This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KlayCax (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 26 February 2023 (→1619 picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:43, 26 February 2023 by KlayCax (talk | contribs) (→1619 picture)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
|
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, 116 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. | |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequently asked questions
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
|
|
Archives: |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. | |
- 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.
- "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.
- 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.
- 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".
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- It is the country's official name.
- 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.
Colonial America image selection
OuroborosCobra, I think your comment "whitewashing American history" is out of place. Proper historical context is needed, if you were to include an image related to slavery further down in the section like this one it would be more appropriate. In the beginning of the colonies, sharecropping indentured servitude was the main agricultural driving force, however over time by the late 17th century it was overtaken by slavery. So, 1619 might be a powerful symbolic date, it does not show an accurate picture of how America developed. Not even the Brazil article opens up like that, and it's fair to say Brazil was almost exclusively devoted to Slavery from the very start, and nothing else (pls see map here:).
Also, I don't get the nuclear mushroom image, if it was a picture related to the Manhattan Project, I would get it... a major engineering accomplishment, etc. But, I hate to raise this illustration; a mushroom cloud just has this negative connotation attached to it, its not like a nuclear power plant or something. The point I'm trying to make is that we should not use clichés to illustrate this article, but accurate imagery that reflects real history. E-960 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've just reverted OuroborosCobra's reversion, which took out the Mayflower image, as well, another version of which had been on the page for some time. Having the 1619 arrival of slaves preceding the Mayflower is appropriate, but without an image of the Jamestown settlement, it seems inappropriate to place it first and for obviously POVish reasons, given the "whitewashing American history" comment in one of OuroborosCobra's edit summaries. There was also text added to make the 1619 image more relevant to the text, whereas before there was little-to-nothing on slavery in that section, which made the slave-arrival image rather irrelevant. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have restored the image but moved it closer to the paragraphs about Jamestown's founding and slavery replacing indentured servitude as the main source of agricultural labor by the early 1700s. There were no other pictures of slavery in this entry, which seems rather strange given the importance of the subject for the Southern economy, for drafting the Constitution and for the Civil War. -- SashiRolls 15:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you SashiRolls. Removing the image gave short shrift to the matter of slavery and failed to give WP:Due weight for its fundamental role in American history. Such a move was out of step with current scholarship. For anyone under the impression that indentured servitude was anything like the forced migration and enslavement of Africans in terms of the scale and scope of its impact on the United States, this article can get you up to speed on the conversation. إيان (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- The New York Times article is behind a paywall; so, I can't consult it (unless I possibly gain access through an online library, which would require some logging in and other hoop jumping). The problem still remains of there being so many images in that section that the chart of the colonies is pushed down (but it might be more appropriate to the next section anyway). There's also the possibility that the focus on slavery, a failed system peculiar to one section, being fundamental is a recent and over emphasized phenomenon, even if problematic race relations and wealth inequality, supposedly in consequence, aren't. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- What you mean by "a failed system peculiar to one section" is unclear, but as for the rest of that sentence, it's absolutely not the case. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS a paywall should not bear on the consideration of a source. There is the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, and I'd happy to email you a PDF if it's too much trouble for you to gain access to it otherwise. إيان (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- The New York Times article is behind a paywall; so, I can't consult it (unless I possibly gain access through an online library, which would require some logging in and other hoop jumping). The problem still remains of there being so many images in that section that the chart of the colonies is pushed down (but it might be more appropriate to the next section anyway). There's also the possibility that the focus on slavery, a failed system peculiar to one section, being fundamental is a recent and over emphasized phenomenon, even if problematic race relations and wealth inequality, supposedly in consequence, aren't. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you SashiRolls. Removing the image gave short shrift to the matter of slavery and failed to give WP:Due weight for its fundamental role in American history. Such a move was out of step with current scholarship. For anyone under the impression that indentured servitude was anything like the forced migration and enslavement of Africans in terms of the scale and scope of its impact on the United States, this article can get you up to speed on the conversation. إيان (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have restored the image but moved it closer to the paragraphs about Jamestown's founding and slavery replacing indentured servitude as the main source of agricultural labor by the early 1700s. There were no other pictures of slavery in this entry, which seems rather strange given the importance of the subject for the Southern economy, for drafting the Constitution and for the Civil War. -- SashiRolls 15:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I temporary reverted the image to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. As that was one of the images used before the recent revisions, per request. @E-960: @Dhtwiki:. KlayCax (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
"Universal healthcare" in lead
Does anyone object to "universal healthcare" being removed from the lead? Multiple editors have expressed concerns about the wording and the statement itself has multiple problems.
Firstly, there's a multitude of countries in the world without universal healthcare. That doesn't make it a good thing. But it's the present state of the world. I've seen some editors state it should be mentioned because it's supposedly to only narrowly contrast to wealthy, developed liberal democracies. But it's unclear why that should be the inclusion of criteria instead of, say, "wealthy countries" (many of which that lack universal healthcare) or liberal democracies (many of which that lack universal healthcare). As Misplaced Pages takes a global perspective: essentially every article on polities compares globally to other countries. Singling it out only makes sense if we're narrowly subdividing the United States and contrasting it specifically with wealthy, developed countries. No similar comparison exists on any other present Misplaced Pages page. (Per the criteria being inherently subjective and encouraging WP: Undue distortions in the lead. A principle that seems uniquely absent (in contrast to other world polities) on this page.
Secondly, like many other countries articles on here, it confuses de jure claims of (quality) insurance with de facto (quality) health insurance.
In terms of effective coverage, healthcare access, and quality — per a 2018 The Lancet study — the United States ranks similar and/or higher on most metrics of effective coverage than Greenland, Costa Rica, Israel, New Zealand, and Portugal, all of which are wealthy Western liberal democracies. The country also rates "high" on the 2019 Universal Healthcare Index and other metrics measuring egalitarian access to high-quality healthcare services. (And others, that don't account for egalitarian distrbution of healthcare resources, it generally ranks among the highest in the world.) But since we're primary talking about egalitarian healthcare access, I thought it would be fair to include.)
As an advocate of social democracy with a lot of axes to grind against present American healthcare policy: it's shameful and WP: Undue for the present North Korean article to have a more positive portrayal of the country's healthcare system than the United States article presently does. (A previous version of the North Korean article went so far as to state that the citizens of North Korea "enjoy universal healthcare". Then, positively contrasting it with the U.S., which is of course utterly absurd.). This of course doesn't mean that there isn't deep flaws in the way that the United States handles healthcare policy. Yet I can't see how this warrants an American exceptionalist text in the lead. I think it should definitely be mentioned in the body. But the present wording comes across as an advocation of policy rather giving a reader's a fair, NPOV, adequate understanding of the country's healthcare system. It's also unclear why claims of universal healthcare should be given more WP: DUE weight than the actual reality.
There's also other WP: Undue aspects of this page that stuck out — compare the present articles on Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and, of course, Singapore, et al. with that of the United States, all of which have far more illiberal polities — that editors have mostly cut out negative information about. (Almost completely in their leads.) Yet, similar problems (even of a lesser scale) in the United States are consistently and prominently highlighted on this page. Obviously, I think that the vast majority of editors who are doing this are doing it in good faith. But it's leading to a gradual and growing distortion of the actual reality.
Interested in everyone's thoughts. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I object. There has already been an RfC on this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Universal healthcare was never directly addressed in that RFC. KlayCax (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Since I prefer to discuss with other editors rather than going straight to RFC. Why do you disagree? KlayCax (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Look again, it says at the top: "The consensus here is option C + healthcare." I don't feel like reading that wall of text above at the moment, but the lack of universal healthcare is a significant issue, obviously. The US has some of the most expensive healthcare and some of the worst health outcomes, including tens of thousands who die each year for lack of coverage, compared to peer countries that have some form of universal healthcare. Like one editor mentioned in the RfC, another option could be "failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Right after that quote, it directly states that
"there is no clear consensus on how to mention healthcare"
. An agreement on how the article should tackle the country's healthcare policy was not reached. The only thing that was agreed upon was that healthcare policy should be discussed somewhere in the article. I (and likely pretty much anyone here) agrees with that statement. - The question is whether the present wording in the lead is misleading/undue. Since it absurdly takes polity's de jure claims of universal quality healthcare with the de jure reality of having universal quality healthcare. That's one of the reasons that the present wording within the article is problematic. Particularly when it relates to things such as quality of service. (Western liberal democracies such as Greenland, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic all rank lower or similar to the U.S. on this metric.)
- Additionally, there has also been a strong previous understanding that countries shouldn't be subjectively compared at a subglobal scale in their leads. Since the factors that would be chosen between the two (or more) polities being compared with — whether the country's have a similar culture, politics, wealth/income, et al. — are all highly subjective for each individual editors.
- There's tons of ways that we could compare and contrast countries. (Anglosphere? Western World? How is there a NPOV-free to determine?) For instance, the articles on Singapore, Hungary, Israel, or Poland don't mention their relationship to other liberal democracy(s) (or wealthy countries in general) for instance, despite structural problems that could likely be called much more extensive than the U.S. We don't "compare" the strength of their democracies to other "wealthy liberal democracies". In fact, no other polity's lead "compares" it on a subglobal level. The fact that this article is the only one that does this — without telling readers that this is occurring — is utterly unique, misleading, and found nowhere else on any article on Misplaced Pages.
- Unless at least (among other problems) these criteria are met:
- #1.) Why the United States should uniquely be compared with subglobal criteria in its lead. (And without mentioning that this is being done!) Despite a general agreement among editors on other country's talk pages that this should inherently be rejected and essentially never done in any case. (Misplaced Pages takes a global perspective.)
- #2.) If #1 is affirmed (and we're going to uniquely compare the U.S. with subglobal criteria). Why should the comparison be based upon the fact that it's a "wealthy, liberal Western democracy" and not some other criteria? Such as simply being a "liberal democracy" or "Western" or "wealthy"? (All of which have multiple countries without universal healthcare. The fact that they lack some form of universal healthcare is almost always lacking from their leads.) How do we chose how to base #1 on neutrally?
- #3.) Why, if #1 and #2 are affirmed, should polities de jure claims of universal healthcare should be taken over the de facto reality of the matter.
- I can't see the mention being anything else beyond WP: Undue and/or outright misleading to the average viewer. Yes. I agree that it's a shame that the country doesn't provide some form of universal coverage for its citizens. But even good-faith bias is still bias. We're not here to recommend corrections for the country's politics. We're here to describe it in an encyclopedic manner.
- None of this was discussed in the original RFC on the subject — which is why I think a discussion on the matter is necessary. KlayCax (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Right after that quote, it directly states that
- Look again, it says at the top: "The consensus here is option C + healthcare." I don't feel like reading that wall of text above at the moment, but the lack of universal healthcare is a significant issue, obviously. The US has some of the most expensive healthcare and some of the worst health outcomes, including tens of thousands who die each year for lack of coverage, compared to peer countries that have some form of universal healthcare. Like one editor mentioned in the RfC, another option could be "failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- (ecx4) - Should be there.....Major!!! racial and political issues for many decades. ONLY industrialized country without universal healthcare. Spends more per person on health care then ANY other country. Ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes and mortality rates of most developed countries. Needles to say......oddest healthcare system in the developed world.Moxy-
06:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- As stated above: I'm not arguing that the American system of healthcare is the greatest in the world. However, Greenland, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic are all wealthy liberal democracies that rank worse/same in de facto universal coverage than the U.S. in terms of % with quality coverage. (Per The Lancet and other major metrics) Beyond that, using subglobal metrics to compare countries is a highly subjective affair and have been essentially universally rejected as the basis of country's leads. I get that people want to critique it. There's undeniably a lot of room for improvement. But Misplaced Pages isn't a place to right great wrongs. It's covering the country in an encyclopedic context. KlayCax (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- All listed above have universal systems.....not the USA. The costs is the number one political issue in the USA. Health care is a basic human right in developed/developing countries....not in the USA. To the developed world.....its crazy Americans have to pay out of pocket to live. As for ""essentially universally rejected as the basis of country's leads"...any proof of this? Has never come up at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries. Moxy- 07:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Moxy. The US is an outlier on the issue of healthcare, which is why it is worth mentioning in the lead. And the text doesn't compare the US to other countries, it just states that it doesn't have universal healthcare as a matter of fact, just as the article on North Korea (mentioned above) says of its system "Most services – such as healthcare, education, housing, and food production – are subsidized or state-funded." No comparisons or moral judgements in either case. Now, if the US lead said something like "It has high levels of incarceration and inequality and lacks universal health care, which could save 68,000 lives annually" that would be a very different statement.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- All listed above have universal systems.....not the USA. The costs is the number one political issue in the USA. Health care is a basic human right in developed/developing countries....not in the USA. To the developed world.....its crazy Americans have to pay out of pocket to live. As for ""essentially universally rejected as the basis of country's leads"...any proof of this? Has never come up at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries. Moxy-
- As stated above: I'm not arguing that the American system of healthcare is the greatest in the world. However, Greenland, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic are all wealthy liberal democracies that rank worse/same in de facto universal coverage than the U.S. in terms of % with quality coverage. (Per The Lancet and other major metrics) Beyond that, using subglobal metrics to compare countries is a highly subjective affair and have been essentially universally rejected as the basis of country's leads. I get that people want to critique it. There's undeniably a lot of room for improvement. But Misplaced Pages isn't a place to right great wrongs. It's covering the country in an encyclopedic context. KlayCax (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I somewhat support this, although I think rewording is preferable to removal. Unlike other pieces of information in the lead ("ranks very high in international measures of quality of life, income and wealth, economic competitiveness, human rights, innovation, and education", "highest median income per person of any polity in the world", "high levels of incarceration and inequality") this isn't really a self-explanatory statement in terms of notability. To be clear, there is no question that this is a notable piece of information, but it doesn't explain why this is more noteworthy than Somalia's similar healthcare situation. As a compromise, it could at least be changed to something like "its healthcare system has been criticized for..." An anonymous username, not my real name 22:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that it's notable, but I don't know if it belongs in the lead, necessarily. However, I don't think it's a big deal either way, and not having universal healthcare (something every developed country has) is more notable than the fact that the US retains the death penalty (which several other liberal democracies also retain). --Rockstone 04:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good to compare these two items .......as they are the 2 human rights violations the developed world is concerned about and affects the world view of the USA. Moxy- 17:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- No doubt that the death penalty as practiced in the US today is a human right's violation, but the US is not the only liberal democracy that retains it. --Rockstone 21:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- they are compared to Iran, North Korea, Somalia ect..... not contemporary Nations. Moxy- 01:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Japan and Taiwan are both liberal democracies that retain the death penalty. They're listed in your source. India is also a liberal democracy that retains it. --Rockstone 07:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Source is clear...". The U.S. remains an outlier among its close allies and other democracies in its continued application of the death penalty" Along with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, the United States is one of five advanced democracies and the 'only Western nation that applies the death . That said womens rights have vastly delclined and is now #3 on the list of human rights violations....but health and death still one and 2. Moxy- 15:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Moxy: A lot of countries are shameful outliners on various issues. For example, just take the issue of LGBT rights: We don't mention in Ghana's article that it's the only liberal democracy that penalizes consensual, adult homosexual conduct. Or that Japan is the only member of the G7 to not recognize same-sex marriage.
- Compare how the GA/FA's articles for Japan, Canada, Singapore, and India are. That's the model.
- While I agree with you, we're not here to critique country's "wrong" policy — however bad it is. KlayCax (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Source is clear...". The U.S. remains an outlier among its close allies and other democracies in its continued application of the death penalty" Along with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, the United States is one of five advanced democracies and the 'only Western nation that applies the death . That said womens rights have vastly delclined and is now #3 on the list of human rights violations....but health and death still one and 2. Moxy-
- Japan and Taiwan are both liberal democracies that retain the death penalty. They're listed in your source. India is also a liberal democracy that retains it. --Rockstone 07:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- they are compared to Iran, North Korea, Somalia ect..... not contemporary Nations. Moxy-
- No doubt that the death penalty as practiced in the US today is a human right's violation, but the US is not the only liberal democracy that retains it. --Rockstone 21:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good to compare these two items .......as they are the 2 human rights violations the developed world is concerned about and affects the world view of the USA. Moxy-
- I definitely agree that it's notable, but I don't know if it belongs in the lead, necessarily. However, I don't think it's a big deal either way, and not having universal healthcare (something every developed country has) is more notable than the fact that the US retains the death penalty (which several other liberal democracies also retain). --Rockstone 04:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
References
- Yearby, Ruqaiijah; Clark, Brietta; Figueroa, José F. (Feb 1, 2022). "Structural Racism In Historical And Modern US Health Care Policy". Health Affairs. 41 (2). Health Affairs (Project Hope): 187–194. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01466. ISSN 0278-2715.
- Wolf, Amy (Apr 10, 2012). "Political divide: Why health care is the issue on which Americans may never agree". Vanderbilt University. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- "America is a health-care outlier in the developed world". The Economist. Apr 26, 2018. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- "How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?". Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. Feb 9, 2023. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- "Mirror, Mirror 2021: Reflecting Poorly". Commonwealth Fund. Aug 4, 2021. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- Shmerling, Robert H. (Jul 13, 2021). "Is our healthcare system broken?". Harvard Health. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- Nadeem, Reem (Apr 15, 2021). "3. Americans' views of the problems facing the nation". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- "Human rights". who.int. Dec 10, 2022. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- The Regulatory Review (Jul 2, 2019). "Should the United States Create a Human Right to Health Care?". The Regulatory Review. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- Winters, Mike (Mar 11, 2022). "Over half of Americans have medical debt, even those with health insurance—here's why". CNBC. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- Galvani, Alison P; Parpia, Alyssa S; Foster, Eric M; Singer, Burton H; Fitzpatrick, Meagan C (February 13, 2020). "Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA". The Lancet. 395 (10223): 524–533. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33019-3. PMC 8572548. PMID 32061298. S2CID 211105345.
might we include in this article the expandable/collapsible sortable table of states from over in Citizendium?
Folks, please see United States of America in Citizendium, and see the second section, "States and Territories". It is expandable to a sortable table of states showing useful information that can be sorted. Might we include this table somewhere in this article? It is only required that we give attribution to Citizendium, otherwise it can be included here. Harborsparrow (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it works; it's a lot of extra information that is accessible one click away. This article is already humongous. It's nice for Citizendium's much smaller footprint, but here it's just repeating information that's elsewhere where it actually belongs and has detail and context. (Also, that table has sufficient issues that we'd never copy it straight, if we did anything it would be merely inspired by this request and we wouldn't have to credit Citizendium anyway.) --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
History § Colonial America: Further information
E-960, please explain why you want to remove appropriate articles from the Template:Further for History § Colonial America. This is a normal feature of articles written in summary style like this one, and you will find in the preceding section Early history we have:
- Further information: Native Americans in the United States, Prehistory of the United States, and Pre-Columbian era
and in the proceeding section American Revolution and the early federal republic we have
- Main articles: History of the United States (1776–1789) and 1789–1849
- Further information: American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, and Territorial evolution of the United States
Your rationale was "all of them already appear in the text no need to duplicate them at the top, as done recently," but clearly there are topics in Further information templates elsewhere in the article that are also linked to in the section text. It's simply a feature of summary style. إيان (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- إيان, I think the image set up in the Colonial America is better now as the picture placement is more balanced at this time, however I think you are starting to over do it on the topic of American Slavery, highlighting it in the "Further reading" section, when those exact same links are already included in the article text (that's just doubly repetitive), and I would share Dhtwiki concerns regarding overemphasising a single topic in this article. After all, there were other nations that thrived on Slavery for centuries, like Sudan and the Ottoman Turk Empire (which by the way, trafficked millions of slaves from Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, becoming a world hub for the slave trade). So, I can agree with highlighting American Slavery in the article, however saturating the article with duplicate links is POV-ish; bringing down the US to just one topic. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, there is no point in having a link to European colonization of the Americas. If you look at other country articles for example, you don't have similar like Renaissance in Europe for France just Renaissance in France is sufficient for that country. --E-960 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, so it seems that your concern is not about duplicate links as you initially stated, but rather about the inclusion and weight given to slavery and European colonization in this article.
- If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that Slavery in the United States was not significant enough to the history of Colonial America to merit the weight it has been accorded in the section at present because there was also slavery in Sudan and the "Ottoman Turk Empire," and that the European colonization of the Americas is irrelevant to Colonial America because the article about France doesn't link to an article called "Renaissance in Europe." Is this the gist? إيان (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, there is no point in having a link to European colonization of the Americas. If you look at other country articles for example, you don't have similar like Renaissance in Europe for France just Renaissance in France is sufficient for that country. --E-960 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
1619 picture
@إيان:, numerous scholars have pointed out that using 1619 ("the First Africans in Virginia") is a heavily misleading date. (See here, here, here, here, here, et al. for others not listed below.)
- 1619 was not the beginning of slavery in the New World. It was 1526.
- The Spaniards, not English, were the first to bring slaves to the New World.
- 1619 postdated the beginnings of African enslavement.
- 1619 had almost no long-term impact on African enslavement.
Et al. As other editors have stated: there's a lot of good reasons to keep it out and not a lot of good reasons to have it in. KlayCax (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- إيان, it's both, you are duplicating the links and focusing on one issue. What if someone's focus was on religious freedoms and did the same for that topic, or women's rights, or Native American plight following the settlement of Western Europeans?? Links for those topics are not highlighted in "Further reading" at the start of every history sub-section.
- Btw, I'm pretty sure Jordan Peterson called out a TV host for what you are now doing now by making comments like: "If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that Slavery in the United States was not significant enough to the history of Colonial America to merit the weight". No, I think Slavery WAS a significant issue, and that's why I'm fine with adding an image related to the topic, though not it being the first image in the section like you and other editor(s) wanted. Also, each Misplaced Pages article does not exist in a vacuum all by itself, and especially with country articles there is a general pattern that follows. So, I find your approach to addressing slavery in the US article a bit POV-ish, when other countries with a legacy of slavery don't have so many "Further reading" links at the top of each section, please see Ottoman Empire/Turkey, United Kingdom, France, Portugal, etc. and the country where slavery still can be found Sudan has only one "Further reading" link related to the topic (and this is a country article where I found this disturbing statement: "slave raiding and abduction 'effectively ceased' in 2002, although an 'unknown number' of slaves remained in captivity"). --E-960 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- So, the US article has more "Further reading" links to the topic of Slavery than a country where Slavery STILL exists and which had it for far longer. --E-960 (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- We already have an image related to slavery in the article as well. KlayCax (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- KlayCax, which is the
image related to slavery
that you say is already in the article? إيان (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)- (Other than the image I reinstated—until a consensus forms against it, if that happens—as approved of by a majority of users in the conversation.) إيان (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- The present Civil War and Reconstruction section has an image related to slavery. (And used to have two images.)
- Responded to the rest below. KlayCax (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- (Other than the image I reinstated—until a consensus forms against it, if that happens—as approved of by a majority of users in the conversation.) إيان (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- KlayCax, which is the
- We already have an image related to slavery in the article as well. KlayCax (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- So, the US article has more "Further reading" links to the topic of Slavery than a country where Slavery STILL exists and which had it for far longer. --E-960 (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Btw, I'm pretty sure Jordan Peterson called out a TV host for what you are now doing now by making comments like: "If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that Slavery in the United States was not significant enough to the history of Colonial America to merit the weight". No, I think Slavery WAS a significant issue, and that's why I'm fine with adding an image related to the topic, though not it being the first image in the section like you and other editor(s) wanted. Also, each Misplaced Pages article does not exist in a vacuum all by itself, and especially with country articles there is a general pattern that follows. So, I find your approach to addressing slavery in the US article a bit POV-ish, when other countries with a legacy of slavery don't have so many "Further reading" links at the top of each section, please see Ottoman Empire/Turkey, United Kingdom, France, Portugal, etc. and the country where slavery still can be found Sudan has only one "Further reading" link related to the topic (and this is a country article where I found this disturbing statement: "slave raiding and abduction 'effectively ceased' in 2002, although an 'unknown number' of slaves remained in captivity"). --E-960 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- KlayCax, 1619 eclipses 1526 for the same reason Jamestown eclipses St. Augustine in American history. Florida did not join the Union until 1819, and was therefore external to developments political, economic, national, etc. in the Thirteen Colonies, through the American Revolution, and well into the 19th century.
- The use of the symbolic date of 1619 did not begin with The 1619 Project and these claims of "presentism" are nonsense. "1619" was already used in the Kerner Commission Report in 1968 and goes all the way back to George Washington Williams' 1882 History of the Negro Race in America.
- To address your claims point by point:
1619 was not the beginning of slavery in the New World. It was 1526
- I didn't say it was. This article is about the United States, and the section in question is about the colonial history of the United States.
The Spaniards, not English, were the first to bring slaves to the New World
- See above.
1619 postdated the beginnings of African enslavement
- Again, this is not about the beginnings of the enslavement of Africans, but about the colonial history of the United States.
1619 had almost no long-term impact on African enslavement
- This is categorically false. إيان (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- إيان, you inserted the 1619 image, but did not remove any of the "further reading" links at the top of each section, even though I noted earlier that they are duplicates of the same article links already found in the section text, and that they are causing WP:UNDUE. I don't have an issue with highlighting this subject, however making this topic the center piece of each section is not balanced. Pls consider one or the other. --E-960 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Confusing/redundant sentence clean up
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Foreign Relation Section. There is a confusing sentence, copied here: Since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. has become a key ally of Ukraine since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and began an invasion of Ukraine in 2022, significantly deteriorating relations with Russia in the process.
I'd propose to change to this: The U.S. has become a key ally of Ukraine since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and began an invasion of Ukraine in 2022, significantly deteriorating relations with Russia in the process. HOGnBOSS (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
Done 
_-_Landing_Negroes_at_Jamestown_from_Dutch_Man-of-War,_1619_-_1901.jpg){kind=link}
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
- 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
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States Government articles with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report