Talk:United States

Removing the official website in infobox

Most country articles don't seem to include the official website of the government, since the website is more pertinent to the article about the country's government. I think it ought to be removed. In fact, on Template:Infobox country, it says: "For geopolitical entities: do not use government website (e.g. usa.gov) for countries (e.g. United States)." ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 21:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"America" redirecting to "United States"

English-language Wikipedia is not for citizens of the USA exclusively or even for all native English speakers - it is for all users of the English language for which it should be neutral to all. The use of the word "America" to mean the United States of America is controversial outside of the USA, especially in Europe and the other American countries beside the USA/Canada. The most neutral and clear solution is to redirect "America" to "America(disambiguation)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArniDagur (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

See the above discussion United States redirected from "America" . Dhtwiki (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

it's not controversial among English-speakers. People in Mexico and Brazil, for example, do not call themselves "Americans." Those in the USA have called themselves "Americans" for 250 years. Rjensen (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no rule that re-directs should be neutral. They should however re-direct to the article the person typing "America" into the English Wikipedia is most likely to be looking for. TFD (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is first and foremost for native English speakers. This proposed neutrality would effectively forcing others to use English in a way that is not common to them. English speakers almost always mean the USA when they say America. There is no bias. What America means in another language has no bearing on English. I wish some people could learn to understand that. LordAtlas (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. The US is clearly the primary topic for the term "America" in the English-speaking word. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

America the Beautiful & God Bless America, just for examples. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Putting my hat back into this debate, see the previous discussion for my thoughts earlier. The Organization of American States is at least one common usage showing a clear need for the disambiguation of America. I think this conflicting usage of the word is most difficult for USA immigrants and descendents of immigrants from Latin American nations. Myself, I am second-generation Colombian American, with biracial ancestry from both North America and South America, so that if I tell people that I am "American," I feel a need to disambiguate between the multiple relevant usages of the word. As a global encyclopedia of all human knowledge, we should always disambiguate titles beginning with their broadest or largest sense. So that even if most people use New York to refer to the city and not the USA state or the USA county, we should still disambiguate beginning with the USA state. Likewise, "state" in US American English near-universally refers to USA states (e.g. Georgia), and not sovereign states (e.g. Georgia), but we should disambiguate first from the international sense, and not the regional (USA) sense. Note in particular the (correct) Wikipedia disambiguation pages for Georgia and American. "America" should follow the same disambiguation as "American." Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • And yet ... "Colombian American". You just used that term, without clarification, presumably because it's an article here and it's absolutely not ambiguous that the "American" phrase refers to the United States. --Golbez (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe that people who live in the US and come from Colombia call themselves "Colombian American". The issue is whether many people who have never been to the USA also call themselves "Colombian American". Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "Colombian US American" and "Colombian American" are synonymous because all Colombians are Americans (since Colombia is in America), so there is no need to differentiate for non-American Colombians (no such thing). The distinction is between "Colombian," "Colombian Mexican," "Colombian (US) American," "Colombian Canadian," etc. Someone who immigrates from Colombia to Brazil is still an American, but not a Colombian American (since this is a special redundant usage that is an elision of Colombian US American). Immigrants from outside of America however do require additional distinctions. E.g. a "European American" can be European Colombian, European US American, European Canadian, European Brazilian, etc. This is why we need disambiguation pages to differentiate between the different usages which can vary by context. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Just another example: "African American" is commonly used in academia to refer to anyone of African descent who lives anywhere in the Americas, not just the USA. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • To me the above our great examples of how the term without a qualifying word has a distinct meaning. Redirect note?--Moxy (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I think this statement is false--no evidence whatever is provided: African American" is commonly used in academia to refer to anyone of African descent who lives anywhere in the Americas. For example in Brazil & Cuba we have "Afro-Brazilian" and "Afro-Cuban" Here are some RS: 1) Wilbur C. Rich - 2007 - ‎"Abdias do Nascimento is a key figure for understanding relations between Blacks in Brazil and the United States. Nascimento lived part of his exile in the United States, where he met with a broad spectrum of the African American community" 2) Monica Hirst - 2005 "African American scholars and NGOs have increased their interest regarding the development of Afro-Brazilian movements in Brazil." 3) Frank Andre Guridy - 2010 "Cuba's popularity as a North American tourist site accelerated Afro-Cuban and African American encounters. By the late 1940s and early 1950s...." Rjensen (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Agree with Rjensen ...i.e,.Black Canadians =M. Honoré France; María del Carmen Rodríguez; Geoffrey G. Hett (2012). Diversity, Culture and Counselling: A Canadian Perspective, 2e. University of Victoria. pp. 204–. ISBN 978-1-55059-441-6.--Moxy (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Really? Gonna need a citation on that because I've never heard it, though being in the U.S. obviously what I hear is specific. But our article African American makes no mention of anywhere but the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I tried pulling up some citations myself after writing that. I have seen it used in the broad sense several times in works on African American Studies, but it might not be as common as I thought. The point here though is not to determine what the most common usage is, but to present that these terms have a variety of usages and need to be disambiguated. We need to redirect to a disambiguation page to explain the different usages of the term, and not to what might be the most common usage. "American" and "Georgia" are good examples of terms that go to disambiguation pages despite common usage in US American English. There is no reason why "America" should not be disambiguated the same as "American" is. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Normally when this comes up we just show people the link American (word).--Moxy (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nicole Sharp, the point here is to determine what the most common usage is, because readers who type in "America" want to be re-directed to the correct page. I question too whether most non-English speakers are usually referring to the Americas when they say America. Kafka called his novel Amerika. TFD (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Why exactly do non-native speakers get to dictate to English speakers? You are literally trying to interfere with how English is used. If a non-native speaker ends up at the wrong place, they get to learn something new. LordAtlas (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

wikivote

Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS not on voting--regentspark (comment) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We can probably debate the issue until the cows come home, but I think that perhaps the best way to resolve this is democratically with a wikivote. Enter {{agree}} if you think that "America" should redirect to "America (disambiguation)" or enter {{disagree}} if you think that "America" should redirect to "United States." Feel free to add any additional comments or citations with your vote. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Agree to redirect to "America (disambiguation)." The current redirect is ethnocentric and confusing. We should disambiguate from the broadest sense possible first (America as the American Landmass). Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rosicrucian Fellowship temple in California: does not have national importance (?)

there is no evidence of any national significance in terms of religion or architecture. there are no RS and none at the Wiki article at Mount Ecclesia. The nomination for National Register --commissioned by the Rosicrucians--leaves "national" importance unchecked and checks "state" importance instead, so it does not belong here. see https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/95000390.pdf Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Mount Ecclesia's significance is beyond national limitations, that is, truly international -- Worldwide soon after its inception (1911): "The year 1921 has drawn to a close and the secretary's and treasurer's reports have been handed in, showing that the Rosicrucian Fellowship has great reason for rejoicing. (...) The past year has been one of the most active and successful since the beginning of the work. During that period [1920] the Temple was finished, and all the bills paid. The third edition of the Tables of Houses and a great number of the Ephemerides have had to be reprinted, amounting in all to fifteen thousand copies. These books have been welcomed by all astrological students for their clearness and simplicity, and have aided in spreading the Rosicrucian philosophy. (...) Our patients in the healing department are numbering close to one thousand. The contributions have made it possible even under the strained finances in the world for us to meet our bills and [international] Headquarters is at present out of debt. This is a very favorable indication considering the heavy strain under which we have been working. The students in South America, Australia, Holland, and other countries are very active, and the following books are now in print in foreign language:" ~ Rays from the Rose Cross, March 1922, p. 478-479

Also forget it not that "During the First World War (1914-1918) , Mount Ecclesia offered no summer school, and discontinued the usual programming activities. The soldiers from Camp Kearney, about twenty miles from Headquarters, were given classes and lectures, however, and a number of them became members. During these years, Headquarters had serious financial struggles. Many students in Europe were forced to stop their contributions, book-sales dropped off, and the prices of everything climbed higher." ~ Ger Westenberg. Max Heindel en The Rosicrucian Fellowship (Chapter 10). 2009 STICHTING ZEVEN, The Hague, The Netherlands. (Translation into English language by Elizabeth C. Ray)

Btw, unveiling a bit on "national significance"... "Another month has gone by and still the European war is raging in all its intensity. Thousands and thousands have passed over the border into the invisible realm, and the distress there as well as here is unprecedented in the history of the world. (...) President Wilson of the United States has appointed October 4th as a day of prayer for peace. It is well always to unite with such movements because our trained thoughts will have a considerable effect and strengthen wonderfully the general appeal. This day should be spent by every earnest student in prayer for the deliverance of the world from this awful slaughter. Their thoughts should be particularly directed towards soothing those who are in this world, and in the invisible world also who are distressed at the severance of family ties." ~ Letters to Students, October 1914

FROM THE ROSICRUCIAN VIEWPOINT, CAN WAR BE SAID TO BE RIGHT? WHAT SHOULD BE THE STAND OF THE ROSICRUCIAN STUDENT IN THE PRESENT CONFLICT? (World War I) ANSWER: In the great crises of life we are brought face to face with certain issues and called upon to make decisions of such importance that they often require reversion of ideas and ideals, even of our most cherished principles as hitherto conceived. (...) In the beginning of the conflict France and England, who were the immediate neighbors of the outraged Belgians, made her cause their own and acted in that respect as their brother's keeper. However, being unprepared, they have been unable to bring the struggle to a decisive termination. Therefore it became necessary for America to enter the conflict and turn the balance, so that peace may be restored and safety secured to those who are too weak to protect themselves. (...) seeing that the present struggle which is waged for the purpose of crushing the militarism of Central Europe has taken such a terrible toll of human life with the strength of the allied defenders nearly spent, it is the sacred duty of everyone to aid to the very limit according to his spiritual, mental, moral, or physical capacity, either at the front or behind the lines wherever the judgment of those in charge may require his or her service. Therefore we would urge each and every one of the students of the Rosicrucian Fellowship, of whatever country now defending the cause of humanity against the militarist party of the Central Powers, to support his or her government to the very best of his ability that we may soon see "Peace on earth and among men good will."

But let us realize that there can be no peace worth having until militarism has received such a blow that it will not raise its head again for a long time. Many people hope that this will be the last war, and we ardently wish that we could believe it. People thought the same when Napoleon and his hordes overran Europe a hundred years ago, but time has proved that such hopes were vain. Peace is a matter of education, and impossible of achievement until we have learned to deal charitably, justly, and openly with one another, as nations as well as individuals. As long as we manufacture arms, peace will not become established. It should become our aim and object to do all we can toward the abolition of militarism in all countries and the establishment of the principle of arbitration of difficulties." ~ Letters to Students (worldwide), July, 1918

Still barely scratching the first page of its history... “I saw our headquarters and a procession of people coming from all parts of the world to receive the teaching. I saw them issuing thence to carry balm to afflicted ones near and far. (...) for the world in which we live is based upon the principle of time, but in the high realm of the archetypes all is an eternal NOW.” (Max Heindel, 'Our Work in the World', 1912) :s Thx. Regards ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The official proposal to make it a historical place explicitly stated it has a California but not a national role. No reliable secondary source says it's important in US history--and that is a requirement for Wikipedia. Actually it's the main shrine of a small religious group--one of hundreds that overate in the US. As for "international" -- the quotes are all from Rosicrucian activists and do not claim much of any role for the building. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, no special remark/comment, but only to note that a few 3rd party sources may already be found after some diligent on-line digging:

as an example of international (students): "In June 1948 Klein and Claude Pascal (but not Arman) joined the Rosicrucian Society and worked on bi-weekly lessons sent from California. These were based in the profilic writings of Max Heindel (1865-1919), specifically his Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception: or Mystic Christianity (Ocean Park, CA: Rosicrucian Fellowship, 1911), which Klein read in French translation. (...) Heindel provided the foundation for Klein's aesthetic philosophy through his vision of a psychological alchemy that would free the spirit from its material shell. (...)" ~ Szulakowska, Urszula (2011). Alchemy in Contemporary Art. Ashgate Publishing Limited, England, USA, ISBN 9780754667360

as an example of national/U.S.: "Spec. Coll. copy is from the Henry Miller papers (Collection 110). Ownership note handwritten on free endleaf: "Sacred property of Henry Miller ... who has just discovered that he has been a Rosicrucian all his life ... Paris 3/5/39". Green cloth over boards, with decorations stamped in gilt, black and red. Publishers advertisements: [6] p. at end. Notes and marginalia by Henry Miller" in the/his third edition of the Cosmo, 1911, digitized by MSN at the Internet Archive

Yet, none providing as deep insight when compared to what one earnest to attain to the understanding and knowledge of philosophy may directly acquire, that is, through first-hand knowledge, imho. ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to assume bad faith but it really seems you are pushing POV and not living in reality. LordAtlas (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of consideration for your comment, for (I) do understand your reasoning, This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be absurdly WP:UNDUE weight to give this much focus to a religious denomination with so few members, and so little impact on the United States compared to dozens of larger and more representative religious groups, in a broad summary article like this one. Rwenonah (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If the Rosicrucians were so important, then surely a non-Rosicrucian would add them. Your edit history betrays a certain single purpose to your work here. --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Which, please don't take me wrong, does not mean you can't have a singular focus. Far from it - we welcome expertise and information from people who have specific knowledge on things. But when it comes to edit warring and arguing to have a particular mention of your chosen topic put in, that's where things get iffy. --Golbez (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

😌 ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Supreme court no longer has vacancy

In the fifth paragraph in the "Government and politics" section, it says, "However, the court currently has one vacant seat after the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia."

This is no longer true.128.239.213.128 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)