Talk:United States
 | United States A‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.  What's new?Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Peer reviews
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!To do list
ScopeThis WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries. This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages. Categories
Subpages
FormattingMany country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.). We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course). Goals
Structure and guidelines
Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia) Main politiesA country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory. Lead sectionOpening paragraphsThe article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting, may be dealt with in the Etymology or History section. Naming disputes may also belong in the Etymology or History section. Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. Example: . Canada and Japan as below . InfoboxThere is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page. Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page. The contents are as follows:
Lead mapThere is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC). SectionsA section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections. Articles may consist of the following sections:
Size
HatnoteThe link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages. == Politics ==
{{main|Politics of the Netherlands}}
ChartsAs prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS. GalleriesGalleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sandwiching of text or fragmented image display for some readers. See WP:GALLERY for more information. As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use. TransclusionsTransclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below. Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.
Lists of countriesTo determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:
For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed. ResourcesSisterlinks
Countries at Wikipedia's sister projects
Related WikiProjectsPopular pages
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Independence in the Box
Independence should not be listed for the United States on the federal level. To do so is factually and legally inaccurate since the United States is a new entity founded after Independece was secured by the will of the people. I instead recomend that each states have listed the source of their independece from before joining the Union. That would nullify conflict, be legally accurate and not make false assumptions. Here in Louisiana we were never under British rule and to use a blanket independece would lead some ignorant of the history to assume that Louisiana was also subject to britian when that is grossly NOT the case.--Billiot 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here in CA we were never under British rule as well-we were Spanish colony, then Mexico, then US in 1850. But the US, the concept that is the United States, started in the 13 colonies, who were British colony. Most states like CA or LA were then annex by that former British colony. Listing all states, would make for a really long infobox. You're right about one thing though-people too often forget that the US was actually colonized by three different (four if you count the Neatherlands in the 17th century) colonial powers and different US states have very different histories. The history of California is very different that that of Texas, Iowa, or New Hampshire. But to make this simple, we just follow the political entity known as the US throughout history and most states come in only after they were annexed. Signaturebrendel 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Atually what I am suggesting is to not have it listed at the federl level at all and instead amend each State Info box.--Billiot 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- While 4th of July is celebrated as the day of independence, the United States got independent officially only after the war of independence, on September 3, 1783[1], when british king George III and US leaders signed the Treaty of Paris.[2] --195.56.14.113 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Article Title
Why is the article title not "United States of America"? Shoreranger 03:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:United_States/Name. — Jaxad0127 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
USA's History
American history is a very rich history. It has been through many major wars and movements. Its constitution is so strong that it has had only 28 Amendments in its entire history. Many of its Amendments are for rights not included in the Constitution. The US has worked its way to being the most powerful nation on the planet with the most high tech arsenal of weapons.--Purplethief1 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's nice but this isn't a discussion board. Signaturebrendel 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then do tell, Why this is under a tab labeled discussion? There is no need to ignore reality and be rude in the process. --24.128.42.251 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:BrendelSignature is absolutely correct. The discussion (Talk) page is for discussion of the article, not the general subject that the article is about. If User:Purplethief1 wants to turn his comments into a concrete proposal for addition to the article, such a proposal would be appropriate here -- but his comments as expressed above were not. Raymond Arritt 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Great Britain" shouldn't it be "United Kingdom"? Most other countries that have declared independence from the "British Empire" are classed as "United Kingdom" on here. 81.208.167.238 15:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom did not exist until the Act of Union in 1800. The other countries declared independence after 1800. Prior to 1800, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain. --Golbez 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The Thing that always gets left out of these things is that the American colonies were seen as a burden to the British. The colonies enjoyed low tax (the lowest in The Empire and in the rest of the civilised world) and a good quality of life, which was not the case back in Britain, for this reason when the rebelion started Britain was not willing to use excesive manpower in re-establishing order to the colonies.
Deletion Screenshot
Could someone point me to the screenshot of when the United States article was deleted and it said something like "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. View 3000 deleted edits?" I remember seeing it but I don't remember where it was. -- Robert See Hear Speak 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of 'North America (Americas)'
Hello! Please comment and weigh in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas). Thanks! Corticopia 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Before you vote, please make sure to read the article and the sources presented (click here), since the article nomination page is very confusing and misleading, and at the moment of the nomination, the article was not finished yet. It has been improved. AlexCovarrubias
( Let's talk! ) 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Though voluminous in text, the nomination and points made therein are rather clear and, even though the article has been updated, remain unchanged. Wikipedians can decide for themselves. Corticopia 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Again ...
Thanks to those who commented on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice Pictures
Can we have a nice picture for California like beaches, and people in Santa Monica or Malibu instead of high rise buildings picture placed between New York City and Chicago (which does not add much to the article in my opinion). Also something nice and quiet for Dixieland (Louisiana) would be very welcome.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.234.208 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Sole superpower?
I'm new to this article, so please forgive me if the following concern has already been vetted: the lead section's third paragraph (in the current version) says the U.S. has been the sole world superpower since 1991. I think some sources would argue that China is now or will soon be a superpower as well. Shall we change the wording?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- It says that the US was the sole superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union and that today is an influencial nation. If you want to read more about the issue see the superpower article. Currently most experts agree that the US is the only country that can be recognized as a superpower. Signaturebrendel 19:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Superpower
I think it is self evident the US is the only Super Power in the world at the moment. China and the PLA forces are certainly on the rise but they are decades from being considered a Super Power. Remember to be a Super Power you must be able project forces globally, China is only a regional power as they can't operate much outside their borders. Their technology levels are rather low considering they have to rely on Cold War Soviet technology for the bulk of their military purchases. 69.242.205.212 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see the article superpower. Also, WP talk pages are not discussion boards. Signaturebrendel 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The US was never really a superpower and only said to be one create the feeling we could defeat the USSR. The only war the US has won since World War 2 was the Persian Gulf War, and the was even with the help of a coalition force too.
Sports
"American football becoming very popular in many developed areas of the world, especially Canada and Germany, where most of the teams in NFL Europe reside." To suggest American football has an international dimension like baseball or basketball is very inaccurate. To describe it as very popular in Canada or Germany is stretching the truth.
- Well, I'm not a sports buff, but the only American sport that has truly spanned a global following is basketball. Baseball would be distant second. The sentence above does not seem important enough to fit into this article. Signaturebrendel 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Baseball is huge in Latin countries, and popular in some asian countries (South Korea and Japan). It's just non-existent practically everywhere else. But it's more popular than football (soccer) in some latin countries. I would imagine the only place besides the states where amer. football has a claim to popularity is Canada, where the CFL enjoys some success. --W.marsh 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see both sides to that. Obviously football is gaining ground, but it's nowhere close to baseball or basketball. I think the sentence should be left. Especially since there are now 2 games scheduled to take place outside of North America (London, and I think Tokyo). It could probably to be phrased differently, but it shouldn't be totally removed. 66.225.27.2 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not obvious that football is gaining ground, other than a few high profile events which are not unprecedented. It has no grass roots presence overseas unlike baseball and basketball. An article about the worlds leading democracy does not need POV speculation. 09:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Change of political status
Suggest changing the political status of the country to one of Dictatorship.
Dictionary.com defines a dictator as "a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.". With todays news about the US House vote to pull-out of war, and Pres. Bush vetoing it.... doesn't that mean he is now a dictator?
- You're kidding, right? --Kimontalk 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wish I was :-(
- Let's take it apart:
- absolute, unrestricted control in a government
- The Senate and the Congress are by a majority controlled by the opposite party that were elected into office on the platform of opposing the president. So this assertion of yours is false.
- Bush vetoing it.... doesn't that mean he is now a dictator?
- No. The executive has the authority and responsibility to veto any decision by the Congress that is disagreed with. It's part of the checks and balances. The veto can be overridden with a majority in the Congress.
- In summary, you are incorrect. --Kimontalk 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. The number of people protesting Bush and his policies seems to prove he isn't a dictator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.143.197 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Every leader of every democracy or republic has been protested against. If Bush (43) were a dictator, the protesters would've been shot or imprisoned. The mere fact that they're allowed and encouraged to do so, proves that we still live in a free country, contrary to the belief of the chicken-littles of the world. --Kimontalk 16:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. I was agreeing with you Kimon, I just put it at the wrong level.69.12.143.197 00:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Every leader of every democracy or republic has been protested against. If Bush (43) were a dictator, the protesters would've been shot or imprisoned. The mere fact that they're allowed and encouraged to do so, proves that we still live in a free country, contrary to the belief of the chicken-littles of the world. --Kimontalk 16:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let's take it apart:
- I wish I was :-(
Should we add the Chief Justice to the list on the right that says "Government"
The chief justice doesn't have any real power, but seeing that the VP is also there, it might be a good thing to show the three branches of government in the US. 69.12.143.197 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that would make much sense. The VP and Speaker are there because they are the next 2 directly in line for the presidency and thus are extremely important. 66.225.27.2 03:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Beauty vs. Utility
I have recently re-written the economy section. Making it more neutral, 4Kb shorter, yet more informative. While I am fond of the Wall Steet picture, I could really use the space for a pie-chart explaining economic stratification in the US. So, I have taken the liberty to add my pie chart and rm Wall Street. If you have any suggestion or feel really stronly about having the Wall Street Pic in there-let me know. Signaturebrendel 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
US map color
The color red is not a neutral color for a country's map in my opinion. Red has a strong connotation of an "enemy country" in the US/Allies map to depict the Soviet Union and its allies during the cold war.SSZ 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right red is by nature an agressive color, commonly used (by animals and humans) as a warning. Blue or green are much calmer and peaceful colors, yet most countries and locations are marked in red in WP articles-perhaps we should change that policy. Signaturebrendel 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Blue has connotations of being used by Western capitalist states since the Cold War. Green is a popular colour to depict Islamic countries. Are we going to make a big fuss that we're implying that the United States is an Islamic country by choosing green?
- The current red/beige/blue maps are part of the Rei-Artur collection (commons:User:Rei-artur/by/Mapas de localização de Países). You can change the colours to suit the old scheme (see Image:LocationCanada2.svg), and I've done both red/beige/blue and green/grey/white maps for Australia and Russia (I haven't uploaded the Russia one yet though), but I'm in no mood to go back and overhaul all the existing maps to the green/grey/white scheme. Kelvinc 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Geopolitics aside, red is an aggressive color- that's simply human psychology. Thus I have to say, I really prefer the green/grey/white scheme. If you don't mind I'll change the color on this map to green when I get the time. Signaturebrendel 02:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can re-colour this map, and later on go over any "world size" country maps (like Brazil), but going through the whole collection is just not that appealing to me at this moment.And I don't think "calm" or "passive" is any more neutral of a concept than "aggressive". Kelvinc 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)- ARGH it turns out the Rei-Artur maps are based on a blank map that is missing Hawai'i. Keep the PNG for now. I'll take a look at Commons and see whether there's a better map that can be used as a template. Sorry for the inconvenience. Kelvinc 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Should we perhaps sprinkle flowers around the map, and add a little baby panda bear, to make it even sweeter and unthreatening? --Golbez 05:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well I've found a blank SVG map that does have Hawai'i (and is generally more accurate) and did locator maps using the old colours for Russia, Canada, the United States, Brazil, and Australia. This is the same map as the one used for the European Union. The map uses actual controlled areas, which will be problematic for the People's Republic of China and India, so I skipped those, and any smaller countries should use a zoomed map (I disagree with the current usage of a world map as the locator for Argentina).
- And Golbez, pandas would be Sinocentric POV. I'm pretty sure flowers would piss someone else off too. ;) Kelvinc 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Golbez, very funny-but seariously red is a bad color to use- its the same reason that you shouldn't grade your students' papers in red ink. Flowers are a good idea though- but instead of Pandas I have to say, I'd prefer kittens.
- Kelvinc, I appreciate your efforts and tank you for changing the map so promptly! Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. It's too bad though that the existing map would be useless to create zoomed maps, unless the country was near the Prime Meridian (e.g. South Africa). I'm looking into using the map on Oceania to do maps for that region.
- On a separate note: I love grading with red ink. Then again I was doing it to high school and university students, so hurting their feelings wasn't a big concern. On the other hand, my hands-on experience does suggest some truth to your concerns: marking wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun with any other colour. Kelvinc 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- At one point, a single consistent map style was used for all country infoboxes: the prior PNG maps (which are simple but functional) depicted topical countries in green, and surrounding ones in grey with water/borders in white. New maps should do the same while depicting water as light blue; as well, for maps that exhibit the entire world, the projection border should be shown ... otherwise, one might assume that oceans extend to the four corners of the map! ;) Now -- sadly -- a variety of inconsistent map styles of varied quality are used in country infoboxes -- for instance, the maps used for EU countries are absolutely horrid: like I still can't clearly identify Cyprus on its map. Someone please restore order to chaos ... Corticopia 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Internet
Who took out mention of the US and it's contributions to the Internet? I wouldn't think this is a minor detail since, you know, we're on the Internet right now.--Rotten 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite know what you have in mind but it does seem minor in this article as it is not key to understanding America-though I suppose a short sentence on Internet development in the US can't hurt-if you find a good source. Signaturebrendel 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- There was stuff in there but some pinhead deleted it. I put back in the sentence.--Rotten 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
BBC Poll
"A recent BBC poll, interviewing 28,000 individuals in 27 counties, found that 51% of respondents saw the US as having a mostly negative effect on global affairs."
What's the point of that line being included in the article? Ryratt 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The current perception of US policy around the other corners of the global village. Signaturebrendel 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Shall we put opinion polls of other countries in their respective articles? Ryratt 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they are authoritative, sure. Signaturebrendel 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I recommend it be taken out because it is not cited. If one could see the other countries included in the poll, it would put it into context. Ryratt 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Geography
This artical contradicts every other page on the size of the united states in comparason to Canada and should probably be changed accordingly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.178.254 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
- It does? Canada is larger in total area - but smaller in land area alone. Can you specify which sentence is contradictory? --Golbez 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Official name
Since when is the official name of the U.S. "The Federation of the United States of America?"
- Since someone vandalized it. --Golbez 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
History
- By 1770 they had a population of three million, about half as many as Britain itself. However, no representation was allowed them in the British Parliament.
Isn't this an urban myth? As far as I know Britain offered representation several times but Ben Franklin (who wanted to accept it) was ordered to refuse because it would have led to less support for independance. Wayne 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Real wages
This is wrong: "The long-term trend for wages of middle-income Americans has largely been stagnant since the 1970s and fallen for low-income earners, despite substantial gains in hourly labor productivity." The source given is a radio interview from NPR. I know that real wages (including counting job benefits like health insurance as part of income) have been increasing since the 1970's. I know they've increased every year since 1996, because I've seen the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The problem is I don't know where to find the data. Anyone know where to find it? I mean official, direct, data, not a radio interview, and not an article from the New York Times or some other untrustworthy rag like that. This is an egregious error that needs to be corrected. (Note that the data should include employment benefits. Just looking at take-home pay does not give the whole picture). BillyBoom 07:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- the current data is BLS report the key point is that "compensation" includes pension and health care that is of critical importance to workers & families. Rjensen 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- the current data is at BLS report the key point is that "compensation" includes pension and health care that is of critical importance to workers & families. For long-term data see [1] It shows: "Over the last 10 years, there was a 25% increase in real hourly compensation"
Rjensen 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- That statement is correct for wages.
- Interestingly productivity increased by 40% since 1979 while wages for those with a college degree or higher increased some 20% (almost all the increase was 1995-2000). Those with less than a degree (70% of workforce) took a marginal loss in real terms and those on minimum wage (78% of whom are the primary breadwinner in the household) actually had a wage reduction of 21% in real terms so that statement is conservative. What proportion of the workforce gets benifits and how much? Those on minimum wage dont usually get enough benifits to matter and I bet most of that 70% of workforce don't get a lot either so gross wages without benifits are a fairer way to use the statistics.
- The reason the standard of living has not fallen to match is that the average family now works (overtime/spouse/part time etc) 5 months more per year compared to 1979 thus increasing overall family income substantially which tends to hide real value. Executive income on the other hand has increased from 40X the average wage in 1979 to 500X which should also skew the graph. What I gave you comes from Jack Rasmus' book, The War At Home, who used Towers Perrin for his data. You should be able to find plenty of confirmation. Wayne 16:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- actually it's a bad mistake to pretend that people do not get benefits: they make up 28% of payrolls right now. Even minimum wage forlks get social security and unemployment comp, for example. What's happened is that there are big tax advantages to the employee to get $100 in benefits rather than $100 in wages. Rjensen 16:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The reason the standard of living has not fallen to match is that the average family now works (overtime/spouse/part time etc) 5 months more per year compared to 1979 thus increasing overall family income substantially which tends to hide real value."- true but let's not forget the biggest factor that has increased the standard of living for American families: the two-earner family! 76% of households with six figure incomes have two income earners! Remember that only 6% of Americans have six figure incomes, but 18% of households do! With two earner families you now have 2-earner working class families making as much as some 1-earner professional class families (Gilbert, 2002). (Granted those working class families will likely have a lower standard of living as they will likely have more dependents- a single lawyer making $88k/yr. is actually more affluent than a family of five making $120k/yr.)
- As for personal annual income-it has been somewhat stagnant- depending on sex. Income for women has increased greatly, but for men income was lower in 1996 than in 1973. Yet, it too has increased since '96 and is now $2k above its 1973 level. See this US Census Bureau table for median personal income since 1947.
- I have re-written the questioned sentence to accurately reflect our primary source-the US Census Bureau and will soon create a graph that will make those numbers easier to comprehend. Also, let's stick to gross income data for this article-it is the easiest to comprehend- our readers are more accustomed to seeing pay figures and they are a good indicator. Yes, compensation is important but is best left to the Economy of the United States article. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think compensation is most important. Whatever benefits you receive from your employer is part of what you receive for your labor. If compensation for labor was going down or flat, there would be something very wrong with capitalism. But we can see that in the U.S people get more and more back for the same amount of labor. I disagree with you about your two income earner point. If compensation for labor increases over the years, then obviously less and less labor is needed to maintain the same standard of living. The reason most households with 6 figure incomes have two wage earners is simply because these are people that desire to buy large houses, expensive cars, the latest technological gadgets, etc. There is no need to have two wages earners if you want to live modestly (which is living richly according to the standards of many years ago). That's true more than ever today. Living has never been cheaper (requires less labor), and it will continue to get cheaper. Looking into the extended future, living will require hardly any effort at all. BillyBoom 19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, if you put a graph of income in this article, without showing total earnings from labor including employee benefits, I'm going to challenge it as POV. Leaving benefits out of wages is a deceptive gimmick that socialists used to try to discredit capitalism. I recommend a chart that shows both, and throughout the whole history of the U.S. And please tell me the point of this that you added to the article: "For men, however, income actually decreased from 1973 to 1996 and remains only $2,000 higher in 2005 than in 1973." Why did you select 1973? If you used 1974 instead of 1973, you wouldn't have been able to make such a statement. What matters is what the long term trends are, not some specially selected time frame. And, again, the picture is much different if you look at total compensation. Many more employers provide health insurance to employees than they did in the past. It used to have to come from their take-home pay. If the employer pays for it instead to entice the worker to work there, then the employee is that much better off. It is crucial that total compensation be discusses with at least equal weight with non-benefit wages. Leaving out benefits is POV, so I'm putting a POV tag there. BillyBoom 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Three things:
- Don't remove household income stats, they don't include everything but are still valid info that ought to be mentioned here. If you want to add benefit data go ahead, but there is no good reason to remove exsisting data as presented by the US government. The Census Bureau places much greater emphasis on income levels than anything else, as should this section. So long as the DoC says that median income is the way to go, it will be mentioned here.
- I agree standard of living has increased-I have never said anything to the contrary
- Beware of your own POV-conservative POV is as bad/good as liberal POV. Income stats themselves as I have used them, do not have a POV! They just are- yes they have shortcomings but are still among the most meaningful data sets out there, otherwise the DoC wouldn't spent so much effort collecting them!
- Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Proposal: I will write a new paragraph about "income over time" including the stats about rise in benefits (mentioned by another user above) next to info pertaining to changes in income. Both pieces on info will be mentioned side by side, and given the same amount of text to ensure a balance. The other paragraph citing median income levels will stay as the US Census Bureau uses it [median household/personal income] as the main measure the wealth of this great nation. So long as the DoC placed a high degree of emphasis on annual gross income figures, they will be mentioned right here in this article (whether we agree or not-we need to go w/ what the DoC says here on WP). The paragraph in question will be re-written, however, to mention both flacutations in income and employer benefits. That way the increasing standard of living will be presented and our section will be meaningful to our readers and in accord w/ the DoC's view-point. I thereby propose the following sentence to be added:
| “ | "While most income gains in the US have gone mostly to the upper 20%, technological progress, increased worker benefits, and the emergence of the two-earner household have boosted the nation's standard of living. | ” |
- Firstly, what time frame are you talking about there? Secondly, it looks a bit POV. To make it less POV it should say something like "Income gains have gone to all levels, with the largest percentage of income gains going to ..." BillyBoom 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
City seals
I thought they were a good idea to have in the infobox.. why remove them? -- drumguy8800 C T 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because at that size they're completely illegible and add nothing to the article. --Golbez 03:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Per above, they add nothing to the article and add a couple of kbs (though not many). Signaturebrendel 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- A-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- A-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Wikipedia good articles
- Good articles without topic parameter
- Old requests for peer review
- WikiProject Countries
- WikiProject style advice
- WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments