Talk:United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Good article United 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.

Contemporary History[edit]

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)

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)

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)
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)

"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 (talkcontribs) 06:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017[edit]

41.136.223.139 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You'll need to make a specific request. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: "Last polity admitted"[edit]

The "last polity admitted" should be Hawaii. Northern Mariana Islands, as an "unincorporated territory," is not legally part of the U.S. --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.168.53 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We had a very long and contentious debate as to whether or not the inhabited territories counted as part of the country; in its wisdom, consensus came to say "yes". --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
We decided that the Northern Mariana Islands are in fact "incorporated territory." It might however be better to replace the field with "last state(s) admitted." TFD (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
We looked at the U.S. Constitution Article IV, Sec.3, Par. 2: The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States…so we concluded that the United States can posses territory.
We looked at scholarship that confirms the U.S. has always had territories apart from states but included in the United States from the time of the Articles of Confederation, whether they are held to be constitutionally incorporated or unincorporated, and that the Northern Marianas are now territory of the United States.
We looked at documents of the United States Government certifying to the United Nations that the Northern Marianas are under the jurisdiction of the United States and included in its geographical extent. Some editors support the Cuban Government contention that the U.S. cannot lawfully acquire territories, nor make their inhabitants its citizens, but the WP consensus did not adopt its view.
It is not better to adopt a Cuban Government contention which is not upheld in the United Nations, unsupported by international scholarship nor agreed to in the WP editor consensus. The geographical extent of the United States includes its territories, whether domestically classed as incorporated or unincorporated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
In other words, consensus decided to look away from blatant synthesis and original research. But, consensus nonetheless. --Golbez (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No scholarly sources could be found to support the Cuban Government's position that U.S. citizenship among its territories is unlawful. But as I remember, six reliable sources were found to support the contention that modern U.S. territories with native and naturalized U.S. citizens were included in the geographic extent of the United States. The editorial consensus did not find that the Cuban Government could arbitrarily devolve U.S. territory from the United States by Cuban proclamation alone.
At least one editor implied that the U.S. Government is incompetent to make brown-skinned people U.S. citizens, either by birth or by naturalization while referencing racist opinions from among the Supreme Court a century ago in his synthesis and original research. The WP editorial consensus rejected that unsourced POV, observing that the U.N. recognized that there is U.S. citizenship to be found among inhabitants in all the U.S. territories, as sourced. The U.S. government in the 21st century is including the brown-skinned U.S. citizens and native inhabitants of its territories with elective self-governance by their governors and legislatures under the equal protections of due process in local and U.S. courts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
So again, in other words, consensus decided to look away from blatant synthesis and original research, not to mention your deplorable attempt at accusing fellow editors of racism. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Pointing out the Supreme Court has had some racist views published among its opinions in holdings that were written over one hundred years prior to the year 2017 is not the same as a "deplorable attempt at accusing fellow editors of racism". Using evidence of racist views over one hundred years old to characterize ongoing political relationships in the 21st century is not good methodology --- because, things have changed since territorial governors and a majority of each territorial legislatures were Presidentially appointed, and local territorial courts were administered by the U.S. Army or Navy. That is all; bad methodology is not racism.
The United States is the continental United States, the island state of Hawaii, five insular territories, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and outlying minor possessions. There is no "blatant synthesis or original research" in referencing the U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80. It is just a reliable description of the geographical extent of the modern United States as sourced.
No one is racist who supposes that the Supreme Court at the turn of the 20th century would not allow islander inhabitants the right to vote for territorial governor. But now that they do, those WP editors who show that islanders vote for their governor in the 21st century are NOT calling anyone racist who happens to read constitutional scholars of century old Supreme Court cases. But WP editors must be alert to political developments as they unfold across each century --- just as a matter of good research methodology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed addition of image[edit]

@Elinor Rajka: Hello, Elinor. I see that you've begun an edit war over the inclusion of an image in this article. You haven't provided any justification for the addition of a world map to a section already heavily loaded with images from American history. But more to the point, you seem to be disregarding the note appearing at the top of this Talk page -- the one that calls attention to the Arbitration Committee's concern about maintaining proper standards of behavior and editorial process. This includes the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle under which you discuss the matter here prior to re-inserting challenged material. Would you please engage in discussion on this issue and, while this discussion is taking place, would you please remove the challenged image from the article? I look forward to hearing your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No response after a week. Image has been removed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)