Talk:United States

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://statisticstimes.com/economy/north-american-countries-by-gdp-per-capita.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104033821/http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=476 to http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=476
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2013/03/overstating%20inequality%20costs%20winship/overstating%20inequality%20costs%20winship.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Articles/2013/03/overstating%20inequality%20costs%20winship/overstating%20inequality%20costs%20winship.pdf

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) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing came up on any of the links you've provided. What were you editing? NocturnalDef (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

209.129.208.101 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Incorrect Date in Reconstruction Era April 14th 1965 needs to be changed to April 14th 1865

Done Nihlus 22:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

United States hegemon - consensus

Okay, so this is the second time that my revision - an attempt to return what was properly stated about American influence on this article text' for years prior of it's sudden removal - was removed, again without evidence or sources to prove that such an action was justifiably necessary and, or; prematurely acted upon.

I have provided my revision with proper sources, which was approved by one of the editors here and another discrediting it as "weak factoid." Now I am under the impression that there is some disagreement on whether or not the US is still indeed leads the world' in a cultural, economic (which I have not attempted to bring back because of PPP complications) and political basis. However, no counter proof or sources were provided to discount my revision as a non-canon factoid - therefore, my concern is to whether there is a motive of personal interest; as to promote isolationist sentiment, rather than to educate readers of informative knowledge concurrent to the political theater. In all actuality, general knowledge and political science states' the American hegemony while in decline, hasn't quite ended and is still unequivocally the leader of Western culture, political influence, economical standing (USD being the world's reserve currency still) and militarily; which is the only concept not being challenged by fellow editors.

I would like to debate this issue with anyone here who is in disagreement with my revision before it creates a conflict. Please enlighten me on your opinion with tangible sources instead of a repeated and bias discrediting.

Thanks, and looking forward to your contribution.

NocturnalDef (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I would call being a leading "soft power" a "soft fact" -- not something to draw hard conclusions from. If there are specific demonstrable effects of being such a leader, expressed in dollars or votes or such, then those can and should be noted. Otherwise, I think it sounds like some vague ranking with no more significance than a popularity contest, and therefore WP:UNDUE. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There's little reason to mention "soft power" in a WP country article at all. It is, at best, a fuzzy concept and, at worst, not measurable. I find its emphasis in the lead-in to the article "United States" especially objectionable. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

When you begin a sentence with "According to" you are casting doubt. The assertion is only as credible as the organization quoted and it suggests that other organizations could question it. I don't see the reason for including this information anyway since it is as Mason.Jones says fuzzy. TFD (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have contributed a factoid of America's standing influence in the world that is neither biased or misleading. As America is the largest media export in the world and known the world over for it's; pop culture, fashion, music, television shows, cinema, Facebook, Google, ect... even wiki. Many nation's in the world also host American military personnel and the UN is hosted by NYC which the US leads -- which can be denoted unmistakably as being a significant political influence in the world.

Once again, I would like to point out - I am NOT implying that we're in the lead...only stating the facts. I hope the general consensus can agree with my compromised revision. Thanks for your contributions. NocturnalDef (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There was one more thing that this factoid was that you failed to mention, unsourced. You claim is it not biased or misleading but individual editors do not get to decide those things. We report what reliable sources report and those sources need to be included as inline citations. Until you provide those sources it does not belong. ~ GB fan 11:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

IDK GB fan. I've been doing quite a bit of self-debating on the issue - while we still have influence in the world, I have become rather conflicted on the matter just within the past 24 hours. I could easily source my contribution of American influence in the world, but at the same time I question whether or not I should. While the US is still big on paper, declining more and more each day - I have to question the nation's moral fiber. This is not the same America that I love and know. It's leaderless. Corrupt. The very institution that reintroduced democracy into the world is crumbling before us. A majority of millennial Americans have given up on the two party system, while on the right - there is an ever growing surge for authoritarian nationalism and white supremacy. I'm debating as a liberal, whether America even deserves such a privilege as archived accolades. At least not at the trajectory this nation is headed. The world may yet just have become unofficially multipolar, ever more so because of this administrations isolationist agenda. Retreating from free trade deals. Normalizing ludicrous behavior of what used to be the highest position held. I'm not even sure if the presidency will ever be as it was or if our former prestige will ever recover. At this point, I think I'm just going to put this whole thing on hold.

For now at least... NocturnalDef (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

NocturnalDef, one of the main reasons Wikipedia demands neutrality and proper sourcing is to not allow articles to reflect the editors' feelings about a topic. Whether the United States achieved hegemony status or not, depends on its political, military, and cultural influence on other countries. Not on its morality or where the country is currently heading. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dimadick, but America has reached hegemony status. It has held it since the end of the cold war and secured it since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I have been enquiring on why that status has been removed from the article since I'm not entirely certain that it's hegemony has ended. And I agree editor neutrality, but like it or not, a lot about ranking soft power has to include a nations morality to measure it's influence - the Soviet Union was a super power but it only had control over the satellites forced into it's domain...the rest of the world never followed it. I'm discussing the same position with the U.S. I'm not sure what your accusation is. NocturnalDef (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're actually concerned about improving the article, instead of just venting in a frustratingly vacillating way, you'll need to specify what text was removed that you think belongs there, as well as what text you propose to add. Your additions, if I recall correctly, tend to be unsourced and too boldly stated; and they don't belong in the lead, unless the concept is developed in the article. Again, what was there before that you miss, and when was it taken out? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dhtwiki+ I have already shared the text which was removed several times prior but I will share it again; the part/text that was removed was the sentence describing the US as "the foremost political, cultural and economic force in the world" which was correct. I have inquired why many times but was given no answer. On a side note, I am not vacillating my suggestion in anyway, I am only doing my part in staying neutral on the consensus by challenging my own belief and offering counter evidence against it; although I still believe that America is the predominant force in the world, at least culturally. NocturnalDef (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been told why your edits were removed, they were unsourced. You need to provide reliable sources that directly support the information you want to add. ~ GB fan 18:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've have done the research and I have sources proving my claims. I'm not going to do it now but eventually I'm going to edit this page and add the sources. NocturnalDef (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And yes, they are reliable. NocturnalDef (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And if anyone would like to go over these sources with me before I make the changes and add them, please have no hesitation in asking. I would be more than obliged to share them in discussion first. NocturnalDef (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources and the changes you wish to make should be posted here, and agreed to, before you make changes to the article. It would help to delineate proposed text by the use of quote tags or templates. I see that you, or someone, has already inserted a succinct paragraph without footnotes, but where the text is in accordance with the main article on culture. Should that stand? Also, it would be helpful if you learned to indent, or outdent, your followups, so that others can more easily see who you're replying to. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

-'The Soft Power 30' (2017 survey) NocturnalDef (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

-'The Elcano Global Presence' index (2017) NocturnalDef (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Http://softpower30.com/country/United-States/

-While initially ranked third, Portland explains its US ranking as more to do with sentiment than fact, and that the United States was still unequivocally still the leading soft power; politically, culturally and economically, ect - referring that trump was rather a deterrent to world view than the US losing it's top perch.

Hope this helps. NocturnalDef (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

www.Globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/ NocturnalDef (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe you will find these sources 'factoid' satisfactory. NocturnalDef (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So I believe we are all in consensus of my evidence? NocturnalDef (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current article revision and have no further need to add anything. Thank you all for hearing me. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

...removed the cultural part again...

Ok, you guys removed the cultural part again, even though I provided you with solid evidence? Now I am going to edit it myself and add the sources. NocturnalDef (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I would anyone to challenge my sources. Somebody please inform in my sources are non-factoid. NocturnalDef (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a paragraph inserted here, by Cskamoscow100, on November 24, but without discussion or agreement on this page. It read:

Many American cultural elements, especially from popular culture, have spread across the globe through modern mass media. America stands as the most prominent cultural force today.

That's the part I referenced above: "I see that you, or someone, has already inserted a succinct paragraph without footnotes, but where the text is in accordance with the main article on culture." It was deleted here, by GB fan, on December 1, for being "unsourced", which was true, at least by inline citation here, although it was well written and seems in accordance with the article Culture of the United States.

What you've recently added here, today, December 2:

In accordance to the (Elcano Global Presence) index, the United States in the predominant global cultural force in the world.

Is not properly sourced (the reference to the Elcano Global Presence index should be by inline citation, e.g. by <ref>{{cite...}}</ref> markup) and not as well written ("In accordance to" should be "... with", and it's not as well linked, nor as specific, as the previous).

As far as the sources you've provided, I can't vouch for or against their reliability, although they didn't seem particularly detailed or footnoted. They are suspect, at least. We should be deciding on the reliability of sources and the form of the text here, before making edits to the article. You've been proposing sources but not text for us to examine and agree to. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, The text I removed may be in line with another Wikipedia article but that means absolutely nothing. It needs inline citations here from reliable sources. If there are sources for the information that can be moved across from the other article then that may solve the problem.

NocturnalDef, lack of comments on your sources above for 3 days is not consensus that they are adequate sources. I can find the primary source for the information but can not find any secondary sources that use the information. Articles shouldn't be using primary data, we should let reliable sources interpret the primary data and then we used that to write our articles. ~ GB fan 12:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources that protect the biased text that claims that mainstream media views american culture as classes? There are no sources there and there is no proof that suggests such a thing...yet you do nothing. I've read the UK article who's text states that they have great influence within the world and nothing to source it, and still, you do not seem to care. But when I provide you with proper sources that HAD secondary sources, you say that my sources are improper? What is it about that you are so desperate to down play? I am going to write down what I read in the text and I am going to properly site it. I did everything that you've asked and more...to prevent me from adding the correct information on this article at this point is to block the correct standing of the United States. Again, what is your evidence to suggest otherwise because you still haven't answered that question? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do most editors here seem to be so biased against American accolades? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are other statements in the article that are not reliably sourced they can be removed as well. I have not read the entire article and probably won't. You should read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If you actually added the sources to the article, I wouldn't object as I am not confident they are not reliable. What you have never done is actually add any source to the article itself. If you need assistance in how to add references to the article you can read Help:Referencing for beginners. ~ GB fan 21:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC

OK. I've added proper sources and cited it properly and still it was removed by Mason with little or no reason. I have to admit that there are some editors here that don't want to keep this thing neutral and this is getting a little frustrating.

Your citation was excellent in terms of its markup, but Mason.Jones gave a rather full, although not really clear to me, explanation as to its removal: "DELETE. "Soft power assets" is news-speak. The source given is minor and validates no such sweeping claim. US film, TV, and popular music (along with UK for music) have been dominant since the 1920s."

You need to be bringing your proposed additions here to get consensus (i.e. the support of other editors) before adding them to the article. You'll probably find them much amended, if not refused. You might want to read WP:BRD, if you haven't already done so, which details how this process is supposed to work.

Also, I've found that what I thought was support for the idea that the US's cultural preeminence on the Culture of the United States article was just the lead sentence that you added, without its being a summary of what was in the article. That violates WP:LEAD and should be reverted.

You're not the only one frustrated by this. You have a statement you want to make that should be supportable, although not necessarily in as bold a form as you might like. However, you need to show support for it in published accounts, and not just bare online lists without much self-explanation of their rationale or evaluation by other reliable sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

First off, the source was reliable, power Softpower30 is an organization index ranker, not news-speak. Second, if you actually read the source, you would find that I only qouted the author; I in know way made up my own text. Third, how is fair that the UK article can the described their political influence and the US can't... especially since the UK source is purely news-speak. I am sensing complete bias on the issue and have been trying to comply with you but non of you respond to my questions. If I am in any way in violation of any code or standard, then why do the codes and standards only apply to the US article? Again...are you implying that US cultural prominence has ended or are you just promoting it? Again...I ask you to source the evidence here on this consensus discussion, if not, please leave my revisions be. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I In no way made up my own text... I only qouted the author.
• How is the WP:LEAD code fair that the UK article can describe it's own political influence but the US article can't?

Sorry for the typos, it's difficult to type on a media device.

Again...if you would like me to revise it in a way where it makes the description of US influence seem more neutral, you are free to edit that part. But removing entirely is unethical and unnecessary. I am willing to compromise if you are. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have also linked all secondary index sources in this discussion. Feel free to look. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Would you mind doing that again? I only see the softpower reference which is neither reliable nor secondary. The others are probably lost in the text so it would be helpful if you provided them again. --regentspark (comment) 22:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Dhtwiki- I will agree with your suggestion to change the text to the beginning of the US cultural section if you believe that to be necessary. I have revised the article at the top section, the same as the UK article... still I am very willing to compromise in all fairness to the consensus. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok regentspark...I will give it another go. And to be fair, if you disagree with my current edit, you may remove it without further protest from me, as long as we are all willing to discuss the matter and not ignore it. I also apologize if I too, take a long time to get back to you. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

NocturnalDel, I'm going to revert your addition. As I say above, the softpower source is a primary source and is not a reliable source. Primary sources are generally avoidable because both the statements made in them as well as their methodologies need to be evaluated by reliable secondary sources. You're also using a term, soft power, that is not readily understood. If the intent of the text is to state that the US is culturally dominant, then you need to state that clearly and provide reliable secondary sources to back up that statement. You haven't done that. Additionally, please read WP:EW because you're currently edit warring and you could be blocked for that (I'll drop a note about that on your talk page as well). Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood regentspark, more than happy to discuss this further with everyone. NocturnalDef (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@regentspark--www.globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en

Elcano Global Presence' index (updated 2017) that is my secondary source. NocturnalDef (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a primary source, not a secondary source. You need a source saying Elcano's rating is relevant and important. "Secondary" doesn't mean second. Please see WP:PRIMARY. --Golbez (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will look into it - All spectrums. NocturnalDef (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Give me a day or two. NocturnalDef (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

https://geographica.gs/en/showcase/elcano-global-presence-index/

NocturnalDef (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Also; I don't believe that a secondary source is necessary for providing evidence of US cultural prominence since this particular article (aside from the fact of it being common knowledge), has originally stated this "in text" since wikipedias existence. I also find it hard to believe that as editors of this page, some of you would be oblivious to this knowledge... especially since you claim to have been editing this particular page for years now. Hence, the WP: PRIMARY would not be applicable - as this is not "original thought" or subversive in theory to be proven otherwise. It also states that news articles CAN be used as a reliable source, that only tabloids are considered non-factoid. Nevertheless, I'll still provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

And I quote the original text and the latter edited version: "The United States is a leading political, economic and cultural force in the world."

Then the latter version stated: "The United States is a prominent political and cultural force in the world, it is also the foremost economic and military presence."

@regentspark: so you and others who agree with your sentiment have no recollection what so ever of these text sources? Because I've been reading them on this article for years, all up until the end of summer when it was removed without proper consensus. NocturnalDef (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

NocturnalDef, I haven't been following or editing this article so, no, I haven't seen the source before. Regardless of whether it was there before or not, it is a primary source. The new link you've provided is no better and so your statement shouldn't be added to the article. Merely repeating what you've said many times, and providing what is essentially the same source again and again, is not productive and wastes the time of other editors. I suggest you not post here again unless you can provide many secondary sources. Otherwise you'll end up being blocked as disruptive. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 02:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We're all here to improve articles, which (hopefully) means the articles were not as good before. WP has evolved to be much more stringent on having unsourced information in important articles. That's a good thing, even if it means stuff I "know" to be true gets removed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And subjectively, if seemingly (not accusing anyone but merely accessing), that using Wikipedia codes and violations as loopholes to keep other, or less experienced editors from bringing back the original texts as stated about the American LEAD; be an improper consensus among a gang of veteran editors with akin political beliefs, agendas -- such as framing the illusion that America is not and has never been the leader of the Western world in order to promote a type of isolationist propaganda and sentiment throughout the American popular digest of Wikipedia users? Because if a true concern resides in just the rules, then wouldn't it also apply to every national article as well... such as the UK article which seems to enjoy all the privileges of boasting international influence, not just in one sentence but throughout the entire article. My concern being that this would make it look as if American leadership has been surpassed by Britain. Again, this is only a measure of speculation and my chief motive because in all actuality, you are giving false data on a site that's dedicated to education and free information...not an abuse of authority through the improper consensus empowered by only a collection of editors who happen to share political solidarity.

Again, Wikipedia is an open site and should be for everyone to contribute...not just a few.

Personally, I don't appreciate being accused of warring with other editors, nor the threat of being removed as a voice entirely because I view globalism in a positive spectrum, as did happen with remdon115.

Now you see my point of view respective.NocturnalDef (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This may be what was removed

This 04:07, 11 September 2017 edit by Mark Miller seems to be what NocturnalDef is missing from the article:

...and is a leading political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.

If so, should it be put back, as a belated reversion, and the appropriateness of its removal discussed? The edit summary read: "This apears to be original research or synthysis presented in this manner. There must be a better way to word this to be better referenced" Dhtwiki (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC) {{reflist-talk}

Anyways, blocking me would just prove my point. My apologies if I appear overly direct... just my opinionated nature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef (talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a response that was meant for the previous section. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dhtwiki, indeed that's how it was. And I only wish to contribute as everyone is allowed, and the revision you suggested seems very fair. Thank you for discussing this with me. So what would be a better way of putting it do you think, so not to violate the rules?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm proposing to restore the text to the article, as though you had been here to revert it, as it's referenced, and very possibly by reliable sources (unlike others, I believe that we're dealing with secondary sources, just not always ones whose reliability has been established). I'm going to wait a bit, as there's no rush at this point. Also, it would help if you remembered to sign your posts (~~~~), as it's rather time consuming for me to do it manually. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to restore the edit in question, wouldn't it better to also include the softpower30 citation NocturnalDef added alongside it? Surely, the other three sources could act as secondary sources in that case. -- ChamithN (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for improper procedure. I'm still learning how to do all this. NocturnalDef (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC) NocturnalDef (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

Change "The latter lead to emergence" to "The latter led to emergence" Latitude42 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --Golbez (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Metro Populations

The table of the largest US urban places (see under Population section) is off. Some editor decided back last summer to include the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) figures for the first five cities only—even though the table head specifically states that these are metropolitan areas, with the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) name listed just to the right. Now, fifth-ranked Houston is listed with a smaller population than 6th-ranked Washington, DC. Moreover, Los Angeles is listed with its full CSA stat of 18 million-plus, which means that Riverside–San Bernardino should NOT be listed at all further down the list. (Riverside–SB is included in that CSA population of Los Angeles. LA's MSA population is actually 13 million, without Riverside-SB.) I don't care much which yardstick editors prefer—the CSA or the MSA—but it should be consistent, without comparing apples to oranges. That's simply mistaken and misleading. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the first six MSA populations in this table, which should record the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) population as indicated across the table head: latest estimated population of MSA (2016), official U.S. Census name of that MSA, and overall Wikipedia link ("see complete list"). Any other version is inconsistent and erroneous. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)