Talk:United States

"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 Wikipedia 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 [1], [2], [3], [4] 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 wikipedia 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)

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.[29][30]" 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)

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.[118] 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.[120][121][122]

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.[135][136][137][138][139] 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.[135][136][137][138][139] 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.[135][136][137][138][139] 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. [135][136][137][138][139] 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)

Greece and Turkey were ruled by military juntas, and Portugal was an out-and-out fascist dictatorship; only since the 80's has every country in NATO been a democracy. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they were all along, but for the record both Greece and Turkey were democracies when they joined NATO, with periodic coups occurring in those unstable countries in the following decades. It's debatable how "fascist" Portugal was by the time it joined NATO, but, regardless, following the establishment of democracy in the 1970s it remained in NATO, and NATO members were a lot more comfortable with it being democratic. Clearly it would be disingenuous to deny that the liberal democratic versus totalitarian component was a major aspect of the Cold War's overarching ideological divide. VictorD7 (talk) 08:34, 7 April 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.[141] The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists under the leadership of Osama bin Laden struck the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people.[142] In response the U.S. government launched the global War on Terror, invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps.[143] In 2003 the United States and several allied forces launched an invasion of Iraq to engineer regime change there, beginning the Iraq War. American combat troops fought in the country for eight years.[145][146][147] In 2008, amid a global economic recession and two wars, the first African-American president, Barack Obama, was elected.[148] Cadiomals (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few further changes

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

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

Specifically, this draft removes:

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

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

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

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

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

In conjunction with the addition of other earlier population mentions, I propose the following be added to the Contemporary section:

By 2000 the United States had a population of approximately 281 million.

--Philpill691 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Internet

The old sentence:

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

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

• The Internet, limited to academic and US defense networks until the 1990s, spread to the public through the World Wide Web, impacting greatly the global economy, society, and culture.
  
  ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose change. That sentence is even longer, and loses its purpose by not mentioning the internet's origins, instead containing a cryptic reference to what it was "limited to" that might leave readers' scratching their heads. That's not an improvement. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• But the real weakness of the original sentence is the second, which is vague to the point of almost non sequitur. "The Internet spread". You know another thing that spread during the 90s? Lumber jack shirts. It doesn't say why or how, or if it had any importance or on what or who whatsoever. The only informative value is on the origin of the internet, which is a technical aspect much more pertinent in the science section and already done there as user:Philpill691 does and thus entirely redundant. And redundancy is the last thing we need in a busy article such as this one. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually "spread around the world" is appropriate for this detail level, which is a very rough summary, as a glance at the rest of the History section shows. People using the internet already know what it is. The information given is the timing. There's no law against mentioning a word like "Arpanet" in more than one section, but if that goes the alternative would be something like Phil's earlier proposal: The Internet, which largely had its origins in the United States, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. That's concise and points out that it had its origins in the US, which is the sole rationale for including the internet in a country article history section. We certainly don't need a longer sentence that contains less critical info. VictorD7 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, I understand your point about origins; what about:

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

^walk victor falk ^talk 04:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to change it we should shorten it per Phil's suggestion, not make it longer. We don't need "World Wide Web", or to spell out its impact. This is mostly about identifying the timing.VictorD7 (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

ok. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That looks fine, though maybe "US" should be moved from before "defense" to before "academic", since the original universities were American too. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that ARPANET is already mentioned in the Science and technology section. I don't think we should mention it twice. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Great Recession of 2008

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

• Keep More than half a decade ago in no longer recent, and it's without a doubt one of, if not the, most significant event of our times. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, really significant in the long view of things, significant enough to usher in a new era of federal regulation in an attempt to bring about transparency, fairness and competition in the face of global challenges and international shadow banking. The experiment in deregulation of financial markets broke at a huge cost to the U.S. and international economies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• There's been more desire to remove the Obama mention as recentism than the ongoing downturn, despite no other economic downturns being mentioned apart from the Depression and the stagflation era (a distinctive phenomenon), so maybe the "great recession" should have its own sentence, one that mentions the ongoing downturn since the recession's technical end in the first half of 2009 that has really made it so notable. A sharp recession lasting around the postwar average (as the "great recession" did) by itself wouldn't merit inclusion here. The sustained economic stagnation and falling median income is what makes this era economically notable. Of course many disagree with the contention that it was a failed "experiment in deregulation" as much as a consequence of excessive government intervention, but this wouldn't be the appropriate article to get into differing causal interpretations. VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Insert another climate change denier, it seems. Regardless of the predominant cause or the proportion of man's contribution, sea levels are rising, so habitation along marshes and floodplains should change -- as a matter of policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do people think of placing this image?

The former World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan on 9/11.

One World Trade Center constructed in its place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, people, understand that this is a building of federal significance, see this: [5]. Castncoot (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The destruction of the WTC is an important historical event. The reconstruction of a building in its place is not. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the rule here now? Can Victor Falk simply take down an image, without allowing any discussion from others for consensus, after an apparent consensus was achieved to keep it up (Users Castncoot, TheVirginiaHistorian, Morphh, and - lukewarm - VictorD7)? Castncoot (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, since there was (slight) majority support for it, he can't take it down. But he adds +1 to the list of people who are against it, which now includes me, him and Philpill. I ignored it since I'm obviously not a fan of the image arrangement, but you would have the right to put it back up until more users voice their opinion and it becomes majority opposed. Cadiomals (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your note on that, and I will certainly abide by the same rules as well. Will place the picture back up for now and discussion can certainly continue. We all really should try, however, to figure out a solution here that satisfies most of the involved editors, because it is obviously a polarizing issue. Castncoot (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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.[450] 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)

I agree; I feel that this subsection could use a fairly major overhaul for conciseness, as has been done in other parts of this article. I also would not be the best person to do this; I’m pretty clueless about a lot of the specifics of fine arts. If nobody here feels up to it, I suggest we seek external help from someone (or a group of people) who is knowledgeable in this area. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Health by political preference

Are the graphics at [6] correct representations of [7]? EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustrations for the economy section

A tract housing development in San Jose, California

Clockwise from top left: The Breakers, a mansion of the Vanderbilts (Newport, RI). Public housing (Bushwick, Brooklyn, NY). Trailer park (West Miami, FL). Tract housing development (San Jose, CA)

The montage is more representative of different types of housing in the US, and links to them in the legend. The old picture is by definition biased by showing only a single type of habitation, and as a thumbnail must anyway be clicked to be clear. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey & discussion

• Support as nom. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your attempt at a good faith contribution. I meant no malice towards you in reverting your edits, I just feel it should be further considered before being implemented. The reason the tract housing image exists in that section in the first place is to illustrate a style of living mostly unique to the US. Public housing, trailer parks, and mansions are not unique to the US and exist in most countries, especially Western ones. Your montage might give a more "balanced" picture of life in the US but it would not be very notable for the article, which for the most part only has images unique to the country. Other country and city articles also only show unique architecture rather than generic buildings. Detached single-family homes in giant sprawling suburban housing developments are really only found in the US, with Canada probably being the only other country with similar housing. European countries are mostly too small and dense for such sprawl, with most Europeans living in conjoined homes with small or non-existent yards. Even giant Russia and China do not yet have the household wealth to build big homes like these, so most people live in apartment buildings.

If you and others really feel showing only one type of housing is biased or unbalanced, that image can be removed altogether and very little would be taken away from the article. Cadiomals (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, looks busy. The proposed one would be even smaller per housing type and harder to see. Besides, the current one looks like a roughly middle class development, and represents the type of housing that most distinguishes America from other parts of the world. Just about every country has mansions, slums, and apartments, but most lack the large, newly built suburban tract housing that's come to define the US middle class since the 1950s, at least in terms of proportional extent and home size. PS - Edit Conflict; I see Cadiomals stole my thunder. VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The wider diversity of vistas is a more accurate representation of the median experience of Americans. The majority of Americans do not live in the suburbs in McMansion-sized cookie cutter subdivisions, even if it is a reasonable statistical mode. EllenCT (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• If tract housing is such a peculiarly American phenomenon, it would be an argument for inclusion in the United_States#Culture section, it doesn't illustrates the "Income, poverty and wealth" sub-section. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't believe a montage is appropriate for a subsection of an article. See the "Government and politics" section for an example of how multiple images can be used successfully. --Jleon (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I also do not believe montages should not be used in the body of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks too cluttered. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose montage Any single high quality picture is fine, even if it does not show a spectrum of diversity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Montages are really quite useless on small screens as found on cell phones, and look busy even on large screens. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

GA status removed

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

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

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

(edit conflict) Time to start working towards GA again, and eventually to FA. We need to make sure that all the images have context, proper license and adhere to image use policy. references need to be checked and redundant mentions removed. Much work and we may not all agree on exactly how to best work towards GA but I am beginning and will attempt to collaborate with others even if we disagree on points.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is no where near being GA. I will not support a GA review and the stability of the article would certainly gain a quick decline at this time. Far too many violations of policy and guideline for reasons that do not improve the article. This article is a horrible mess and barely meets the current rating.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's funny you should say this article is a "horrible mess" considering the state it was in just last October, shortly before I came around and pushed for its shortening and streamlining. As you can see for yourself, many sections bloated with excessive detail by tendentious editors, non-stop content disputes and more cluttered images. A few of the editors that had bloated the article over that past year fought me tooth and nail to keep all that content in. Since then I and just a few others have made huge progress overall, and you have pranced in at a time when the article is at its best in probably 2 years. This is not to say the article doesn't still have a long way to go or is anywhere near Good status, just thought you could use some perspective since you only just got here. Progress has already been made, and when work is done incrementally, section by section, over the next several months, the article will only get better over time. But there are absolutely no plans to submit it for GA review at this time. Cadiomals (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Cadiomals, EllenCT and all other regular editors: please make a list of the sentences that need to be reviewed if you can and I am sure there are many competent editors here who are ready to help you get this article to GA status quickly (including myself may be). 67.87.50.54 (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

image changes

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

Don't edit war over what you do or do not like. That was not appropriate as all my edits were to image use policy. I am reverting that.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark, with all due respect, all bold edits can be reverted if they are disputed per WP:BRD. This is completely in line with Wiki policy and I think you need to respect it and participate in discussion and dispute resolution like everyone else. Cadiomals (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I suggest your review BRD. You don't get to revert another editor's work just because you don't like it. You must have a reasoning per policy and guidelines and not based on what you like or don't like. It is NOT in line with policy to force editors to discuss something before they do it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

None of the images are in violation of copyright or non-free use so as to warrant immediate removal. As I have repeated before, many are long-standing. You absolutely need to discuss such sweeping changes first to get consensus and input from other editors and it is very sad if you are willing to edit war over it because you don't want to follow the rules like everyone else and don't have free reign over what you can change in the article. I asked you to be patient as I find ways to give the images context but it is clear you aren't. Cadiomals (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you want to spend the time to add the context and return images with the proper context that is absolutely fine. Bu without context these images should be removed or the context added. Stop working with personal opinion. Collaboration means that if you feel the context can be added then you are welcome to add it not edit war.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It absolutely does not work that way. Everyone has the right to revert bold sweeping changes as long as there is no outright severe violation of copyright, plagiarism or non-free use. Your distorted interpretation of Wiki policy is very confusing. Nevertheless, I am following the three revert rule to not get in trouble so if you revert me again you will be the one in the wrong by edit-warring over sweeping changes you made and I will contact an administrator to resolve this. Cadiomals (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By insisting that we do it your way under weak justifications you have made it easy on yourself, but because I don't want to prolong this I will have to do it your way. Clever but not at all in good faith. Cadiomals (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "my" way. This is how Wikipedia has worked since the day I registered in 2007. Bold edits do not need to be discussed first and reverting another's work needs to have justification beyond what one likes or doesn't like. Also it is indeed considered "wholesale" reverting to revert everything. There were some images that were removed for more than just image use, but because they made claims that are not accurate. You also reverted the removal of claims made with non RS, and additional copy editing to add more context to other images.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I support Cadiomals' reverts. While bold editing doesn't require discussion first, it's a good idea for significant changes on high traffic articles, and you can't suddenly change most or all of the article's long standing images and expect it to stand. If there are legitimate complaints these things should be discussed one at a time. I restored a couple of pictures myself, including the Cold War one erroneously described as lacking section context. I haven't had time to examine the whole page yet, but I might restore some others too if they're still gone. VictorD7 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can. And just reverting over what you feel is a good idea is the same as the other editor, but now that there is a second editor fighting this I will simply stop for now and return to this after dinner. And to the other editor, this content dispute does not have enough discussion to take to DRN and I will not be participating at this time. Every edit I made was to image use policy. Images are not meant to be simply illustrative.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your highly specific "criteria" for what images can be allowed, based on your idea that they must be directly and specifically referred to in the body rather than just be relevant to the topic, I did not find any semblance of in WP:IUP or WP:MOSIM and you have not pointed to specific pieces of text from those pages to support your assertions. The images are both illustrative and highly relevant and educational. I took this to the DRN because I want an admin to clear this up for both of us and clarify how the policies should be interpreted and whether or not the images really violate the policies. Cadiomals (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I have dinner to make...but...YES IUP does indeed state what I am saying about context and...DRN is NOT an admin noticeboard. I am a volunteer there and I am also a major contributor to BRD and have been very active on Wikipedia with images image use, and non free images. I have grown tired of your inability to get a the point. But again...please get your facts straight before you continue this discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

So I have no idea what I'm talking about? Why don't you point to (as in, copy-paste) points from WP:IUP and MOS:IMAGES that specifically back up your assertions that every image in an article must have a direct, specific mention in the body? I have pored over those articles to try to prove myself wrong. And yes, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a completely appropriate place to have admins and others help resolve a dispute regarding article content. Let me start: IUP states that an image should "should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." In what way does the bland, monotonous facade of the US Department of Education "increase the readers understanding" of education in the United States over the unique neo-classical and colonial architectural elements that are characteristic of universities across the eastern US? "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text" and "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic"... where does it say that that the specific subject of the image needs to have a specific and direct mention within the body? Don't get angry and lash out at me because you've been backed into a corner in terms of your distorted and narrow interpretation of these policies. Cadiomals (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL! DRN is for content disputes. Admin do not run it or over see it. It is a volunteer area like WP:RS. You are not collaborating or interpreting anything properly. You have not backed anyone into a corner. You are simply being disruptive and working around policy to get what you want. Saying "Holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about, do you"? is not lashing out. It is pointing out my perceptions of your shortcomings in this discussion and what I see as attempts to manipulate wording for your own needs. Sorry, but this is an OLD policy and it is accurate. Images must be relevant to the article. Sorry if you simply refuse to understand that but this is an encyclopedia not your personal web page where you can do whatever you want.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"LOL"? That is a really professional way to behave and will really elevate your position in the eyes of other editors. This is a content dispute. I am done discussing this with you and repeating the same things as you regress further into childish responses. Every single image in the United States article is completely, 100% relevant to the content of the article and the sections they are in. It is ironic that you would call me "disruptive" since you were the one attempting to remove relevant long-standing images that have been here for years without anyone saying it violated anything, and replacing some with images of less educational value. As you have failed to specify using copy-paste how the image policies back up your specific assertions, that says quite enough on its own and I am not going to repeat myself. I will simply await others' input and so far two others have backed me up. Cadiomals (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

When its funny...I laugh. You have messed things up here so badly I do find it funny. I am not here to "elevate my position in the eyes of other editors" and you have a lot of nerve mentioning professionalism or guidelines when you began this fucking discussion by violating one of our policies of NPA by creating a discussion of me in the header of this "discussion" and then not getting the point that you are also violating image use policy and dancing around what that policy says. I am preparing dinner. When I have finished eating...I will be sure to go over every policy and guideline you have violated, misinterpreted or just blown off. All your words and text say very little. Why should I be rushed to do your bidding and research for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And you also stated that you didn't violate 3RR on that dispute form. You don't understand that brightline rule either. I'll get to that later.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way...irony is your telling me to be patient in your first revert and then taking this to DRN within an hour of making this thread and then becoming impatient when I didn't copy paste at your request. That is irony.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

• First revert [8] at 00:37, 8 April 2014.
• Second revert [9].
• Third revert [10].
• Fourth revert [11].
• Fifth revert [12] at 14:41, 8 April 2014.

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

Well I just had a very detailed post about all of the things you did wrong or violated policy or guidelines but, the Wikipedia servers went down momentarily and everything was lost. I will redo the post and have it up by tomorrow night as I am off to bed (shortly at any rate) and will be traveling tomorrow. But I will get back to this.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me tell you in advanced if you don't want to waste any more of your time: You are not an admin, I have spent enough time on this site to know how to properly behave and abide by guidelines and as such I couldn't care less what you have to lecture me about. I have contributed to an astronomical improvement in the quality of this article in recent months and I don't need a holier-than-thou random prancing in here telling me I don't know what I'm talking about or doing. I don't need a hypocrite who swears at and insults me and regresses to immature language when they are frustrated telling me not to use personal attacks. In the discussion of content below there are already several people either disagreeing with or at least questioning your viewpoint. When I said I didn't violate the 3RR rule it was for those first three sweeping reverts, but when you again reverted one of my edits under bogus justifications (which no one agrees with), I thought "screw it". In this case you would have have violated 3RR too. So if an admin feels I have broken rules and need a block or sanctions, they will do so, otherwise I won't hear a lecture from an equal who thinks they're better than me. I won't go around in circles with you anymore on this and allow the consensus of other editors to dictate what stays and what goes so we can move on. Cadiomals (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This is what I mean. What the (self editied) "frack" does it matter that I am not an admin? Like that is some special, privileged position or something. You aren't either. And that has absolutely no bearing on this...but it is telling about your attitude. If you know so well how to behave then STOP edit warring over what you just want. Only revert when you have an absolute policy or guideline you are adhering to. You need the lecture from someone and if not me...eventually you will be before an arbcom discussion that will be accepted. You bullshit about 3RR is just that. Bullshit. You very much violated that brightline rule before you scurried away to DRN way before you should have is just the most absurd thing I have seen written on Wikipedia in a long time. If you know so much about our polices and guidelines than I am sure you know that any revert of content on a single page within a 24 hour period is a violation of one of the few real rules we have. You violated it so quickly and without any regard that it was truly fascinating. Admin do not float around looking for issues but dude...don't dangle ANI in front of me and think it aint an option for your behavior. I don't think I am better than you so shut the fuck up with that crap. You are an editor like everyone else, including me, but you seem to have an issue with honesty or...at the very least...accuracy. You keep saying you are done but you still keep chiming away. Try not reverting others for your own desires and wants and you will be just fine. Move on? Something tells me we shall meet again in a more formal setting. You can't unclench, that is for sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've said my piece to you and that's it. I have a feeling I won't be getting in any sort of trouble any time soon, let alone anything that involves you, but if you want to carry on such wishful thinking it doesn't affect me. I can only chuckle at your hypocrisy given your recent violation of the "brightline" 3-revert rule just now with AbelM7, and of course your continued swearing, immature language and personal attacks towards me. Actions speak louder than words, and given that your actions have been completely incongruous with your words I can only take you less and less seriously. This is my last reply to this thread and I will only ever address you with regards to content if it is needed. As for the images at the core of this issue, we let editor consensus decide and so far I don't mind the results :) Cadiomals (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You've said a lot of pieces and you still have no fucking idea what you are talking about. I don't believe you here simply because you just spout off on whatever you want and then say it's the last time you'll address me. This is about your 5th comment about no longer addressing me. Anytime you are ready to shut the fuck up would indeed be welcome. I see you "chuckled"...that is the same as "LOL". You be pretty funny to me. Cool about those results.....see what happens when you actually attempt discussion instead of attempting to be a pain in the ass with wholesale reverts to place the article back into your preferred version.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have started a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#United_States topic there if anyone here wants to contribute their input. Cadiomals (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment A good caption legend can be just as informative and encyclopaedic as any body text (and often more concise and striking thanks to the possibility of semiotic interaction with the illustration.) ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not clear and could be a grey area except that if the image fails to be relevant to the content it still fails image use policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Could the pictures on question be provided here so that other editors may judge for themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Don't forget to sign your posts though. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • While those that return or add content either for the first time or after a deletion are responsible for the burden to demonstrate the content is verifiable and this actually does count, I will go ahead and do that with any image returned that has not had proper context added. If there is sufficient context and relevance I will not bother with those images.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The nature of this conversation is not immediately apparent to me. Could it be summarized so that others could comment on it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:It started when I reverted his sweeping image changes because I thought they should be discussed one-by-one first, but he insisted that WP:BRD does not apply here because the images violated policy and needed to be removed/replaced immediately. I started a discussion here but it devolved into him accusing me of not knowing what the hell I'm doing or talking about, so I will not go in circles with him anymore on interpretation of policy and let the consensus from other editors speak for itself. It is apparent that his interpretation of the Image-use policy is that if the subject of the image does not have a direct and specific mention in the body of the section it is not "relevant" in his eyes. It doesn't matter if the image is related to the subject of the section.

While we have discussed removing or replacing some of the other images, the three big ones I could not wrap my mind around: his insistence that an image of a university has "no relevance" to the Education section because that specific university is not mentioned in the body; his insistence that the image of a law enforcement vehicle of the country's largest municipal police force is not relevant to the Law enforcement section because the section does not directly mention the NYPD; and his insistence that an image of the world's largest and most sophisticated medical center found within the US has "no relevance" to the Health section because it does not specifically mention the health center itself. I have never in all my time here encountered such a narrow interpretation of the image policy, and if he went around trying to apply that to every article, even the Good and Featured ones, he would have endless work on his hands. Of course he will accuse me of misrepresenting him, but so far no one has agreed with him on his view of the policies in terms of those images and I and others insist that they are relevant; for the others we are discussing suitable replacements. Cadiomals (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know if it is Cadiomals's intention to lie of if perhaps it is simple competence issues, but I wouldn't take anything he says about others as accurate. I made a number of valid edits based on image use policy to prepare the article to be nominated for GA. Cadiomals made wholesale reverts of everything including the removal of non RS. He just blindly reverted and demanded I discuss first before I make edits, which is in no way a policy or guideline. BRD was his excuse, and has nothing to do with this. BRD is not a license to blindly revert editors work just because you don't like it and one cannot make demands on any article to discuss first. it isn't DBR. The discussion below shows that some agree with image removal and some would like some to remain, but even Cadiomals has stated multiple times that the context can be added he just wants to demand slowing others down because he can't seem to keep up. We don't edit at the whim of Cadiomals.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of credibility, Mark Miller, you have yet to retract your false statement at the top of the Cold War section that Reagan isn't mentioned in the section when he clearly is. VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Images that lack relevance to the section or article

I replaced a number of images in preparation for GA review per Wikipedia:Image use policy "Content" (bolding for emphasis): "[Images] should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article."

General discussion

• For evaluation: Tesla-Soyuz in the context of the article ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's already being discussed below. By far the best new picture proposed for the Science section is a spaceship photo. Do we really want two spaceship section images? It's more appropriate there than here, plus it's a much better image. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, I don't want two spaceship pictures; I propose Tesla-Soyuz. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

.

Discussion (cold war)

in the "Cold War and Civil Rights era" section there is no mention of Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev or Geneva in the article.

• (edtit for clarity) Ronald Reagan is mentioned in the prose with:"President Ronald Reagan responded to economic stagnation with free-market oriented reforms.". So an image of Reagan would have context if it were attempting to illustrate that concept. But this simply added an image of Reagan with a different subject matter not discussed in the article. it would still appear that the bases of the argument to illustrate the article with images directly relevant still holds but that an image of Reagan, just to have an image of Reagan in some other manner wouldn't be acceptable and I still strongly feel that image is not relevant. But an image of Reagan in context to the mention would be fine and I would support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually that's still wrong. The following sentence reads Following the collapse of détente, he abandoned "containment" and initiated the more aggressive "rollback" strategy towards the USSR. That and the economic segment were one sentence, but victor falk split it up. A couple of lines later we have....The late 1980s brought a "thaw" in relations with the USSR, and its collapse in 1991 finally ended the Cold War. So the current picture is perfectly in context. In fact it represents the section better than anything else proposed. VictorD7 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK, but....wasn't that added recently by another editor?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. You have me there. I don't know why I didn't catch that but I did not. You are 100% correct and I will strike out my comments. I owe you an apology VictorD7. You were right and I was very wrong on that part. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

US President Ronald Reagan (left) and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, meeting in Geneva in 1985.

I replaced the image with one that has direct relevance to the article and section:

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-30483-002, Warschau, Konferenz Europäischer Länder....jpg

The Warsaw Pact conference, 11 May 1955, Warsaw, Poland.

Support the removal, but the new pic is too small to really add any value. Suggest either

this image of two famous civil rights leaders or

an image of the March on Washington. Gamaliel (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh my....I could go for either of those images suggested by Gamaliel but if I had to choose I suppose the MLK and Malcolm X image has the better encyclopedic value....but then the other is pretty darn good as well. either would work for me though.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem with the Warsaw Pact image is that it is a meeting of Warsaw Pact nations and thus has much less relevance to images directly pertaining to the US, such as the one with Reagan. I added a third image of MLK Jr., one which I remember being in the article for quite some time before being replaced. The image with Malcolm X is unfit for inclusion based on Mark's criteria because Malcolm X is not specifically mentioned in the body of the section. Cadiomals (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Ronald Reagan is explicitly mentioned in the section. Did you not even read it? The late 1980s "thaw" in US/Soviet relations is also mentioned, so the current picture is perfectly in context. If we can only have one picture per section it should be Cold War related since the section spends more time on that than civil rights, and since that had more global impact than the domestic civil rights movements. VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I'm talking to myself. HELLO....HEllo...hello....ECHO...ECho...echo....Can I at least get someone to acknowledge that the section op's claim and premise is factually inaccurate? VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL! No VictorD7, I have been trying to disengage from the dispute, but caught your comment below in the science section. If Reagan was mentioned I missed that and went over the section a number of times to find it. I will look again.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you had an image of Reagan, like a portrait and just captioned it with his name that would be fine, but mentioning Reagan is not license to stick in an image with different concepts not mentioned. But what still holds true is that we can add the context but just using any image because we feel it fits is not right. There has to be direct context, so...no, I wasn't entirely wrong with removing the image and replacing it with something that does have a direct mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest the following Apollo-Soyouz picture:

File:Astp-S75-25823.jpg See better alternative below ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The 1970s are given very short shrift in the section, almost to the point of wp:undue. This picture restores the balance somewhat.
• It is hugely emblematic of both the Cold War and the Space Race and how those two things were tightly intertwined.
• It depicts an actual historical event, the first international space rendez-vous.
• It more than compensates for the removal of Armstrong's portrait in representing space exploration, which is by far the worst alternative for the science section.

^walk victor falk ^talk 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that this image is of lower quality than the more profound images above. Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer king and X. It really is an iconic image. If we go with Apollo–Soyuz, I would prefer a picture of a spacecraft, not of astronauts. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we use a map of the Cold War to depict the overall situation described in the text by showing the truly global nature of the conflict:

• 
  This map shows the situation of the Cold War in 1959
• 
  This map is similar to the one to the left, except it is for 1980
• 
  This map also shows the Cold War in 1980, but gives China its own color, as well as some other differences

There are many maps of the Cold War on Commons, but I felt that these three were the best candidates. I would have to say the middle one is my favorite, as it depicts the situation with the guerrilla warfare and general competition in the third world (which is directly mentioned in the text) unlike the map to the left, and I generally like its color scheme more than the map to the right. Please give your opinion about whether a map would be the best image option for this subsection, and which map appeals to you the most. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's a bad idea to include a world map in a history of the United States. These would be much more relevant in a section which covers global/international history, not one on the United States. There's a broad variety of images we could include, but let's focus on what kind of image it ought to be, such as a photograph of persons, to narrow our focus. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Version of Apollo-Soyuz

The Apollo-Soyuz space rendez-vous, one of the attempts to defuse tensions between the USA and the USSR.

• The 1970s are given very short shrift in the section, almost to the point of wp:undue. This picture restores the balance somewhat.
• It is hugely emblematic of both the Cold War and the Space Race and how those two things were tightly intertwined.
• It depicts an actual historical event, the first international space rendez-vous.
• It more than compensates for the removal of Armstrong's portrait in representing space exploration, which is by far the worst alternative for the science section.

• As User talk:Guy Macon points out, a spacecraft picture is better.
• It has historical artistic value, being painted in a typical 1970s style.
• Being a work of art, it makes for a more diverse and varied visual representation.

^walk victor falk ^talk 00:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Relevant to both détente and the Space Race, and quite a unique image. Perhaps we should mention détente in the caption, such that it reads "The Apollo-Soyuz space rendezvous, one of the attempts to defuse tensions between the USA and the USSR during détente". --Philpill691 (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The détente is already mentioned in the body text, but would could pipe-link to it like this: The Apollo-Soyuz space rendez-vous, one of the attempts to defuse tensions between the USA and the USSR. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, especially since we're probably going to end up with a (better) spaceship picture for the science section. Detente was a burp in Cold War history that turned out to be a mirage, but it's already been added to the text, which, along with the stagflation and Vietnam mentions, give the decade adequate coverage. Plus it's a freaking painting. VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• If we're going to get rid of "freaking paintings", there won't be much to illustrate anything before the Civil war. It being a painting is exactly the point, as it illustrates a period of modern art history in addition to its other merits. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• We don't have good photos pre-Civil War, and I don't necessarily see being a specimen of modern art history as a plus. Since the section op failed to read the section and got his facts wrong, no reason has been presented to change from the current picture. VictorD7 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support for Apollo-Soyuz painting It is difficult to pick an image that says "cold war", but I think this one nails it, plus it illustrates the space race and the 70s-style art illustrates the period of time we are talking about , which are nice bonuses. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Would you rather have a spaceship image here or in the science section? And how does a joint space photo op in the 1970s "nail" the Cold War? Seems more like a temporary exception. VictorD7 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose World maps For this kind of article, I don't like images that make no sense without looking at the key, I don't like having to compare multiple images, and it emphasizes the wrong thing - we need to show the US-USSR cold war, not something that happened in Africa --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: How about we use one of the various images available of ICBMs? I would probably say either this or this would be the best option for this article. The constant threat of nuclear warfare was no doubt an important aspect of the Cold War, which is illustrated with either of these images. Thoughts? --Philpill691 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is there an idea that we have to change the image of Reagan and Gorbachev in the first place when almost no one has actually complained about it? No one believes in "if it ain't broke don't fix it?" Not only is it relevant and violates nothing, it clearly portrays the major relationship between the two superpowers in the Cold War as the two heads of state sitting opposite each other, and the fact that it was never changed in a highly visible article is implicit approval. Remember we could potentially add any one of an endless variety of Cold War images but we have to narrow our focus lest we prolong this discussion indefinitely with endless suggestions. Cadiomals (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As another editor has pointed out, it doesn't matter how we got to discussing this, what is important is that we are discussing it. Seeing that others do support the replacement...we should replace it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It certainly does matter if the discussion started and occurred under false pretenses until now, though I appreciate you striking the claim at the top and admitting it was wrong. There's certainly no consensus for changing the status quo here. Best to move on and focus on other issues. VictorD7 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an image of two politicians sitting with each other near the end of the Cold War is the most representative image we could use. I've disliked the present image for a while now but have't mentioned it until now. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not just "two politicians sitting", it's iconic leaders of each side in a high stakes diplomatic give and take at the Cold War's climax. And I agree with Cadiomals. The picture is perfectly fine, so spending time, space, and energy on this is a waste when there's so much else going on here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Philpill691: If you did not like the current image and bit your tongue until now, that's perfectly fine. But suggesting more and more kinds of images we could add will not help us reach a consensus at all, it will prolong this discussion indefinitely. We now have everything from politicians to political meetings to civil rights leaders to space missions to maps and now to ICBM's. Cadiomals (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the painting and I could support it as well. You seem pretty keen on adding images but sure like to bitch when others do the same as you. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In short, I’m for the Reagan-Gorbachev photo for the Cold War, MLK and Malcolm X photo for Civil Rights, oppose Apollo-Soyuz space rendezvous for the Cold War, oppose use of multiple world maps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: The "painting" was used for a joint US-USSR postage stamp issue, and thus has particular significance for US-USSR co-operation. Collect (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  And such "cooperation" does not have much significance to the section. Plus it looks like the Science section is likely headed in a spaceship photo direction. VictorD7 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Discussion (income, wealth & poverty)

I removed an image from the "Income, poverty and wealth" section that had absolutely no releveance in anyway. Just a n image of random tract houses in San Jose.

A tract housing development in San Jose, California

• Remove,not illustrative of subject, poor esthetic quality. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• This image is an attempt to portray how the American "middle class" generally lives, so loosely relevant to the Income, poverty and wealth section, but since it shows generic homes it wouldn't take away much if it was removed. Cadiomals (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• The current picture is very long standing and was recently supported by consensus when someone tried to replace it. If we remove anything from the section it should be the stupid "productivity" graph that was added as a misguided political talking point before the section said anything at all about productivity when most responsible article stewards weren't paying attention, the lone productivity sentence now present and sourced to an obscure partisan think tank being added later as a lame ex post facto justification. I could live with both images being removed, though I don't see anything wrong with the housing picture as it illustrates a home type uniquely common to US society. VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Getting a better picture of how you make decisions with the partisan remark but if there is truly a consensus for the image just link the discussion here and I will accept that for the moment, but I will be adding the content to any image that remains to get over the hurdles needed for GA review.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I edit with neutrality in mind. Given your behavior here you're the last person who should be leveling ad hominem attacks. I said it was supported over a proposed replacement, most recently in a section that's still on the page and that you voted in, so I won't bother linking to that. Here was where it survived the previous attempt at replacement. I'm sure there have been others. VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not buying your neutrality with such remarks but if you can link one you can link the other.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not buying your good faith since the lie you led the Cold War section off with has been pointed out to you multiple times now and you've refused to retract it or even acknowledge the correction. VictorD7 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt your neutrality as your bias shows clearly but I still assume good faith and have not lied about anything and if anyone should retract something you need to retract that personal attack. Just point out what it is you want retracted and why as I disengaged as much as possible on this discussion and haven't been reading all the comments. If I erred, I will retract.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Being so quick to attack my neutrality isn't doing a very good job of assuming good faith. Regardless, your Cold War section lede, your entire rationale for trying to remove the image, claimed that Reagan isn't mentioned in the article, which he clearly is. Here are three different corrective comments: [13], [14], [15]. The first two were direct responses to you; I even bolded key portions of the first in a later edit. VictorD7 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, now...we can't be arguing in a circle like this, because I could surely just say that your quick assumption of bad faith didn't give me faith in your neutrality. Lets move on. I believe you think you are being neutral, even if I don't see the same things as you.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Except I made no quick assumption, as my first unheeded link shows, but alright. Let's move on.VictorD7 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The chart is divided into the top 20% (blue), upper middle 20% (orange), middle 20% (red), and bottom 40% (green). (The net wealth of many people in the lowest 20% is negative because of debt.)

Like the tract housing image until a graph on income distribution/disparity can be found, which seems to be the point of most of the narrative. The section would support one image in my view, unless our consensus is in these economics-financially related sections to allow one image and one graph per section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that this section still has issues and is likely to be further streamlined in the coming months. VictorD7 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• As TheVirginiaHistorian says, the section need picture illustrating disparity. I propose the pie chart to the left as a replacement image, as it complements the graph showing income development by showing wealth distribution. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• This works for me as a replacement to tract housing. Again, the question arises whether these sections merit two images or one. One is my preference.

This editorial choice for streamlining has particular relevance in the Geography section, or "spectacular geological feature" section showcasing remote terrain unrelated to political geography, depending on how it is to be rewritten with multiple (3+) images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I also share the opinion that the section should only have one image. The wealth concentration chart is pertinent, but we should probably find a more up-to-date one rather than one from 2007. Cadiomals (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And it is a wealth chart, not an "income" chart. Wealth is notoriously even harder to measure than things like income or tax incidence, and this chart comes from one guy's calculations based on what he admits is his own methodology (there are alternative methods). In general we should avoid relying on a single study, much less a single author's calculations, for information purporting to be precise, much less give that info the elevated status and implied authority of a visual image. For those reasons I oppose this image, especially if it's to replace the perfectly fine current image. VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• The values of the pie chart correspond completely with the body text: Wealth, like income and taxes, is highly concentrated; the richest 10% of the adult population possesses 72% of the country's household wealth, while the bottom half claim only 2%. So we know now have two independent sources establishing that. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's not an exact match, especially for the bottom 40%, which your chart only gives 0.2% to. But that text line probably shouldn't be there either. The section was greatly expanded and screwed up by a couple of posters a while back and now has all sorts of undue emphasis and source quality issues. Much of it needs to be deleted and/or rewritten for neutrality. Quick examples - the "inequality" growth since 1976 omits the pertinent fact that the starting date was the record low for "inequality". The "household income had been increasing" sentence needs rewriting to more accurately reflect the source's data, particularly to capture the mid 2000s rise sandwiched by recession dips currently misleadingly labeled "flat". It's questionable why the "inequality" adjusted HDI is emphasized in the article rather than the primary HDI (whether either merits the focus the index gets on Wikipedia is yet another discussion). I've already discussed the "productivity" graph, which was nothing more than a poorly conceived POV attempt at a political talking point designed more for emotive than rational impact. If we replaced any current image with a distribution chart, it should be that one. The section currently pounds the "inequality" theme hard, but there are other things we could add. We could add info on how historically climbs in the top 1%'s share of income have been associated with stronger economic growth and climbs in everyone's income in absolute terms (the 1970s weren't exactly an economic glory period), the past few years being an aberrational departure from that pattern (due to the combination of rising stock market and falling median income). We could restore material on how the US went from a higher unemployment rate than the EU during the postwar period to a lower unemployment rate since the 1980s. We could restore even more pertinent facts about how the US has the highest number of millionaires and billionaires in the world (and by some measures the most millionaires per capita), which seems like a basic, appropriate thing for the article to mention in a section with "wealth" in the title. We could restore the long standing description of living standards for American "poor" that cited Census data on things like home ownership, car ownership, and household appliances. Etc.. Or we could streamline things further. Since North Korea having a lower Gini rate than the US (meaning North Korea has more "equality") shows the limitations of focusing on relative equality over absolute living standards ("2%" goes a lot further in the US than in other countries, including most European ones), we could drop most of it, including the skewed historical trend presentation, and just spend a sentence or two pointing out that the US has a wider income distribution than typical European countries (mostly because it has more successful people stretching out the top; less quintile squishing). That would fairly cover what makes the US distinctive on that front without pounding the "inequality" theme to an undue, campaign like level. Replacing the current mainstream housing image with a "wealth distribution" chart would make the emphasis even more undue, particularly when it's been ripped from what amounts to some guy's glorified blog. VictorD7 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And even if we did add a distribution chart, it should be income, not "wealth", since at least relatively more established, better known, less partisan outfits like the CBO do income distribution calculations. VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

.

Discussion (science)

---

In the "Science and technology" section I replaced an image with no relevance:

Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the Moon

The above image was replaced with an image that has relevance:

American inventor Thomas Edison

I have no feelings toward either image though I still prefer color. Both figures are prominent for their contribution to scientific achievements/milestones in American history. Cadiomals (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong is not mentioned nor the fact that he was the first person to walk on the moon and I also feel his contribution is not actually so much a science feat but of human endurance. Neil Armstrong was not a scientist or even an inventor. He has almost no relevance to science or technology as he didn't build the rocket, he flew in it. He was an astronaut. A great man (I actually got to wave to him and the others still in their containment chamber as they passed by my house near the flight line in Hawaii when they were being transported back to the states after the splashdown), but of no relevance to the science and technology section. I have no opinion as to color or black and white images. It isn't a matter of what I like, but what has the most relevance to the section or article.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I propose the following alternative that I put in earlier but was reverted [16]:

A Tesla Coil, generating massive electric sparks. The inventor, Nikola Tesla is sitting in the background.

• It illustrates SCIENCE!! science, and not only a scientist.
• The legend has links to important scientific concepts and inventions.
• By being an idiosyncratic immigrant Serbian American inventor, Nikola Tesla is a nice illustration of the US national character at its best.
• In contrast to most of the pictures that are mostly sedate, this image has a dynamism that is refreshing.

^walk victor falk ^talk 06:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Tesla I prefer the Tesla picture to the others. Tesla's story is equal in prestige to the other presented options. Armstrong is notable primarily as a figurehead of something much bigger than he himself, and there is negative controversy around Edison for his bad attitude. I think Tesla is a more well-liked figure, plus as Victor falk says he represents the US immigration culture, plus the picture is much different from any other used in the article which is another positive factor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• I strongly support the status quo Armstrong photo. The section isn't a list of US scientists, it's a section about USA science and technology. Putting a man on the moon was an event of world shaking importance and scientific achievement, and the American who took those first steps is extremely notable. A US article would be deficient if he's not mentioned by name. That societal achievement is certainly more important than a drawing of a Tesla coil, and the picture is more informative than a mere personal portrait of Edison. The space race is explicitly mentioned in the section so the picture is perfectly in context. There is no rule that says every name and detail about a picture has to be in the text. VictorD7 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• I prefer Tesla over Armstrong or Edison, but better than any of them would be a picture of the LEM on the moon or of a Saturn 5 lifting off. More emphasis on the accomplishment, less on one of the men. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Per Guy's suggestion, I suggest this image. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Apollo 16

• I'm concerned about how certain readers may perceive this image. Tesla invented in the US but he was born to Serbian parents in Croatia. I can imagine some IP or other user coming on here and saying the image should be removed because Tesla was foreign-born and arguing that he is therefore not "American" because he wasn't American-born. I've encountered many people who can't grasp America's immigrant culture/history. Should "Serbian-American" be mentioned in the caption? Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Coverage of space is covered by Apollo-Soyuz image in the cold war section. @user:Cadiomals: I think you didn't read the caption correctly, it is not mentioned there that he is Serbian American (not that such a relatively minor detail should be either in this context). ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I know it isn't, that's why I asked if it should be mentioned based on my reasoning above. Cadiomals (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, there's sure as hell no consensus for making the Apollo-Soyuz painting the Cold War image. At best you're jumping the gun, falk. I like this Apollo 16 picture for the Science section. For one thing it's an actual photo, and not a drawing of a light show. It would be a shame to lose the first human to walk on the moon, but if we're going to change this image for whatever reason (I guess the heck of it), it's better to stick with the Apollo theme since that perhaps best illustrates a singular US high tech achievement. The manned space program represents a huge array of skill and knowledge from many different fields, so the picture illustrates a societal scientific achievement. VictorD7 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap on a stick! I didn't know we had that image. I !vote for the tesla image! Very much...er...or uh,...per Guy!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In what universe is a partially fake black and white photo of a largely useless Tesla coil better for this section than a clear, beautiful color photograph of an Apollo lander sitting on the moon, especially when Tesla isn't mentioned in the section and the space program very appropriately is? VictorD7 (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand that either. Mark has repeatedly insisted that the subjects of images within sections be directly referenced in some way within the body and he has used that justification when he attempted to change or remove several images. But neither Tesla nor developments in electricity are mentioned in the section at all, and he is enthusiastically supporting that image? How can he just change his tune like that when he was trying to force others to abide by his narrow interpretation of the image guidelines in the first place? Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation? No...the community consensus as to image use policy...yes. Now, I read that caption and wgree the image has been manipulated and will have to reverse my !vote on that based on the fact that the image is not real.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also still waiting for him to retract his false claim at the top of the Cold War section. VictorD7 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• While I am not directly opposed to the Tesla image itself, there is still no clear consensus for its inclusion. Tesla or electricity is not mentioned at all in the section. Neither the image or section explains how Tesla's experiments contributed to advances in understanding of electricity or electrical engineering (This image is also semi-fake since it is multiple exposure and these arcs did not all exist at the same time, but that is the least of it). Given Mark Miller's enthusiastic support for this image, he has yet to explain this apparent contradiction/inconsistency in his reasoning. So far there are 3 people in support of the Tesla image, 1 weak/lukewarm with support for an alternative, 2 not supporting it and 1 proposing an alternative. Given that the Armstrong image has existed here for over 1 1/2 years, retaining the status-quo is the norm so long as there is no agreement that it ought to be changed and what it ought to be changed to. Cadiomals (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If anything, there might be more support for the Apollo 16 picture, though most haven't clearly weighed in yet.VictorD7 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Addition: In looking through the history of the article, I found that Tesla was mentioned in the section back in 2012 but some time later was removed altogether (But given that a mention of Tesla doesn't exist now and hasn't for a while Mark is still contradicting himself). Finding the specific diff would be like finding a needle in a haystack. I have no proof of this, but I have a feeling a user removed mention of him because he was foreign-born and not all his work was done in America. Tesla later gained citizenship and I don't agree with that mindset, but still, why add an image that would potentially cause that kind of disagreement? Cadiomals (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I find it slightly shocking that only pure-breed natural-born Americans are allowed in this article, I say. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that only natural-born Americans are allowed in this article. But that is the only reason I can really see for why someone would have removed that mention of Tesla when it used to be there. Cadiomals (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty disgusting but coming from Cadiomals it isn't that shocking to me. The dude still can't shut up about me and even he has admitted over and over that we can add the context. He just doesn't like it I guess. I am seeing some owner ship issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Way to make it seem like I held those views when I clearly stated I didn't. I brought up the fact that Tesla was mentioned in the section some time ago but somewhere along the line was removed by someone, not me, and gave reasons as to why it could have possibly been taken out. If the Tesla image is added (still no consensus for it) then that sentence mentioning him should be re-added too, but it still doesn't change your contradiction regarding your requirements for context. Cadiomals (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The lunar module picture is an improvement over the Armstrong portrait, but it's not as good as the Tesla picture, as it is not as illustrative of fundamental scientific concepts. The Tesla image also has the advantage of extending the coverage of science in the section, while mentions of the moon landing are already made both in this and the cold war section, which makes it repetitive and redundant. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to adding the lunar lander though I agree that with the space image you already proposed adding to History it would give a bit too much weight to space exploration, so it ought to be one or the other. So no one wants to add an image of Thomas Edison? At least a numbskull wouldn't be able to argue that Edison "isn't American" because he was born here and he has always been mentioned in that section from the beginning. Cadiomals (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That is highly offensive.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's superior to the Tesla image because it represents a societal achievement rather than one man's. It also looks better, and isn't fabricated like the Tesla image. I'm not sure either really illustrate "fundamental scientific concepts", but at least the lunar landing really happened. Also, the Science section just mentions the "space race", not the moon landing. The History section mentions the moon landing but doesn't go into any detail. That's not much of a redundancy. You're allowed to mention something important in more than one section if it's pertinent. Having two spaceship images, on the other hand, would be a little much. Since this is a high tech feat it would be better to choose the clear photo over the kitschy 1970s painting. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Apollo 15

I like space as a theme for the science section, man and mission is pictured at this Apollo 15 image. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I created a cropped version of this picture that looks better as a thumbnail. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an even better one. I could live with that. Others should weigh in with what they think.VictorD7 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Science pic survey #1

• Agree to Apollo 15 thumbnail. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though I could live with the current Armstrong picture or either lander photo. VictorD7 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as it depicts an actual scientific achievement, not just an individual who accomplished one. And I definitely think this article should have at least one space-related image. Not to mention it's a great looking photo. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Apollo 15 image. The cropped one looks better within the section in default thumbnail size. Cadiomals (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support (because i am a sheeple! :D)...and does it give a double-chin? lol 67.87.50.54 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (education)

---

In the "Education" section I replaced an image with no relevance:

Some 80% of U.S. college students attend public universities such as the University of Virginia, founded by Thomas Jefferson

The above image was replaced with one that has relevance:

The united States Department of Education

• Oppose replacement. The USDoE is a generic image of a generic building, the UoV is significant for historical, educational, and architectural reasons. Gamaliel (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Now on this image there is actually a pretty easy solution but then just being easy doesn't mean it will gain consensus. What I would do if this image were to remain by the choice of editors would be to take the caption and add it to the prose in either the exact manner and then replace the caption with something more straight forward or leave the caption and add something similar and perhaps extended for relevance, to the section.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Do whatever you want to the caption or body as long as the current image of (quoting from Gamaliel) "historical, educational, and architectural" significance is kept over that utterly bland image of a generic building which teaches the reader absolutely nothing about this country's educational heritage. Cadiomals (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Artistic opinion about the second image is irrelevant, however the "historical, educational, and architectural" significance is pretty relevant to our project goals so, rescuing this the original image should have some importance per Gamaliel.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whatever generic office building the Dept of Education is currently in has essentially no relevance to the state of education in the U.S. --Jleon (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement because the current picture clearly does have relevance. VictorD7 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement. Education happens in schools, not regulatory agencies. Putting the emphasis on a government building is like illustrating farming with the office building holding the department of agriculture or illustrating space exploration with the office building holding NASA, or Wall Street with the office building holding the commerce department. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Guy has this down pretty well.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement A picture of a unniversity is relevant in an education section. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (health)

---

In the "Health" section I removed an image with no relevance to the article or section:

File:Aerial of Texas Medical Center with Downtown Houston in the background.jpg

The Texas Medical Center in Houston is the world's largest medical center.

What sort of "context" would you need for this image to be acceptable to you? I and others already consider it relevant since it is a Health center within the Health section, the largest in the world mind you, but of course you need some sort of specific mention. What should be added to the body or the caption? Cadiomals (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Again...this isn't about me or "others". I am not convinced this image is needed at all and that we should worry about adding any context for it. Its just the aerial view of a building that could be a library, an arena or anything really. What the section needs is something with direct relevance to the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Its just the aerial view of a building that could be a library, an arena or anything really."

But it isn't, is it? It specifically states in the caption that the image is of the Texas Medical Center, the world's largest medical center, a crown jewel of America's (however imperfect) healthcare system, and portraying its degree of sophistication. Would the Dept. of Education building which you proposed adding, not look like any old office building if it wasn't specified in the caption? And what, if anything, would that image teach the readers about the state of education in the US? I'm trying to only discuss content here but I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your view of "relevance". Cadiomals (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it has no relevance to the article. This medical center is not mentioned, nor is downtown Houston.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with user:Cadiomals, I think user:Mark Miller is basing his strict understanding of "relevant" upon the criteria for using copyrighted pictures, that must be critically discussed in conjunction with the text in order to pass fair use (since we're using public domain picture those guidelines obviously don't apply). ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why would you think that? You asked on my talk page and I answered with the same policy as I placed at the beginning of this thread. Image use policy does state that images should reflect the content. I am fully aware of the differences btween NFCC and image use policy and have been good enough to explain it. So I have no idea why you just ignored that and continue to accuse me of using NFCC.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed the reply on your talk page. Glad that's cleared up though. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. Medical centers are relevant to the topic of health, and this one is the largest. Enough said. --Jleon (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal. This is a pretty generic image. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal for reasons given. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support the removal as the nominator.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Texas Medical Center - alternate image

• Oppose removal, alternate Texas Medical Center image is too dark. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wisdom-cover2.png

Jonas Salk

Here's my suggestion for this section. There are some disadvantages to this image, in that Jonas Salk is not yet mentioned in the text, so we'd have to update it, and it does feature a single person, but I suggest it because Salk is one of the most representative figures of American health innovation and because the polio vaccine and vaccinations in general are one of the great achievements of the American health system. Gamaliel (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• This proposal is in the right direction. "Salk" does not have to be explicitly named in the body text, it is sufficient that the image is clearly related to health care. ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• While Salk is a notable health figure from the past, the Texas medical center image is also notable as it is the largest in the world and does a good job of portraying the sophistication and advancement of the US health system today. There are many users already in favor of keeping the current image, but I agree that Jonas Salk is very notable, there does not need to be a specific mention of him in the body for it to be relevant, and I certainly won't fight it if a consensus builds to include that image. The only concern I have is that the Health section mostly talks about the state of health in the US today. Cadiomals (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (statue of liberty)

---

In the "Culture" section I removed an image that had no relevance and also seemed to be a glittering generality out of place in that section:

The Statue of Liberty in New York City is a symbol of both the U.S. and ideals of freedom, democracy, and opportunity.

• Put Statue of Liberty somewhere Culture seems not to be an inappropriate place. Americans themselves have talked about freedom without stopping since the founding of the country, and the Statue of Liberty is one of the best known symbols of the United States internationally. Any depiction of the Statue of Liberty is inherently descriptive of American culture perhaps more than any other symbol. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Find a place for the Statue of Liberty, but not here. I really doesn't relate to culture. Immigration maybe? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• I think the problem is with the caption. As the body text says "Mainstream American culture is a Western culture largely derived from the traditions of European immigrants with influences from many other sources, such as traditions brought by slaves from Africa.[12][416] More recent immigration...". The legend should reflect that, perhaps mentioning it is a gift from France and how it was the first sights of immigrants coming by boat. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Find another location I would disagree that the caption is the issue as this was a gift to the US, designed and built in Paris, France and has little to noting to do with US culture. It was based on similar statues of Libertus from ancient Rome and really this is just in the wrong place.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Agree with Blue Rasberry and victor falk. The United States admits more legal immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined. The greatest port of entry for over a century has been New York City. "The United States is home to many cultures and a wide variety of ethnic groups, traditions, and values." from all over the world. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants, the iconic representation of the United States and that port of entry is the Statue of Liberty as an exemplar to the world, the symbol of the liberty found in a welcoming America unavailable in so many home countries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (culture)

---

In a subsection of the "Culture" section, "Literature, philosophy, and the arts" I removed an image that had no relevance and was also making an innacurate claim. Times square is not the hub of the theatre district and it only depicts flashy billboard ads and no theatres from the actual theatre district:

File:Times Square 1-2.JPG

Times Square in New York City, the hub of the Broadway Theater District.

Though I wouldn't cry if it went away, instead of removing the image, how about changing the caption to "Broadway show billboards in Times Square" rather than the inaccurate claim that it is the "hub" of the Theater District? Or do you still not consider the image to be of any value? Cadiomals (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it is not encyclopedic and what does not represent culture. If we are going to add an image that reflects theatre, then it should be an image of Broadway or even any regional theatre from across America. It isn't that hard. I can even supply an image from one of the United States largest and most important regional theatres. But what is important is to have an image that represents something from the article or section and this is just nothing but a random image used because it shows a billboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, many years ago, Times Square was lined with theatres. There are still two major historic ones on 42nd St. and several more on 44th and 46th Streets. Times Square comprises several blocks along Broadway and Seventh Avenue and is not just "the place with ads." Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. Times Square is the hub of the theater district, regardless of how many theaters are directly located on it. --Jleon (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Look at the advertisements. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mark was concerned about the "inaccurate" statement in the caption. I would change it to "Billboards for various Broadway shows in Times Square" if it is kept. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears to show at least two theaters, by the way. Not "billboards" on their marquees. Collect (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Times square is not the hub of theatre in New York. it isn't a true depiction of theatrical culture. It actually does not show any theatre that I am aware of but if Collect can demonstrate that it would at least be appreciated.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

New York's theater district is centered around Times Square, and "Broadway" is a metonym for theater in the city, so if that doesn't qualify it as the "hub" then I'm not sure what would. Also, Collect is right, both the Palace and Sage theaters are visible in the photo. It's worth noting, however, that the photo is actually of Seventh Avenue, but it's near the very center of the Theater District. --Jleon (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The image shows advertisements for the following Broadway plays:

• Shrek The Musical
• Jersey Boys
• Hair (musical)
• Rock of Ages (musical)
• Unknown (looks a lot like I Robot. does anyone recognize this?)
• South Pacific (musical)
• West Side Story
• Wicked (musical)
• The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)

Our Theater District, Manhattan article says

"New York City's Theater District (sometimes spelled Theatre District, and officially zoned as the "Theater Subdistrict"[2]) is an area in Midtown Manhattan where most Broadway theatres are located, as well as many other theaters, movie theaters, restaurants, hotels, and other places of entertainment. It extends from West 40th Street to West 54th Street, from west of Sixth Avenue to east of Eighth Avenue, and includes Times Square." (emphasis added). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this long-standing (by several years) image will be kept as there is no consensus for its removal and clear opposition. The image is a fair representation of the richness and variety of American theater even if it doesn't show the inside of one. Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the theaters there, IPOF, so was quite sure they were there <g>. And the northern end is properly "Duffy Square". Collect (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is Times Square the intersection (which is to the South of this) and then there is the Times Square district (of which this is a part). Therefore, the present caption is accurate, IMO. --Jleon (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. If the convention is to allow iconic personages, Twain is good here, Edison in Science section. If two images is not the consensus for these subsections, then remove Twain image here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (sport)

---

In the "Sports" section I did not have time to replace the image there that has no relevance But as Phelps is not mentioned it should be replaced, probably by a baseball pic: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talk • contribs)

Swimmer Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time.

Suggested replacement. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

That's actually funny because this was the image I was considering. I agree with this as a replacement.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The first image above was long-standing by a few years before it was replaced by the Michael Phelps image around 2 years ago, and it should pass Mark's narrow view of "relevance" since American football is specifically mentioned within the section. The second image preceded it back in 2008 when this was a "Good" article. There is no rule that says a specific famed sports figure must be showcased. This would be considered common knowledge to an American, but there are still plenty of sources which show that American football is deeply ingrained into modern American culture, nowadays even more so than baseball, so it would be a fair representation of American culture to re-add this. Cadiomals (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You might want to stop misrepresenting me. Per WP:WIAPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.". So put up or shut up.

Long standing or not I think the Babe Ruth image is iconic and a better image to use here.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally interpret this as saying that an image of a dead baseball player, however iconic and famous he was in the past, is more relevant to the Sports section than an image portraying a sport which is a huge part of modern American culture, and a billion dollar industry which tens of millions of Americans spectate, even more than baseball. Again, that is how I interpret it, feel free to correct me. But in any case I guess we'll just wait for others' input. At least here you can't argue that the subject of the image "lacks relevance" because it is not mentioned in the body, you simply don't prefer it. Cadiomals (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to correct. Your interpretation here is merely an opinion. I don't have to argue against your suggestions, just the original image. Any of the new suggestions do have relevance...just as you stated.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

--Mark Miller (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Prefer any contemporary image from a team sport The major impact of sports in America today is more as an entertainment industry than a personal experience of any single athlete. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• I would prefer one of the football images. The fact is that today football is a more influential aspect of American culture than baseball, and certainly Olympic swimming. Of these two football images I would probably prefer the top one, as it is more clear what is happening without closer examination. --Philpill691 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'll note that Olympic medals are specifically mentioned in the section too, so I don't see a basis for removing the current picture or how deleting the noteworthy fact that an American is the most decorated Olympian in history improves the article. Maybe someone can explain that to me. VictorD7 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your general viewpoint, but would you be opposed to the current image's replacement by American football, the biggest spectator sport in the country and more representative of its sports culture? Cadiomals (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point yes. I agree football is the most popular sport, but that would still be a more niche portrayal. The current picture deftly blends an informative specific name mention with a vagueness regarding specific sport that accurately captures the dominance resulting from America's long standing serious cultural emphasis on athletics generally. By replacing the picture we'd lose the noteworthy "most decorated Olympian" mention and create a new problem: Whose team do we show? Phelps represents the entire country, but football teams are sectional, and, as a rabid football fan myself, I'll warn you that choosing a particular team could lead to rivals seeking to replace the image with a preferred one. I think I remember seeing that happen when it's been a football picture before. Update - I see the caption does call him a swimmer (I was thinking it didn't; maybe I remembered an old version), but my point still stands that he represents the country rather than a region and the mention illustrates the USA's athletic emphasis discussed in the article. That said, if the picture is replaced, I'd prefer it be football than anything else. And between the two football proposals I prefer the first one, because, as Phil said, its action is clearer. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Football. Pick a great-looking action shot. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I ain't a sports fan but I did some research and football has overtaken Baseball as the number 1 US sport, so I would support any one of these football images for the section.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Football for current events in this section for a one-image only policy, baseball if there were a history sports section. One of each, football and baseball, if these sections are to have two images. Americans are predominantly team sports players, individual sports such as swimming and wrestling are typically styled "minor sports" in collegiate athletic departments... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, noting the absence of blacks in the imagery of this article, why not Jackie Robinson? An extraordinary person on several levels. ([17] may be under copyright, but this is not a commercial use, [18] is nice as showing him in a Negro League uniform)) (lots of images IIRC). I am pretty sure other images are available. Collect (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Crime and Law enforcement)

This image:

Law enforcement in the U.S. is maintained primarily by local police departments. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is the largest in the country.

was replaced with this one:

Seal of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation

Cadiomals (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the cop car Support SFPD NYPD motorbikes, illustrative of law enforcement, good informative caption with link to important police department. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Victor falk: You changed your mind, but kept the rest of your statement as if the SFPD image has a "good informative caption" with a link to an "important" police department. Why pick a random police force like the SFPD over one of the largest, most well funded and sophisticated municipal police departments in the world? I will see if I can find some good images in the Commons which include both NYPD officers and their vehicles if that is what's desired. Cadiomals (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The caption can be amended to SFPD: Law enforcement in the U.S. is maintained primarily by local police departments. The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is a large metropolitan one. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is a large metropolitan one."– Mentioning and including a random PD like this is much less educational than mentioning the largest and most highly funded PD in the country. Doing so would also give random editors an opening to keep changing the image to one depicting a PD they prefer. Like I said, I will try to find better images of the NYPD tomorrow. Cadiomals (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is another one very similar to the SFPD one but more clear. Cadiomals (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think we should keep the police car image. It is mentioned in the section that law enforcement is primarily handled by local departments, so there does seem to be enough context for the car image. Plus it seems far more relevant to crime and law enforcement overall than the seal of the FBI, which really gives nothing to the reader. --Philpill691 (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. A photograph of a police car or officers is far more appropriate than a law enforcement logo. --Jleon (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Police car. Either NYPD or LAPD. ==Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It would have to be NYPD since it is the largest municipal police department in the nation and so has more significance. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't have to be anything. But if the police are to be the image used I would prefer an image of an officer not a car. I am going to suggest one of my images here:

San Francisco Police Department Motorcycle Division

At least this actually depicts real people in law enforcement.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You can barely see any detail in that image. But in these (just picked off the NYPD article) you can and it's still the largest city police department (over just picking some random city)... I'll see if I can't find more or better ones. Cadiomals (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For a realistic take on everyday police work in the US, how about this one? Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Ha ha :) But no, seriously, it's annoying how we are now wasting time trying to figure out a replacement for a long-standing cop car image that was here for two years and no ever complained about because a single person wanted it to be changed. How are you feeling about that NYPD motorcycle one? Look okay? Cadiomals (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a waste of time to worry about other editors or why we ended up at this point. I don't think there's anything wrong with reassessing the image use in one of Wikipedia's most important articles, regardless of how the discussion got started. That said, if we're all pretty much agreed on this particular one, maybe we can consider tabling this sub-discussion. I think using an example of every day police work for the image for this section is a good idea, but I'm pretty indifferent to which particular one is used. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Since there is clear consensus here that virtually no one wants the FBI seal and wants some sort of depiction of law enforcement vehicles/officers, the motorcycle NYPD image should be good at addressing everyone's concerns. We have to check something off the list eventually. Cadiomals (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

[moved below to generate discussion ¨00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)~

(@cadiomals 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)) *I don't see why it has to largest P.D. from an an encyclopedic point of view. But I understand and share your concern about attracting change if the picture is not special in some kind of way. A one thing that attracts that is blandness, therefore a picture of cool motorcycles is better, and that's why the SFPD is good, because it is interesting visually. I think I found the ideal picture, because it shows the NYPD interacting with the public naturally:

A motorcycle police officer speaks with a passer-by; law enforcement in the U.S. is maintained primarily by local police departments. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is the largest in the country.

^walk victor falk ^talk 12:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)~

• This picture of a NYPD Motorcycle Police Officer shows an actual policeman doing actual police work. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The image directly above looks somewhat blurry and washed out. Looking at the original source it an old image taken with a lower quality camera and scanned from a slide. The other image is crisp, Hi-def, and shows multiple officers. It addresses everyone's concerns. You don't really have a problem with it do you? Cadiomals (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Which image do you mean, Cadiomals (please link to it like this to avoid any confusion & for reference; thx. )? ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This one, sorry I didn't clarify earlier. To me it is not blurry and washed out like the single NYPD motorcycle image, and not too far away to make out any detail like the SFPD image. Cadiomals (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I could go with that one or the SF PD image, but I am still very concerned about undue weight to New York in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not intentional, a lot of things significant to the US as a whole just happen to be found in New York. New York is the place where a national tragedy occurred, where the UN international headquarters is located, the Statue of Liberty is the national symbol for freedom (but that one is probably getting removed based on discussion here), and the city is arguably the center of American theater culture. I reason that a law enforcement image ought to be of the largest department because if the image isn't particularly noteworthy I can see random editors changing it to one of their preferred PD, but this is only a presumption of mine. Cadiomals (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have a clear consensus that the NYPD car is not flying, and the SF motorcycle division pic has gained some support.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree the car pic is not ideal, but the SF motorcycle brigade pic is not much better. The pic of the three officers is the best I've seen thus far. --Jleon (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There was a desire expressed to include a picture of both law enforcement officers and vehicles, so I tried to satisfy this by finding the one below (moved down from above, not sure if you noticed it). Cadiomals (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It was a good choice and I support that as well, but as I said....I am still concerned about the undue weight of New York being too much.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support NYPD car Throughout the United States, most law enforcement interface with the public is by lone officers of local governmental jurisdictions in a marked police vehicle. Centralia, Missouri, is at the geographical center of the lower 48, if someone is looking for an alternative to NYPD, I suppose, but I think that is unnecessary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose FBI versus local police car, as FBI is a symbol of the national police forces, they are severely restricted in their jurisdiction, oppose --- unless the consensus for these sections allows for two images per section. Then an FBI illustration of some description would be appropriate alongside the first image representing local law enforcement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support NYPD Motorcycles Showing police officers actually on patrol. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Question: I've only casually followed this discussion so far, haven't participated yet, and don't really oppose any of these pictures (maybe the doughnut one, lol), but what was the rationale for changing the picture again? Most cops around the country use cars, not motorcycles. Was it just that there were no people visible in the old picture? If so, are there no pictures of cops and cars in the commons? VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cardiomals noted the NYPD cop car was replaced with the FBI shield. The current image shows a motorcycle cluster of policemen at a stop light, --- not representative of much of anything but a shift change at a downtown precinct in the rare jurisdiction which uses motorcycles rather than patrol cars. I don't believe motorcycles are even representative of NYPD patrols, they would be an arm of the traffic division. Motorcycles are cool, just not for this purpose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations for the geography section

[EDIT: consolidated image discussion from up-thread ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)]

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)

Now here is where I would propose removing an image, namely that of the Grand Canyon. This is WP:UNDUE at its most extreme, because there are far too many diverse natural landscapes across the United States worthy of imaging in this article. I'm going to remove this for now because it really adds clutter, and there is no consensus to keep it. Castncoot (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And I wouldn't use the Hawaii pic. It lacks too much information on the image page and may have copyright issues. Seems to have been uploaded by the copyright holder that is not exactly clear and if this has been previously published and may need OTRS for verification.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Of all three of these images I do prefer the Grand Canyon image and have no idea what Castncoot is talking about..--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, let me explain, Mark Miller. You see, there is no consensus for this particular image as of yet. I am therefore going to delete this image for now; however, if one develops, then that would be the way to go. How about the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee, the most-highly visited national park in the U.S.? Or how about the Olympic National Forest in Washington State? Oh, wait - how about the Everglades National Park in Florida? Does the Grand Canyon hold a more iconic status than these others? Let's get a consensus for which image to use here, if any. My preference would be not to put one here for this very reason of a WP:UNDUE conflict, compounded by the spatial limitation. Castncoot (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Castncoot thanks for replying. What I don't understand is the assumption that an image is "undue weight" or even the discussion or mention. To me, undue weight is seeing New York all over the page with excuses that it is the largest in the US. This isn't a book of national records or who is the biggest or the best. It should cover the subject broadly and to me the Grand Canyon has a good deal of history that shows that it could well be mentioned. We have already established in other discussions here that what is iconic is not necessarily the best choice or the first choice of editors. If we had to adhere to that then it would have to be an image of Yellowstone or Yosemite. See...I do know something about national park history. I lived in Yosemite Valley for nearly three years but my love and appreciation for Yosemite does not mean I should push that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wonder which other park people might be interested in seeing displayed in that one spot, if any. My own second choice, after none, would be the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, specifically for the aforementioned reason. Castncoot (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would agree that the Grand Canyon is a bit too facile and predictable, it would serve our users better if we came up with something a little odder yet encyclopedic. Since we have a picture of fauna in the form of the Bald Eagle, how about a flora image, like the giant sequoia, Sequoiadendron giganteum? ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would we use a tourist snapshot of some dude between to big trees? Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose more than two images per section in these modern topical subsections. The satellite image is very good at illustrating the geographical diversity of the continental expanse, if there is to be only one image, that would be my pick. Most of the U.S. population is situated along coasts and rivers. Perhaps since the Hampton Roads combined ports in Virginia have exceeded the New York Ports Authority in shipping volume, it would be the best pictured.

In any event, Mt. McKinley, a stretch of isolated volcanic island beach and the Grand Canyon are spectacular isolated geological features unrelated to the political geography of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 9:02 am, Today (UTC−4) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• This section would benefit from more images of nature beyond the satellite photo, which for all excellent that it is, is just merely a map. That's why the bald eagle, illustrating fauna, should be completed with a picture of flora or geographical/natural features. The section is long enough to have room for another picture. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As for nature, most live in coastal bands along the major oceans (though not on the beach), then the population can be found in uplands, rolling country of plateaus or piedmont. Nature is not only remote and isolated, --- and in any case there is a distinction between notable geological landmarks and the geography which is representative of the country and its inhabitants. The Shenandoah National Forest has both Northern and Southern forest varieties of flora and fauna.

White House rose garden

Indigenous flora would be a hard one to picture in that the continent is so diverse. although roses are pretty universal icons throughout the country around Valentine's Day -- probably there is a florist or gardening association which can tell us what the most popular flower is in America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently Reagan declared the rose to be the US national flower in 1986: National_flower#United_States. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

.

Name of USA

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

---

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

The Articles of Confederation was superseded by the Constitution of the United States, by We, the people of the United States, in state ratification conventions. The Constitution makes plain that the Constitution and the laws of Congress (the federal government) are the supreme law of the land, --- and the officers of the USG, as well as state executive, legislative and judicial officers, swear to uphold that supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, in compliance with that U.S. Constitution. It matters not what a WP:FRINGE suppose on their blogs. When there was a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the provision, a Civil War settled it, the Union is "settled law" in the United States, any other theorizing is moot. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

These kinds of trolling posts by IPs and new users should be ignored as they are not serious about making improvements to the article. I'm not entirely sure if this should be removed or just hidden? Cadiomals (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

At least it's an obvious troll attempt. More dangerous are the relatively subtle ones. VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

First sentence text flow

The first sentence:

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

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

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

Simple solution: Remove "the States" and end any conflict. AbelM7 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not as simple as you seem to think.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would you remove "the States"? It's used widely enough to warrant addition in my opinion. I also want to inform both of you of nearly edit warring and WP:3RR. Bluefist ^talk 06:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted, but let me also remind you that reverting with no apparent reasoning is not acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? Bluefist ^talk 06:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AbelM7's first change. It simply made no sense and goes against reasoning.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed back to the previously agreed upon revision. I don't think you should do it though, if you do it again you might get reported to WP:AN3RR. Unless @AbelM7: could explain further why he felt it necessary to change it. Bluefist ^talk 06:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...and this is an editor who recently tried lecturing me on breaking the "brightline" 3-revert rule and that I would get in trouble for it. Actions =/= words... but of course when Mark does it, it's completely justified. Ay ay ay... Cadiomals (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, and again, there are exemptions to the 3 RR, but of course what is most important to you is contantly bashing me. You are probably the most horrid editor I have encountered here Cadiomals, you don't understand how Wikipedia works and you pit editors against each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I wont. Although it isn't like edit warring on this page seems to matter to anyone...but maybe me and you.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

United States and America are synonyms for United States of America. The States is just a simpler way to refer to the country. AbelM7 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The simplest, easiest end to this dispute would be to remove the word "simply" altogether. United States of America and United States are both the "official" names of the country, while America and the States are both simplified names. Cadiomals (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can produce a reference for that I might be inclined to support that. Right now I agree with Bluefist.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You agree with Bluefist because he/she doesn't realize it was your edit on April 3 that changed the long-standing status quo of "or simply the States" in the first place and others simply ignored it because it was so minor. And I don't care about such a petty change either, so whatever. Cadiomals (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cadiomals: In that case, should we just revert it to "or simply the States"? Bluefist ^talk 16:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with Bluefist because they were correct and not because of some fantasy of what they may or may not have realized. I, unlike you don't make personal attacks.

"I, unlike you don't make personal attacks" - Cadiomals (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a fucking message board, facebook or a political forum. You have been violating NPA since this entire situation began. You started a thread naming me as the subject which is a clear violation of NPA. Look, you don't like me. Cool. I am not 3 years old. I don't care who likes me or not. But if you cannot cut this shit out.....I won't be standing for it much longer.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bluefist: If that is what you feel should be done as a neutral third-party, sure. That is how it was for several months after it was first added. Cadiomals (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The official name is the United States of America and is shorten to United States, America, US, and USA. The article had "or simply the States" before. It didn't even had "the States" at first. AbelM7 (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The colloquial expressions, "America", "the States" or even "Norteamerica" among a substantial Spanish-speaking minority can be be admitted as such in the introduction, as a matter of convention in country articles, right? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not. Thanks for your input TheVirginiaHistorian nice to see you back!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

How about this as suggested by Cadiomals above? "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America or the States—" Bluefist ^talk 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

My objection is the text flow. USA stands for "The united States of America". The most common way to follow that would then be to mention the abbreviated version of that and than the "simple" version would be a singular name of "America". But I support the consensus, whatever that may be.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The USA is not a superpower

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

• Superpower ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DO you have reliable sources that claim that it is not? --Jayron32 18:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's just ignore the trolls so this can be archived in due time. Cadiomals (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Study that has determined the US is an oligarchy

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

link-pdf

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

No, it's subjective in construction, fringe in conclusion, and has no place in this country summary article. Plus, while not necessarily disqualifying, it's worth pointing out that the two authors are rabid partisans. For example, here's a column Page wrote for the far left blog alternet in early 2013 claiming that the impending sequester would lead to such a worsening in the economic crisis that "progressives" would have a golden opportunity in 2014 to "flush the GOP" out of majority status ("science"?). He's enthusiastic about this and encourages "progressives" to take out Republicans. His tone is that of an activist, and, if current trends persist, a deluded one on multiple levels. VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is actually a review study of papers that have discussed the topic and will be published in Perspectives on Politics, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University Press. I do not know how that equates to fringe. The Koch brothers and George Soros each have more political influence than the average guy sleeping in a homeless shelter. I just think it is too detailed analysis for the article. TFD (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a fringe conclusion because most people wouldn't define "oligarchy" as a country where a billionaire has more political influence than a homeless guy. That's setting the bar in an interesting place. One can argue that a major network managing news editor has more influence than Soros and the Koch brothers combined. "Influence" is a slippery, subjective issue. Most people, even most political "scientists", describe the US as a "democracy", or at least a representative republic (a subset of democracy broadly defined) due to the electoral mechanics in place, regardless of the (sometimes paid) free speech people choose to consume or practice, or how much responsible diligence they apply when choosing whom to vote for or whether to run themselves. VictorD7 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any room for that kind of coverage in this particular article, which is meant to give an overview of everything including government; with the conventional wisdom being that the government of the United States is structured as a republic based on representative democracy because the people elect their representatives, who then make laws for them (theoretically) based on their interests and concerns. As such all republics are ruled by these "few" representatives and those who can successfully influence them, as our country was never meant by our Founding Fathers to be a direct democracy. There are plenty of decades-old opinions regarding who "really" has the power in America, there just isn't any room for them in this summary article, and the bottom line is that as long as Americans continue to have the ability to elect their representatives in free and fair elections, the country will remain explicitly labeled a democratic republic. Cadiomals (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You may recall that when the U.S. assumed some of the characteristics of an oligarchy in the Gilded Age, the lack of responsiveness in the republic at the Congressional level led to a majority of the people's representatives in three-fourths of the states to remove election of U.S. Senators from the corrupt state legislatures. They placed U.S. Senate election directly in the hands of the people voting in the states by the Seventeenth Amendment.

This study is a useful wakeup call to expand the electorate and reform Congressional districting among corrupt state legislatures. It may not be appropriate to a summary conclusion in the sense of removing the characterization of the U.S. as a republic. But it might fit somewhere in "Parties and election". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, but as a primary source, difficult to incorporate into an encyclopedia that should defer more to secondary sources. In academia, there are all sorts of writing that can be pioneering and eventually become agreed upon, and other that fall by the wayside. It's probably too early to tell at this point whether the US is an oligarchy. Right now it's a democracy.Mattnad (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific study? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is actually a review of studies. I guess the fact scientists promote such theories as evolution, climate change, special relativity and smoking causing cancer discredits them. TFD (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay HiLo48, but it is a rigorous scholarly statistical study. I take it your objection is that significance is found at one standard deviation (64%) in the social sciences versus three standard deviations (99.5%) in the hard sciences? Nevertheless, mathematically rigorous statistical treatment of data have brought significant contributions to economics, political science, sociology and history (cliometrics). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

All of the studies' findings were shown to be significant at the p<0.001 level, including the main finding that the preferences of economic elite minorities are reflected above the demographic center of the same preference scales. If it passes peer review then I would be strongly in favor of inclusion, but at present I believe policy recommends including news media summaries of the story. EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Weinstein's use of "oligarchy" is far broader than most people understand the meaning. Here it is used to state that organized groups of people (corporations, special interests, unions etc.) wield more power than individuals - which is true in a d'oh way to just about every nation on earth. Normally, "oligarchy" implies power held by a small number of individuals, ho do not generally represent groups (here I note that corporations are "groups" as representing millions of shareholders as are special interest "groups.") Weinstein does not use the term in the traditional sense here, but notes something which is pretty obvious - groups wield more power than individuals, but using the term as a normal English word in Wikipedia's voice is simply misleading to readers. ( Most recently, Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of “Oligarchy,” in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection from Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizen) Some of that paper, in fact, appears to be opinion, such as its statement that pro-life and pro-gun groups favour policies opposed by average Americans, and that labour unions and the AARP favour policies favoured by average Americans, which would seem debatable.) All in all, I suggest we not use "oligarchy" as a term here as it appears to be used in a specific non-standard context. [19] makes a leap asserting an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious “electoral” “democratic” countries which is a strong redefinition of a term which is not the meaning assigned in the actual source. I suggest globalresearch.ca is likely not a reliable source as it makes claims which are not found in the source. Collect (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Support Collect's new edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the segment because it's inappropriate in any form and there's certainly no consensus for adding it. It's absurd that we're even having to discuss this. Perspective, people. This is a summary country article, and the Gov. section gives the basic, undisputed outlines of the mechanics of American governance. It's not a place for avant-guarde political opinion papers on niche aspects of American society that happen to get a recent pop in a few media outlets (Telegraph, maybe MSNBC?). Such opinions (which are totally wrong regarding the 2nd Amendment and pro life sentiment, not just debatable, and omit countless other issues and formulations of the issues they do cover) would be out of place and would open up the flood gates for counterpoints and commentary on other topics throughout the page. "Peer review" doesn't mean a conclusion is endorsed, particularly a highly subjective one contingent on contrived definitions. This is just a political opinion piece, not a claim about the atomic weight of chromium. It might merit a mention in more topically dedicated articles and sections, along with opinions on media/entertainment bias, the impact of ideology on the education system, and countless other topics inappropriate for this article.

While we're at it the segment on the so called "Democracy" and "Corruption" indices should be removed too (though I haven't done so since it was added a few months ago), for being a waste of space that transmits no useful information to the reader, using an opaque, highly subjective methodology (which includes secret judges), representing an obscure outfit's personal opinions, not appearing in most country articles I've seen, and other reasons I laid out here back when other responsible page stewards unfortunately weren't paying attention to the article getting wrecked. Such removal would certainly be more in line with the general sentiment in favor of streamlining than expansion and opening the floodgates to random political opinions would be.VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with VIctorD7 and have no confidence in his ability to accurately identify or summarize the reliable sources. He has repeatedly attempted to insert the same paid and inaccurate advocacy which leads to the state of affairs described in the study's findings. EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a minor mistake in content

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

You appear to confuse the fact that districts of roughly equal populations each get one member of the House of Representatives with the concept of "proportional representation" where multiple candidates are elected, more or less, in proportion to the vote their party receives in an election. The two uses are different in nature, which can be confusing to those in Europe who are used to having a arty which receives 5% of the vote being guaranteed some representation, while in the US this is not the case. Collect (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider ways to tweak it for clarity, since the Euro-centric political science buzzword can be confusing and since Americans are proportionally represented in the House, even if the parties aren't. The election winner doesn't just represent those who voted for him, but his district. Also, we should consider whether it might be best to move the sentences in question......In almost all cases, executive and legislative officials are elected by a plurality vote of citizens by district. There is no proportional representation at the federal level, and it is very rare at lower levels..........from the Government intro to the Parties and elections subsection, where it would fit nicely after the second sentence: The United States has operated under a two-party system for most of its history.[233] For elective offices at most levels, state-administered primary elections choose the major party nominees for subsequent general elections. <insert here> Since the general election of 1856, the major parties have been the Democratic Party, founded in 1824, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7's proposal is promising. The tweak for clarity revolves around the difference between a) proportionate party scheme representing parties in the nation versus b) single member district scheme representing people in places, first the states, then communities in each state.

The Founders did not want to promote parties, as parties were seen as the principle means of corrupting the British constitutional forms of government. But in our day, parties have corrupted redistricting procedures in the states so that Congressional and state legislature districts reflect parties, not places, creating "safe seats" apart from places of community in traditional county boundaries, watersheds or along interstates which bind people into communities.

The key modifier for clarification would concern the places still apportioned by community, "among the states". Stated positively, the distinction is drawn by saying, "The American people are represented proportionately among the states in the House of Representatives by a decennial reapportionment according to population. In the Senate, two senators are elected from each state for six-year terms, their terms are staggered to reelect a third of their number every two years to coincide with the House elections." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)