly be one of the first to go. Cadiomals (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my or others' words or sentiments, Cadiomals. Speaking for myself only, the rationale here is that if the rebuilding of the WTC site were in some way incidental and unrelated to the destruction, and occurred simply because a valuable piece of real estate had become newly available, then the image should not be placed. On the other hand, because the rebuilding of the WTC was deliberately and qualitatively directed by the original destruction, especially with regards to height (1,776 feet - numerically the year of the United States Declaration of Independence), design, structure, security, and exact site location, and because the reconstruction effort was absolutely an effort of national significance, and with national (and international) media coverage for years - the reconstruction image here is absolutely essential, from accuracy, contextual, and "Good article" vantage points. Castncoot (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, people, understand that this is a building of federal significance, see this: . Castncoot (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem with current events as "history". The image of the 9/11 attack is old news, the effort failed to have any lasting effect, it will go down as a contributing cause for war in Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq, not as a stand-alone event worthy of this amount of coverage in the sweep of American history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think 9/11 had a much longer lasting effect on the general behavior of the US gov't and American psyche beyond the immediate consequences. But that's besides the point: in contradiction to your last statement, you still agreed that both images should be there and now say 9/11 is "old news". Have you changed your mind? Cadiomals (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Far from true, TheVirginiaHistorian. The entire security protocol of the United States (and much of the world) was transformed permanently by that fateful day. Castncoot (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that 9/11 as a military event altered the national consciousness. The same is true in that peculiar sense on September 17, 1862, for the Battle of Antietam with a combined tally of dead, wounded, and missing at 22,717 in one day --- an event which forestalled European recognition, military and naval aid to the Confederacy, and propelled Lincoln foreword with the Emancipation Proclamation. Are you suggesting ten times the text here for Antietam as for 9/11? Or is there a larger historical context to be found in this kind of summary narrative account, which would omit both Antietam and the 9/11 event as military history per se on the American psyche. You seem to be favoring more text for the Department of Homeland Security now, with a departmental seal for illustration?

This is the difficulty one has with current events as history, not enough time has lapsed for proper context. Maybe end contemporary history with the end of the Cold War, and then have a volatile "current events" section to end the series, limited to 300 words. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Contemporary history," by definition, is a section that will be expected to change with time, Cadiomals. 10 years from now, the section as it's defined, "1991 - present," will no longer even validly carry that particular time frame definition. What really counts as "contemporary" is that which has happened recently. So if you want to avoid WP:RECENTISM altogether, then it's silly and hypocritical to even include a section titled "Contemporary history" that in fact worships recentism. Contrapositively by logic, if you're going to have a section entitled "Contemporary history," then welcome recentism with open arms in this section.

Given the premise, then, of including a contemporary history section, both the destruction and rebirth stemming from 9/11 need to be included. Plain and simple.

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

Restoring a section name

For many years, up until March of 2013 (one year ago) the name of the current "Income, poverty, and wealth" section was "Income and human development" until it was changed to "Personal income" by one user and then shortly after "Income, poverty and wealth" by another user with little to no justification. Not long after the article became a sh*tstorm. The former long-standing name was and is more all-encompassing especially given its newly restored brevity from when it was bloated up to go into heavy detail on "income, poverty and wealth". I know since it's been a year this is long overdue, but I will be bold and restore it to its rightful name and if anyone really disagrees with can abide by WP:BRD and take a vote on it. Cadiomals (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a question: doesn't "human development" imply an even broader topic scope that could invite editors to shove in material from a whole new slew of topics (education, health, etc.)? VictorD7 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It kind of does, although the fact that we have separate sections for education and health would discourage most logical editors from doing this, and the section name has worked for years without that ever being a problem. "Income, poverty, and wealth" always seemed unusually long and it would be nice to get rid of those commas, but I will revert it until someone can come up with a new name or another solution. It's difficult to come up with a neat name due to lack of precedence. If we didn't go into such detail on income here it wouldn't need a subsection of it's own, as almost no other country articles elaborate on income and wealth distribution this much. But because it is a major issue in US politics editors are biased towards giving it more weight than other aspects of the economy, which I don't think is necessarily appropriate for an "objective" encyclopedia. If we could cut down on some info in that subsection (as well as a little in the main Economy section) it could be merged into the rest of Economy without it looking too long, and if Good/featured status is a long term goal that may be what's best. Some people may argue, "why cut down on so much relevant and informative detail", but a universal characteristic of Featured articles happens to be their conciseness, and that's not something I decided. Cadiomals (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your sentiment that the section should be seriously trimmed, and maybe folded into the Economy section while just retaining some topline info. VictorD7 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Literature, philosophy, and the arts

As I was combing through the Culture section looking for ways it could be streamlined and trying to pinpoint unsourced statements, I found that the "Literature, philosophy, and the arts" section seems to contain little more than a rattling off of random people and movements, some of which have little relevance today and some which have no sources. There should be a way for us to condense the section and leave only the movements and figures that had the greatest impact on American culture, but as someone who is admittedly not an expert on fine arts I don't know if I can be a good judge of that. If you don't feel like going over there right now, here is just one paragraph which exemplifies what I'm talking about (a haphazard listing of people and movements):

In the visual arts, the Hudson River School was a mid-19th-century movement in the tradition of European naturalism. The realist paintings of Thomas Eakins are now widely celebrated. The 1913 Armory Show in New York City, an exhibition of European modernist art, shocked the public and transformed the U.S. art scene. Georgia O'Keeffe, Marsden Hartley, and others experimented with new, individualistic styles. Major artistic movements such as the abstract expressionism of Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning and the pop art of Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein developed largely in the United States. The tide of modernism and then postmodernism has brought fame to American architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Philip Johnson, and Frank Gehry. Cadiomals (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations for the geography section

We need more images to illustrate the beauty of the landscape in the US. Besides the US has a diversity of climates that is unique. This needs to be shown on the main article's page.

This is my choice so far but I welcome any proposition to add more (may be four in total?)

What say you?67.87.50.54 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is simply not enough room in this particular article to add that many images without overcrowding. We need to be selective and prioritize. At most one more could be squeezed in to the Geography section, and that is already much. Geography of the United States contains a rich variety of images and you can feel free to add more there. Cadiomals (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please look at Switzerland or other countries' articles. I don't think it is as cluttered as you suggest. Specially if you use a gallery format. Besides diversity of climate is more fundamental characteristic of a country than sport in my opinion. I am trying to accommodate both views here; may be by using a composite picture or only two pictures? Any more suggestions? Thanks. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Health by political preference

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

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

It is already corroborated, and the source starts with a literature review. The review in the popular science press by a noted authority in the field was professionally edited by a staff with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cadiomals: re is it really necessary to say that I propose summarizing the sources when I ask about their consistency? Please consider that as going without saying, and please contact me on my talk page directly if you feel the need to remove an ongoing discussion I am participating in. EllenCT (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2005. ISBN 0-06-083865-5 Chapter 13, "The Socialist Challenge" pp. 321–357
2. Tindall, George Brown and Shi, David E. (2012). America: A Narrative History (Brief Ninth Edition) (Vol. 2). W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393912671 The Working Class, pp. 589-603
3. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2005. ISBN 0-06-083865-5 Chapter 13, "The Socialist Challenge" pp. 321–357
4. Tindall, George Brown and Shi, David E. (2012). W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393912671 The Working Class, pp. 589-603

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
• WikiProject United States articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-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