Jump to content

Talk:United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 41.136.223.139 (talk) at 18:22, 6 August 2017 (→Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleUnited States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know [...] that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008.
Current status: Good article

Template:Findnote

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary History

The third paragraph of this section claims "Due to the dot-com boom, stable monetary policy under Alan Greenspan, and reduced social welfare spending, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001." There is an embedded link in the phrase "reduced social welfare spending" leading to the page "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act." The implication is "Due to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history."

First of all, no sneaky links for the purpose of political argument. Remove the link or edit the sentence so this politically-motivated claim is out in the open for readers. Any mention of this act in this context must explain how and/or why it had a positive impact on the US economy.

Second, the cited works do not support or even mention this point. One of the cited works is a newspaper opinion article and not a peer-reviewed academic source. Therefore it is a claim, not a fact. Furthermore neither source mentions the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" or the effects of any reduction in welfare spending during the 1990s. Therefore this statement is unsourced and must be removed.

Please leave the political arguments out of this article and stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "The withdrawal caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the successor of al-Qaeda in the region." referring to the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq during 2009-2010, has no source. The cited article "The JRTN Movement and Iraq’s Next Insurgency" does not support this statement. Therefore the statement is unsourced and must be removed.

The cited article from 2011 actually claims "(The Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshabandi Sunni insurgency movement) emerged as the only Iraqi insurgent group to have grown stronger during and since the U.S.-led “surge.” Indeed, U.S. statements on JRTN have arguably added to its credibility and potential for recruiting and fundraising." Further the 2011 article predicts "The withdrawal of most or all U.S. forces could be another stressful transition for JRTN. The movement’s current raison d’être—expelling U.S. forces—could dry up in the coming six months. JRTN is already struggling to maintain the flow of new attack videos due to reduced availability of U.S. targets as bases shut down and convoy traffic declines, and this could stem the movement’s external fundraising."

The article does not support the intended politically-motivated bias of the aforementioned erroneous claim in the United States wikipedia article, the intent of which is to assert that "President Obama's defense policy caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency in Iraq, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." This is an unsupported and unsourced political attack that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Therefore it must be properly sourced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the {{edit semi-protected}} template in the same section as your request. This helps us editors know what the request is without blindly removing the template and considering it a test edit. For this reason, I am adding the template into the section for you and leaving it open for any other editor to look into. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. For me, this is WP:TLDR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"America was left the world's only super power after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991." I don't know why that was removed from the article. Because China and Russia are not super powers. Russia is a world power and China is a regional power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lj996 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the 5th paragraph has a similar issue to the mentioned 3rd paragraph. It cites a book "Hidden in Plain Sight: What really caused the world's worst financial crisis" for "Government policy designed to promote affordable housing", which isn't the point made by the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.137.114 (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map 'territorial acquisitions' in § Independence and expansion (1776–1865) seems incorrect

That map seems misleading in its titling of the large brown area on the right side of the map. Please help solving or discussing that issue on File talk:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png#Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing my response here:
All that land north and west of the Ohio River was claimed by several of the original states. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia all had competing claims over it, with Connecticut's and Virginia's being the strongest. From what I can tell, as of the Treaty of Paris there was no land in the country not claimed by a state, the first non-state territories weren't made until the North-West Territory in 1787. See File:United_States_land_claims_and_cessions_1782-1802.png. --Golbez (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice then, that both Golbez (and NYActuary in the discussion on File talk:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png#Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.) agree that those lands north and west of the Ohio River were in 1783 not part of any of those thirteen founding states. Next question: is anyone capable of adjusting such a Wikimedia map? --Corriebertus (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me: "All that land ... was claimed by several of the original states", "there was no land in the country not claimed by a state"
You: "[You] agree that those lands ... were in 1783 not part of any of those thirteen founding states."
Is this just blatant arguing in bad faith, or do we have a huge comprehension issue? --Golbez (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics/Multi-racial

As people began to analyze their DNA for origins, the multi-racial demographics may need to be updated. Some analyzers go to the point of trying to identify archaic origins. For Black, uniquely American, as opposed to African, the legal percentage, often referred to as the one drop rule, however, I understand the actual percentage for legal identification as Black is 3% or 1/32 or one great-great-great grandparent. For some Native American Nations, the requirement is not of actual percentages, but the ability to prove lineage to a living, individual having reported after relocation to Oklahoma around the turn of the century. This data may come from census data. However, in that case, it would be what an individual identifies with in the individual's report of the individual's in the household. The Hispanic category is confusing. It may simply require origins from a Spanish speaking country or culture. I do not where that places Belizeans. I was apprised that in the Puerto Rican there is a concept of light and dark. I do not know how this translates to demographics. However, Caribbean genepools most likely differ vastly from Mexican, which is located on the North American continent. However, for paternity, I don't think one compares a Caribbean to North American Hispanics, which would probably imply Mexican. I have not encountered the concept of separating AmerIndian form Mexican from the Mexicans that I have encountered in the US. I have read some South American countries contain no percentage of AmerIndians. I don't know that I saw Asian, specifically, but with South Asians, I am not sure which category they use. I did ask one person who said she was mixed, so checks Asian. Often there is not a category that one might find fits their needs on a form or questionnaire. In Biology, they teach the origins of all people came out of the fertile crest in Africa. However, it's been discovered that some carry Neanderthal DNA. And, if you DNA looks like a travel guide or a mitration path, you might be very confused as to which box to check. I consider myself to be the sum total of DNA and unique experiences. However, there are also racial/cultural groups with whom I do identify within the experiences of my DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:e944:b500:1416:bc4d:8de8:b591 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like some kind of essay about how we need to do the races differently... but it all comes from the census bureau, we have no input on that, you should forward your concerns to them. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

41.136.223.139 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=794227852"