Talk:United States/Archive 59

POV Crime section sentence needs revision for neutrality.
Actually much of the section is rife with skewed POV and sorely needs revising, but this should be low hanging fruit. The last two sentences read:

In 2008, Louisiana had the highest incarceration rate, and Maine the lowest.[322] Despite Louisana having the highest number of its citizens imprisoned, the FBI's crime report for 2012 listed the state as having the highest rate of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the United States.[323]

Saying "despite" implies that one should expect a state with higher incarceration to have a lower crime rate than states with lower incarceration. But since people are imprisoned after being convicted of crimes, it's logical that a state with a higher serious crime rate would also have a higher incarceration rate. This misguided POV language should be tweaked. The whole sentence should probably be deleted since the section currently lacks crime rate breakdowns by city or race, but in the meantime at the very least it should be tweaked to read:

In 2008, Louisiana had the highest incarceration rate, and Maine the lowest.[322] In 2012 Louisiana had the highest rate of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the United States.[323]

While it doesn't address due/weight/source that's biased as hell, it does present the fact with neutral language. Since this should be a non-controversial tweak, I'll implement it in a couple of days if there's no objection. VictorD7 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Such detailed state breakdowns should not exist in this article in the first place whether or not they are perceived as biased. This is an overview of a single country and those extra details are simply not necessary. Cadiomals (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we just delete those sentences then? VictorD7 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to removing this information. We tout so much puffery that downsides are necessary for balance. EllenCT (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about "balancing puffery" this is about removing details irrelevant to a summary article. Details on states' crime rates don't belong on an article giving an overview of a whole nation. As for "balancing puffery" that section already states that the US has a higher crime rate than most other developed nations. If you are the only one opposing this, it will still be removed anyway as your views have consistently been at odds with consensus on many issues. Cadiomals (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also opposed to removing this sourced factual sentence. If we are going to delete things by simply labeling them "extra details" than we should just go ahead and delete virtually all of the United States article.  I  also notice that Victor is not challenging the accuracy of anything in the section.  It seems like he simply wants to forbid mentioning any notable or relevant fact that does not conform to his own very biased POV.  Murder is the most serious crime that a person can commit and it is logical and relevant for a section title "crime and law enforcement" to have at least one internal comparison that notes which state has the highest murder rate.  An article on a country as large as the United States should not be stripped of all internal comparisons.   I also don't think that the sentence needs to be tweaked at this time.  "Despite Louisana having the highest number of its citizens imprisoned, the FBI's crime report for 2012 listed the state as having the highest rate of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the United States.[323]"  is simply a factual statement that is highly notable and relevant to the topic of the section.  On an unrelated matter, if nobody objects I am going to go ahead and delete this sentence since it lacks a source: "Federal law prohibits a variety of drugs, although states sometimes pass laws in conflict with federal regulations.[citation needed]" and correct the spelling of Louisiana.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A number of non-regular users have voiced their concerns that this summary article is too extensive, and we are trying to heed their call and take stock of what can be condensed. One pointed out a barometer for article length which is an upper limit of 90 KB of prose, which this article currently still exceeds even after major shortening in November. After that point WP guidelines state that some information should be condensed or spun off into separate articles devoted to their topics. As of now everyone is in agreement that the History and Culture sections need some trimming, while non-regulars have even pointed out that other sections such as Income, poverty, and wealth should still be reduced further. Also, you can go ahead and delete that drug sentence. It is unsourced and seems disconnected from the information around it.
 * If we are not going to remove the two sentences that VictorD7 then we should at least look at the following paragraph to determine what can be cut out. Please don't tell me that you really believe an entire paragraph devoted to details on death penalty and execution laws is relevant to this article. There has to be some stuff we can remove from this:
 * Capital punishment is sanctioned in the United States for certain federal and military crimes, and used in 32 states.[312] While there are 32 states which include capital punishment within their sentencing statutes, some states (such as New Hampshire and Kansas) have yet to execute anyone since 1976, as demonstrated by the lack of any executions by these states out of the 1,317 total executions which had taken place by December 5, 2012.[313] No executions took place from 1967 to 1977, owing in part to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. In 1976, that Court ruled that, under appropriate circumstances, capital punishment may constitutionally be imposed; since the decision there have been more than 1,300 executions, a majority of these taking place in three states: Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma.[314] Five state legislatures in the modern era have abolished the death penalty, though two of those laws (in New Mexico and Connecticut) were not retroactive. Additionally, state courts in Massachusetts and New York struck down death penalty statutes and their legislatures took no action in response. In 2010, the country had the fifth highest number of executions in the world, following China, Iran, North Korea, and Yemen.[315]
 * Cadiomals (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Friedman, I just prefer the article conform with Wiki guidelines on neutrality. I'd be all for balancing the cherry-picked info with facts about the murder capitals of the country in terms of city, racial crime rate breakdowns, and lots of other important stuff you didn't see fit to add, but, as Cadiomals indicated, the consensus sentiment here is that the article is too long, so streamlining is generally preferred to adding material.


 * As for the actual proposal, you didn't even provide a defense for using the loaded, illogical, POV language "despite". That wording isn't factual at all. My edit will retain the facts (for now), but the "despite" phrasing has to go. Plus it'll save a little space. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Victor, I don't see how adding what you vaguely term "racial crime rate breakdowns" and 'murder capitals" would be "balancing" anything that is currently in the crime and law enforcement section. Cadiomals, I have no problem with making the entire United States article moderately shorter and more concise.  However I would like to see more of an emphasis on deleting unsourced material as opposed to sourced material.  For example, the food section and the section above it have multiple paragraphs that are totally unsourced and relatively trivial in nature.  If nobody has any objections i'm just going to start deleting a lot of unsourced material that is peppered throughout the United States article.  That should help greatly in tightening the article.  I also have no problem with shortening the capital punishment paragraph.  It is a little long compared to the others in the section.  If nobody objects I'll go ahead and delete this part of the part of the paragraph: "While there are 32 states which include capital punishment within their sentencing statutes, some states (such as New Hampshire and Kansas) have yet to execute anyone since 1976, as demonstrated by the lack of any executions by these states out of the 1,317 total executions which had taken place by December 5, 2012"Lance Friedman (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You can add a ton of sourced, factual material, that doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in this particular article; that is what we have to take stock of. Also instead of just saying you're going to start removing random unsourced material it's advisable to present it all here first of course so it can be discussed. The Food section is fairly short in comparison to other sections so it may be best to just find sourcing for some of those statements, though I agree some paragraphs in Culture can be trimmed. To cut down an already short section while leaving another one unnecessarily long makes little sense to me. I also propose condensing this sentence in the capital punishment paragraph: Five state legislatures in the modern era have abolished the death penalty, though two of those laws (in New Mexico and Connecticut) were not retroactive. Additionally, state courts in Massachusetts and New York struck down death penalty statutes and their legislatures took no action in response down to "Meanwhile, several states have either abolished or struck down death penalty laws". Such specific detail is so irrelevant in this article, and if readers really wanted to learn more they would visit the actual main articles, that's what they're for. Cadiomals (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, so by your own logic you're seeking to "forbid mentioning any notable or relevant fact that does not conform to (your) own very biased POV". Or maybe you now realize that accuracy isn't the only quality issue at stake. I don't personally feel strongly one way or the other about the drug sentence, but you should hold off on other unilateral deletions of long standing material (including the food section) until they're discussed here first. Remember that Wikipedia standards don't require something to be sourced, only verifiable. Most article items are undeniably true, and adding sources to some of the material not likely to be challenged would be a frivolous waste of space. You didn't provide a defense of the "despite" language, so I'll proceed with that tweak soon. VictorD7 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, so far there is no consensus for you to make any of your proposed changes. Two people are against deleting the sentence and two people support keeping it in.  I am the only one who has commented on your proposed rewording and I am opposed to it because i don't think there is any problem with the current wording.  If a clear consensus emerges on any of your proposed changes, I will defer to that consensus.  Until then you should not make any  changes to the section.  I  myself will not make any unilateral deletions.   I will post proposed deletions on the talk page before deleting.  If nobody objects I'll make the deletion to the capital punishment paragraph later tonight or tomorrow.   I assume you support that deletion.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold off on changes to the Crime section too until we nail down here what should be deleted. I'm not deleting the sentences for now, but am removing frivolous POV wording in a slight tweak. So far you're the only one objecting to revising the "despite" language for neutrality and common sense (my actual proposal), and you have yet to provide a reason. Do you have a rational, compelling objection to my proposed wording above? VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of these sections have far too much detail. The article should give a general overview of the main points and extensive detail should be in other articles.  It would be worthwhile pointing out that justice policy and rates of crime differ considerably between relatively enlightened and relatively backward parts of the U.S., of which Maine and Louisiana are two examples.  There is also no need for mentioning the FBI's report inline.  Presumably it is accurate, not just their opinion.  Also, since part of the purpose ot draconian sentencing is to deter crime and prevent criminals from re-offending by locking them up, one might expect that higher incarceration rates would lead to lower crime.  If sources draw a connection between incarceration rates and crime rates, there is no reason why we should not mention it.  TFD (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "relatively enlightened and relatively backward parts of the U.S." - Gee, no POV prejudice there. As for your line about "draconian" sentencing, that might apply to an apples to apples comparison of a single state over time, but not an apples to oranges comparison of two different states at the same time. If one state has a higher crime rate, for whatever reason, it's going to have more people incarcerated than a state with a lower crime rate even if sentencing guidelines are the exactly the same, won't it? VictorD7 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then suggest a politically correct alternative for the word "backward." Anyway, your view of sentencing is the wrong way around.  The whole point of "draconian" incarceration rates is to reduce crime.  If crime is not reduced, then the policy is a failure, which is the point of saying "despite."  While higher crime rates would normally lead to more people in prison, the point is that sentences in LA are longer and therefore one would expect that to deter criminals and to keep them off the streets.  TFD (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is drifting off topic into general political discussion again, a bad habit that needs to stop. The real issue is whether you can make the argument that details like that really belong in this summary article and that they ought not just be kept in relevant articles like Crime in the United States or Incarceration in the United States. I believe the sentence "In 2008, Louisiana had the highest incarceration rate, and Maine the lowest" can be kept as it notes that regional/state disparities exist, while the sentence succeeding it should be removed for irrelevancy. Cadiomals (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever hearing someone argue that one state should be expected to have a lower crime rate than another state due to sentencing. The current Wiki text is a straw man argument. Wikipedia text shouldn't be making arguments at all, and certainly shouldn't be seeking to portray some places as "backward" either in direct or thinly disguised language. Crime rates can decrease dramatically in LA (arguably in part due to tough sentencing) and still be higher than another, radically different state. Crime rates are driven by many variables. One, for example, is racial makeup. Blacks nationally commit murder at 7 times the rate of non-blacks, and most blacks live in the south. LA has over 4 times as many blacks proportionally as MA. Other factors (socioeconomic, broad cultural, geography) might also be at play in explaining the difference between the states. The fact that LA has more murders than MA proves nothing regarding sentencing. The gap might be even wider if LA had more lax sentencing. Regardless, at a snapshot, people are incarcerated because they've been convicted of crime, so one would expect a state with a higher crime rate to have more people currently incarcerated.  You just admitted that "higher crime rates would normally lead to more people in prison", so there's really nothing left to argue. The current sentence is a poorly thought out political talking point. The text has to change to drop the POV (at best) assumption. VictorD7 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While more crime would lead to more people in prison, we are talking about the length of prison terms. Longer terms mean that someone who otherwise might commit a murder cannot because he is still in prison for a previous offense.  And longer sentences should deter people from committing crimes in the first place.  Why do you think sentences are longer in Lousiana if not to reduce crime?  TFD (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't whether tougher sentencing has reduced crime over time (it probably has), but whether one should assume a state with more people incarcerated should have a lower crime rate than a totally different state given all the other variables involved. So far no one has presented evidence of anyone arguing that LA would have a lower crime rate than another state because of its tough sentencing, making the text a straw man argument. Best for Wikipedia's voice to sidestep such disputes and just neutrally present facts; let readers do the interpreting. VictorD7 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is whether tougher sentencing would lead to lower crime. Tougher sentencing is btw the main reason Lousiana is the world's leading jailer, beating out China and Iran.  You agree with Lousiana that tougher sentencing reduces crime.  Don't know what "over time" means.  It's been that way for over a century.  TFD (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Louisiana's murder rate has fallen from a sky high rate of 20.3 per 100k in 1993 to 10.8 in 2012. How much if any of that decline is due to sentencing (which has gotten tougher in recent decades) is a separate debate, but it has fallen dramatically. That it's still higher than a state that had a relatively low crime rate to begin with doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sentencing, and even if it did you shouldn't be making that POV argument in Wikipedia's voice. Even if you were to ignore policy and make such an argument, the current text inadequately fleshes it out.  At a snapshot, a state with a higher crime rate will have more people in prison than one with a lower crime rate.  You can't escape the logical causality of crime-conviction-incarceration, in that order. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how "balancing puffery" means singling out two states in an article about the whole country. The sentence should go. There are better ways of doing this than describing the crime statistics of 1/25th of the states, comprising 1/50th of the population. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Victor, according to the FBI, Alaska and New Mexico have the third and fourth highest rates of violent crime in the USA http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/10/04/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america/3/ Do you think the Eskimos and Mexicans are the explanation for the high crime in those states?  Also, lots of countries have large African minorities.  France has a larger African minority population than the U.S, yet its murder rate is exponentially lower than our own: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16446720-americans-far-more-likely-to-suffer-violent-deaths-than-peers?lite  Regardless all of that is off topic.--  The sentence being disputed is part of a paragraph about our highest in the world incarceration rate.  Louisiana is mentioned in this paragraph because it has the highest incarceration rate in the nation, roughly double the national average.  Because you think it it is "illogical" and "poorly thought out" among other things, you want to delete or alter this last sentence in the paragraph: "Despite Louisiana having the highest number of its citizens imprisoned, the FBI's crime report for 2012 listed the state as having the highest rate of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the United States.[313]"  However, far from being such a crazy thing to say the largest newspaper in Louisiana says virtually the same thing: "Despite locking up more people for longer periods than any other state, Louisiana has one of the highest rates of both violent and property crimes." http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/louisiana_is_the_worlds_prison.html  The conservative Reason Foundation also says virtually the same thing: "Despite having the highest incarceration rate in the nation, and higher corrections expenditures per capita as compared to its neighboring states, Louisiana’s violent crime rate has remained consistently above those of its neighboring states, as well as the national average." (Sentence is on page 3 of link): http://reason.org/files/louisiana_sentencing_reform.pdf  I am thinking maybe we we should make the last sentence of incarceration paragraph into a direct quote from the NOLA article.  It is a very interesting article.  Happy New YearLance Friedman (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually blacks are only 3.5% of the French population and 13% of the US population, but you completely missed my point, which is that lots of variables (not just race/ethnicity) impact crime rate (and I was speaking of a current US based subcultural phenomenon that isn't necessarily the same for all blacks everywhere). I just cited one salient example commented on by researchers from the FBI to academics. : "Expanded Homicide...Data Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black, 45.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were of other races." This American Thinker piece concludes that non-black, legal US residents have a murder rate around 1 per 100k, about the same level as northern Europe, citing among others UCLA professor Peter Baldwin who's written for the Huffington Post before. I haven't had time to dig into the illegal alien murder stats they give but the FBI black/white stuff is solid. That's important information in and of itself that more merits inclusion than a lot of the stuff currently in, especially given the misleading incarceration racial breakdown already present.


 * Back to my point. Just because a source has an opinion doesn't mean it's appropriate to include that opinion in the article, especially unchallenged and in Wikipedia's voice. Lots of sources have all sorts of opinions. Reason is a libertarian magazine with a soft sentencing agenda.  Your other source, The Time Picayune editorial, was written by a girl named Cindy Chang and it's not clear that she's an expert on anything apart from writing fact poor liberal political polemics on various issues in that paper.  Nothing she said changes the fact that, all things being equal (including law enforcement effectiveness, meaning perps are caught), a state with a higher crime rate will have more people incarcerated than one with a lower crime rate.  If the state with a higher crime rate has tougher sentencing on top of that, then it will have even more people incarcerated, not fewer. You're still pounding at a straw man argument, Friedman.  You failed to link to anything where someone claims tougher sentencing in one state will mean that state will have a lower crime rate than another state. There's absolutely nothing surprising about the state with the highest violent crime rate having the highest incarceration rate. The low quality, totally frivolous POV wording should be adjusted so that we have merely a neutral presentation of the facts. VictorD7 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thought experiment
State A has a higher crime rate than state B. Everything else--sentencing guidelines, law enforcement effectiveness (meaning perps are caught), etc.--is equal. Which state will have more people incarcerated? I would like every editor participating in this discussion to answer, please. VictorD7 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Another editor removed this section as irrelevant to improving the article. Can you explain how it gets us there?  In reply, no one would claim deny that all things being equal, higher crime would lead to more people in prison.  But Lousiana, which is the world's leading state for incarceration, also has lengthier sentences than other U.S. states.  TFD (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to say no would deny higher crime leads to more people in prison, or did you intentionally say "claim"?
 * Insufficient information. It's a useless "thought experiment" that does nothing for the article, and should be removed. For example, let's see... one state could be bordering a less safe nation; one state could have higher poverty; one state could have worse education; one state could have easier access to weapons and drugs, etc. But it's quite obvious what answer you're seeking. So before you get accused blatantly of such things, you should remove this section, for your own sake, lest your bias be made permanently clear for everyone. --Golbez (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your hostile post is incoherent gibberish. Since you refused to answer the question, do you support keeping the current "despite" language I proposed removing above? If so, please explain why you don't believe it's frivolous POV. All I'm proposing is tweaking a few words for neutrality. VictorD7 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is a pointless extension/drawing out of a very inconsequential semantic issue. I have made the necessary changes outlined below, resolving the problem, and hope they will be respected. Any further tweaks are open for discussion. Otherwise, I think this subsection you created is unwise and should just be removed entirely (by you). Cadiomals (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If your changes (which I support) stand, then this portion of the conversation is over and there's no reason for further commentary here. I don't see the need for deleting this innocuous subsection since its op might help clarify things for new readers who happen by. Since I did call for participation though, I'll collapse it for now so further posting isn't prominently invited. VictorD7 (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes
I am being bold and making what I feel are the necessary trimmings, which I think are compromising and non-extreme. It is not good for such lengthy pointless back-and-forth to continue without anything being done. I think all these changes are badly needed, none are very major or extreme and I hope they will be respected so we can bring this issue to a close and keep moving forward in the process of making this article worthy of Good status once again. Cadiomals (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keeping "In 2008, Louisiana had the highest incarceration rate, and Maine the lowest" because it is worthwhile to mention that disparities exist among states/regions and that crime and incarceration is not uniform across the country, while tweaking succeeding sentence to read "In 2012 Louisiana had the highest rate of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the United States."
 * Removing "While there are 32 states which include capital punishment within their sentencing statutes, some states (such as New Hampshire and Kansas) have yet to execute anyone since 1976, as demonstrated by the lack of any executions by these states out of the 1,317 total executions which had taken place by December 5, 2012" as agreed upon by Lance Friedman
 * Condensing the excessively detailed sentence "Five state legislatures in the modern era have abolished the death penalty, though two of those laws (in New Mexico and Connecticut) were not retroactive. Additionally, state courts in Massachusetts and New York struck down death penalty statutes and their legislatures took no action in response" down to "Meanwhile, several states have either abolished or struck down death penalty laws" while adding a wikilink pointing to those states.
 * Removing mention of Poland
 * The Crime section still needs more work, but those edits resolve this Talk Section issue.VictorD7 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well-developed infrastructure???
This article claims that the United States infrastructure is "well-developed", while the accompanying link:

1. is dead; 2. points to a site where the USA is currently given a GPA of D+ for its decaying infrastructure.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Should the article be edited so as to reflect the reality as an encyclopedia should?


 * Yes. Please see http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/28/roads-bridges-decaying/2594499/ Please see also And  EllenCT (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I can modify the statement in both the lead and economy sections to exclude that, and it won't change the overall message that the US has a highly advanced economy. Cadiomals (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that removing information about the infrastructure is superior to correcting it? EllenCT (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So now we have to source the fact that the US has a "well developed infrastructure" by world standards? The US has an unparalleled superhighway system, 16 of the world's 30 most trafficked airports, state of the art telecommunications infrastructure, advanced water treatment plants and sewer systems, a first class power grid, many of the world's great skyscrapers, high quality building codes, and countless other features from high tech canals to the Hoover freaking Dam. I understand that it's a Democratic party talking point that we need more infrastructure spending, but holding that position isn't mutually exclusive with acknowledging that the US has among the world's most developed infrastructures. Heck, otherwise maybe we should delete the "developed nation" part too, since they also argue we need more government spending to fix the dismal economy. I'll note that none of the sources presented make international comparisons (so the "grade" is meaningless in this context), and that both the American Society of Civil Engineers (first source) and  Associated Equipment Distributors (Ellen's second source) have a vested financial interest in increased spending on infrastructure, and both openly admit to advocating for that.  Ellen's USA Today article covers some recent problems but doesn't dispute the developed nature of US infrastructure in the larger scheme of things.  Her last source isn't available for free online reading but from the abstract appears to just be a policy paper arguing in favor of high infrastructure spending as a general principle that doesn't directly comment on this larger issue either.


 * I partially reverted so this could at least be discussed some. VictorD7 (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the adjective "well-developed" implies not only quantity, but quality too. The plain fact that an airport is "trafficked" does not say anything about its quality. No US airport has a 5-star or 4-star ranking by Skytrax. The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, in which some areas were left without electricity for weeks due to the lack of underground power cables in the New York metropolitan area, did not indicate that the US has a "first class" power grid. Please refrain from bringing an internal US political debate into the discussion.201.17.48.236 (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're the one whose source was an internal American advocacy group with a direct financial interest at stake. And actually being highly trafficked does say a lot about quality in terms of functionality, or else the airports wouldn't be able to handle that traffic. I'd never heard of Skytrax, but apparently it's a little British outfit that produces reviews and, according to your article link, was recently slapped down by the UK Advertising Standards Authority on several counts of systemic "misleading advertising" regarding its reviews and star ratings. Even then it looks like their focus is on frivolous cosmetics, like how pretty a lounge is. Most of America does have underground cables, but every country has power outages, especially in the wake of unusually extreme weather. Britain's suffering widespread blackouts right now after some rainy weather that doesn't come close to a hurricane. In the 2000s 10,000 French people died (half of them in Paris) after a heatwave that was mild by US standards, due to problems blamed on various aspects of their infrastructure. They had to convert a refrigerated warehouse next to a fruit and vegetable market into a makeshift morgue to contain the overflow of dead bodies. The US is the world's largest commercial supplier of nuclear power, but has never had a catastrophe like Fukushima or Chernobyl. And please refrain from chopping other people's posts in half. I had to fix that. VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The source you are referring to in your first sentence is the source the original article was pointing at. Please follow the guidelines on top of this page. They disallow personal attacks. If high traffic implies a well-developed infrastructure, then we should also classify the infrastructure of India, for example, as well-developed. Would you say so? Hong Kong sees hurricanes on a regular basis, yet does not suffer weeklong power blackouts. 201.17.48.236 (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was also the source you went out of your way to link to, the one you based your position on, and was the only source used in your op. I have no idea who added it to the article, but the segment, like much of the lede, shouldn't need sourcing for such an obvious statement. I didn't make any personal attacks, but you've edited my posts twice now, the last pure vandalism, and that does violate Wiki rules. No Indian airports rank among the highest in traffic. Hong Kong is a city, and lacks most of the US infrastructure items I listed below. Plenty of US cities and towns handle hurricanes/earthquakes/tornados/etc. as good as or better than the rest of the world. New York is an aberration in many ways for reasons that should be obvious, and doesn't define the entire country.  You don't seem to have a point here. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably removed it a little too quickly and could have just put "dead link" or "citation needed"; but now that I think of it, that part of the sentence is probably not very necessary. Though I agree with most of what you say (that US infrastructure, while somewhat under-maintained and uneven, is still far superior to that of most of the world's nations) "developed country" already implies that the country's infrastructure is well-developed; as such, it may be removed on the basis that it is simply redundant. It is impossible for a country to have a developed economy without the advanced infrastructure needed to support it; so the US isn't far removed from other developed countries and definitely not superior (the US is the largest developed country, but more infrastructure does not necessarily mean superior infrastructure). Meanwhile, having abundant natural resources and the world's highest productivity are fairly distinct elements of the country that have a reason to stay. If a similar or same source can be found to replace the dead link it could be kept; if not it wouldn't hurt to remove it for redundancy, but neither should any political talking points or advocacy replace it. Either way it would not change the overall message in that sentence which is that the US economy is highly advanced, and we should not dwell on something so small when there are bigger fish to fry. Cadiomals (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The redundancy/space argument is a lot better than the other one, and is why I only soft opposed (I'd strongly oppose replacing it with the aforementioned talking point), though I do think the US has a unique overall infrastructure in terms of scope, variety, and technology level. Since it's such long standing material, I'd prefer to wait at least a couple of days in case other people want to weigh in. VictorD7 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The available evidence does not suggest that the US has a unique infrastructure, even in quantitative terms. The Mercer 2012 City Infrastructure Ranking Top-20 features 12 cities in Europe, 4 in Asia-Pacific and 3 in Canada, but only 2 cities in the US: http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr 201.17.48.236 (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would never consider US infrastructure superior to other developed countries either, but still vastly superior to the majority of the world's countries which are still developing, even if many say we spend too little on it. If that part of the statement were to be removed it would be primarily due to redundancy (not inaccuracy), as having a "well-developed" infrastructure is already a prerequisite for being a "developed" country, and this is not a distinguishing aspect of the US against other developed countries. Cadiomals (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That list is very limited to a small selection of large cities (ignoring thousands of towns and medium sized cities), and even it puts 6 US cities in the top 31 and 9 in the top 50 (a sizable chunk). It's also not clear precisely what their methodology was. Having experienced European roads and other infrastructure, I would rate US infrastructure as superior (on balance) to those of other developed nations (not that driving on cobblestones isn't fun; notoriously inefficient service personnel working limited hours less so), but such an evaluation isn't necessary to use the label "well developed", as Cadiomals observes. As for unique, no other nation has the same diverse mix of high quality dams, canals, power plants, wide-laned superhighways (and in the US broad, rationally laid out roads aren't restricted to major cities), irrigation systems, air traffic development, large buildings, telecommunications wiring, desalinization/water treatment plants, cell/radio towering, cutting edge oil field development, energy usage (American consumers have more appliance access than Europeans, as the grim French tragedy related above illustrates), food production and distribution systems (compare grocery stores some time, US versus Eur., especially in average towns), sports stadiums (not even close), numerous major ports, many of the world's largest and most advanced hospitals, the world's highest rated universities, expansive railroad networks, etc., etc.. Americans don't rely on public transport to the same degree Europeans do because they prefer the freedom of owning and driving their own vehicles, but some US cities like New York were among the first in the world to build major subway systems. The US invented the skyscraper along with countless other modern infrastructure components. The US is currently building spaceports for private ships to use (e.g. ,). How many other nations can say that? In the grand scheme of things it's absurd to deny that the US has a well developed infrastructure.  VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On European old town cobblestone streets: are there tourists from the US who think these streets were designed for driving on? On historical references: these points show how old and outdated the New York infrastructure is (cf. hurricane Sandy). On spaceports: first, the fact that NASA expects the private sector to build spaceports so that it does not rely on Russia any more for access to space does not exactly illustrate technological achievement in the US public sector, which primarily defines a country's infrastructure; second, if spaceports render a country developed, then Russia should be classified as more developed than the US as we speak; last time I checked, it was not listed as a developed country (though it is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank); third, a spaceport does not improve the daily life of people on earth and will not make any difference to residents of New York or New Orleans when the next hurricane comes. On dams, canals, etc: China currently has more, bigger, etc. of those than the US, including the longest highway system in the world, yet is not even classified as a developed country. 201.17.48.236 (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the little winding (sometimes cobblestone) roads were designed for, it's the reality of the situation. NY is an aberration in many ways, and not representative of the vast nation. I mentioned spaceports for use by private spaceships (the first one invented by Americans several years ago), and you failed to meet my challenge. The US has been the lead space faring nation for decades (public and private), its reliance on Russian transport for astronauts is temporary, and even now it's miles ahead of anyone else in unmanned space flight, so that's a bizarre and counterproductive area for you to focus on. We could debate whether space travel and its associated technologies benefit people on earth, but that was just one item of many I listed, so dump your straw man. Hurricanes routinely hit the US Gulf Coast, causing vastly fewer fatalities than they do elsewhere due to superior US preparation, warning systems, and infrastructure. Katrina was an extreme aberration due to a one time flood levy break, and even then far fewer people died than in France during the mild heat weave mentioned above. On bridges, dams, and canals, bigger isn't necessarily better. China has five times as many people as the US, but Americans use four times as much energy per capita as Chinese, and significantly more than most Europeans.  That's a testament to the US power grid. The only nations that rank ahead of the US in per capita energy usage are a few tiny ones, mostly in very cold or very hot locales (e.g. Iceland, some rich Arab sheikdoms). By contrast, the US is a mostly temperate nation of well over 300 million people, and those people aren't just running air conditioners or heaters 24/7.  VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's try not to get too far adrift with this issue as has happened too many times before. By tomorrow as long as no one else objects I will remove that part of the statement on the basis of redundancy (developed country = well-developed infrastructure; the US is not terribly unique within the 1st world in terms of this; does not change overall point of statement). You said yourself you wouldn't be much opposed to its removal on this basis as long as there isn't any political advocacy replacing it. Then we can move on from this minor non-crucial issue. Speaking of which, I don't know if you caught my reply in edit: Settlement. Those History changes should be applied ASAP as long as no one else has concerns with it. Cadiomals (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means remove it or better replace it with a more accurate description such as "relatively extensive albeit decaying", so it does not mislead people into expecting, for example, European or East Asian high-speed railways in the US. That is the kind of infrastructure most people will have in mind, as opposed to trips to space that the user above appears to have in mind. Please note that the current state of the article is a deterioration over the state it was in at the beginning of this discussion. Then, there was a wrong claim along with a dead link, yet if one followed the link they would end up in a site offering a diametrically opposed view on the matter. Now, the claim remains, but the link to the different view is deleted. Please make it right. 201.17.48.236 (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Only extremely ignorant and/or narrow minded people would mistakenly equate "infrastructure" primarily with public transport, and we shouldn't be guided such an incorrect mind set. Americans typically mock the idea of public transport. Major European cities may be better for tourists, but American infrastructure is better for residents. The spaceports just underscore the unique nature of the USA's well developed infrastructure, even among developed nations. Given my long list, your cherry-picking retorts are pitiful. As explained to you earlier, the source (which never should have been added) doesn't contradict the (correct) claim or make international comparisons. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nero had freaking aquaducts. What the civil engineers care about is the first derivative ("the direction the country is going") and you should too, because it can take months to go from D+ to D, weeks to go from D to D-, and if you don't maintain a B+ or better, that means the bill just keeps going up. EllenCT (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rome is famous for having an extremely well developed infrastructure for the time. As for "direction", by your logic every time a recession hits the US should no longer be called a "developed" or "high-income" country. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The U.S. has a well developed infrastructure. That the U.S. has places where the infrastructure is past the "best by" date doesn't mean the infrastructure isn't "well developed".  I can drive on paved surfaces and reach something like 99% of the U.S. population that way.  I can take airplanes and land it to somewhere within like 20 miles of the same proportion of the population.  Nearly all households have access to reliable electricity.  Is it the best country in the world on any measure?  Hell no.  That's not what well developed means.  But by any reasonable comparison to a) how the U.S. was 100 years ago and b) how most of the world lives, the U.S. infrastructure is well developed.  The large amount of press the infrastructure problems in the U.S. gets is due to several factors.  First, it isn't as good as it could/should be given the U.S. economic state and it probably isn't as good as it was at its best.  But none of that means that the U.S. belongs out of the "well developed" category.  Yes, it has problems.  Yes, other countries do it better.  No, none of that means that the U.S. infrastructure isn't "Well developed."  Some perspective is necessary here.  -- Jayron  32  15:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input Jayron, and I agree with most of what you say. As I explained above and which no one seems to be strongly against is that I would remove that part of the statement not because it is inaccurate but on the basis of redundancy, as in when saying a country is "developed" it is already implied that it has a "well-developed" infrastructure relative to most other countries. In this way the US is not highly distinguished from the rest of the first world, whereas having abundant natural resource wealth and the highest worker productivity are distinguishing economic factors. We should be able to move on from this and not rehash the same arguments. Cadiomals (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just wanted to ensure some discussion and expose how lousy the original argument was. That's been accomplished. VictorD7 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well-developed but decaying
I propose that the US infrastructure be described as "well-developed but decaying" per the original poster's discovery that the original cited source no longer supports the article's statement (which should speak volumes to anyone hoping to return this article to good status by itself) and the three sources I added. EllenCT (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose that instead of describing the infrastructure, we find sources that give reasonable, well understandable metrics, such as the % of households with reliable electricity and disease-free water; the number of people with access to paved roads, distance from airports, etc, as well as data as to, say, the state of repair of various infrastructure and how that compares to the worldwide average, and use absolutely NO adjectives or descriptors of any kind. We're in the business of reporting information, not telling people how to feel about that information.  They can decide for themselves whether the data reported in the article represents "well developed" or "decaying" or whatever the readers mind tells them to feel about it.  We should just report the information and leave it at that.  -- Jayron  32  06:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The solution which no one objected to was to simply remove that part of the statement, which resolves the issue fully, rather than modifying or finding alternate sources to it. Also, adding "decaying" completely misses the purpose of the overall statement, which lists the factors that are responsible for America's large and productive economy. To add that would be to simply insert more advocacy that has no place in the lead or this summary article. I archived this discussion because it has been resolved and I won't be contributing any more to it because it would involve rehashing the arguments above and going around in circles once again. Cadiomals (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on my quick reading of the discussion, I support Cadiomals suggestion. Though I did want to add that the scope of infrastructure seemed limited in the discussion.  If we look at what the U.S. government defines as the nation's critical Infrastructure, the private sector owns and operates approximately 85% of it.  Here is a list of what the DHS lists as the Critical Infrastructure Sectors - "Chemical", "Commercial Facilities", "Communications", "Critical Manufacturing", "Dams", "Defense Industrial Base", "Emergency Services", "Energy", "Financial Services", "Food and Agriculture", "Government Facilities", "Healthcare and Public Health", "Information Technology", "Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste", "Transportation Systems", and "Water and Wastewater Systems".  So if any future discussion arises regarding adjectives to describe the "infrastructure", make sure you take the weight in totality and specify the type of infrastructure you're talking about along with the necessary attribution.   Morphh   (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While the DHS might classify nuclear waste as part of our critical infrastructure, I doubt most of our readers or any representative sample of people using the term would. Why not weight the infrastructure by how many people depend on it for their and their family's physiological well-being? EllenCT (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The nuclear sector produces 20% of the country's power. My point, which I stated in the last sentence, was to be specific as to what you're talking about and attribute it.  Making a general statement about decaying infrastructure without specifying you're talking about "roads and bridges"  or whatever, is misleading.   Morphh   (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was supporting quoting from the civil engineering association: "D+". Are there any published figures with which they disagree? EllenCT (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to the continued addition of instructions to refrain from discussing my proposal to update the text with the accurate version of the statement that the cited source originally supported. Cadiomals, if you persist in adding the closure/archive template before the discussion has concluded, I will open an RFC. EllenCT (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you actually read my and everyone else's arguments above you would have no desire to extend this petty discussion further. With four other users in agreement (including the IP who brought this up in the first place), a modified version of the statement will not be added because it has no relevance here, misses the overall purpose of the sentence it was in, and has already been removed. You had already mentioned your proposal earlier and it was rejected by others. This relatively minor issue has been resolved via consensus and extensive enough discussion which should thus be concluded, unless anyone wants to go around in circles with you which I doubt. Cadiomals (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP's proposal was, "relatively extensive albeit decaying." EllenCT (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP said "Yes, by all means remove it or better replace it..." which means they would have taken either or. Meanwhile, three other editors and myself agreed that it would not be relevant to add a modified version of that statement and we each contributed our own rationales, so the former course was taken through consensus and the issue was resolved. Cadiomals (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You honestly think that an article on the U.S. should not include information on the rapid rate of infrastructure decay cited in the exact same source that the article used to cite? That does not reflect good editorial judgment, whether supported by three or thirty. Please stop trying to railroad your preferred view from nowhere on topics of obviously vital importance. EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Going through this discussion, I get the impression that some editors would prefer to suppress any information on the state of infrastructure in the US. Still, it has been argued in good faith that any "distinguishing aspect of the US against other developed countries" would be worth mentioning. It has also been argued that US Americans "typically mock the idea of public transport", which, if true, may be a factor in neglecting public transport infrastructure and hence constitute a distinguishing aspect of the US against other developed countries. It has also been argued in good faith that the US "has places where the infrastructure is past the 'best by' date". These observations have value that makes them worth appearing in this article. Some relevant information can also be found at http://www.infrastructureusa.org/. 96.240.21.221 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

edit. Independence and expansion - part 2.
edit 'Independence and expansion, paragraphs 3 and 4 into one. proposal:

''Although the federal government criminalized the international slave trade in 1808,[79] after 1820 cultivation of the highly profitable cotton crop exploded in the Deep South, and along with it the slave population.[82] The Second Great Awakening, beginning about 1800, converted millions to evangelical Protestantism. In the North it energized multiple social reform movements, including abolitionism, [83] in the South, Methodists and Baptists proselytized among slave populations.[Heinemann 2007 p.197] Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars.[84] The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size.[85] The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism.[86] A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819.[87]''

end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good so far. Do you remember the text of the War of 1812 segment we had a several editor consensus for that vanished mysteriously at some point? Might be a good opportunity to tweak the current sentence by removing a definitive statement that the result was a "draw", since there's disagreement. Many sources vaguely call it a draw, but some call it a British victory and some call it an American victory. I believe the old consensus sentence described the war's impact while avoiding one of those pat designations. Just a suggestion. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a scholarly consensus the war was a draw. Rwenonah (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The scholarship is as I described it: many (probably most) "draw", and some saying either the British or Americans won. We aren't required to use such language; scholars say many things about the war currently not included in this article. I'm not sure how scholarly the word "draw" even is. VictorD7 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True. You're probably right its better to just stay away from the term. Rwenonah (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the war did more than simply "strengthen nationalism". It stabilized borders, saw US territorial acquisition at Mobile, spurred the development of a standing, high quality professional military (at least the officer level), compelled Britain and other global nations to take the US seriously as a sovereign nation, and broke the power of Britain's Amerindian allies, clearing the way for westward expansion. Some (not all) of that was mentioned in the aforementioned old consensus version. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The war brought about every USG demand, principally the respect of US citizens on land and sea and recognition of its sovereign territory. The kidnapping of US citizens at sea with and without British accents ceased, including free whites and blacks. National citizenship is changeable. Peace came after defeating British invasions in the north and in the south and Wellington refused the American theater command. Britain relinquished their demands requiring Maine (plus) be ceded to Canada, free navigation of the Mississippi, and an independent Native buffer-state between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes to limit any US expansion along the Canadian border west of Ohio. UK finally withdrew from its forts on US soil since the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and ended its military aid to Native Nation allies.

On the other hand, Article Ten forges an alliance between UK and US to end the international slave trade, and bilateral peace commissions are set up to guarantee Canadian borders so as to end the threat of US invasion. The British sneak attack on New Orleans launched during peace negotiations failed to secure its free navigation of the Mississippi through the port of New Orleans (see Gibraltar for an example of how this would have worked out for the Americans had there been a British victory).

--- However let's stay with "a draw" for now, and walk through the entire section once to shorten it, then return to open debate on the great issues of American history later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One historian said "The war was a draw, but the United States won the negotiations".Rwenonah (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Save the minor issue of the War of 1812 and the question I raised about G. Washington above, both parts look pretty good. All major points covered. I assume there will be a part 3 with the rest of the paragraphs. Cadiomals (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As a first draft revision, I wrote out the named presidential references, all of them, although I know high school history teachers prepping students for the Advanced Placement tests emphasize Presidents as a way to organize chronology in the essays. I just did not think them essential in this summary encyclopedic overview of U.S. history here, versus the History of the United States, which is a different article. Part 3 appears below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

edit. Independence and expansion - part 1.
edit. Independence and expansion - part 1 - the first two paragraphs. Proposal:

''The American Revolution was the first successful colonial war of independence against a European power. Americans had developed an ideology of "republicanism" that held government rested on the will of the people as expressed in their local legislatures. They demanded their rights as Englishmen, “no taxation without representation”. The British insisted on administering the empire through Parliament, and the conflict escalated into the American Revolutionary War.[74] The Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1776, proclaiming that humanity is created equal in their inalienable rights. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak government that operated until 1789.[76]

''Britain recognized the independence of the United States following their defeat at Yorktown.[77] In the peace treaty of 1783, American sovereignty was recognized from the Atlantic coast west to the Mississippi River. Nationalists led the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in writing the United States Constitution, and it was ratified in state conventions in 1788. The federal government was reorganized into three branches for their checks and balances in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791.[78]''

end proposal for the first two paragraphs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me so far. Should there be something about checks and balance of power, possibly tacked onto the "three branches" sentence? It may not be vital since it's mentioned lower in the Gov. section, but then so is the Bill of Rights, and the Montesquieuesque concern was a major force at the Constitutional Convention, so it wouldn't be inappropriate to mention here.  VictorD7 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * insert. done, with "... government was reorganized into three branches for their checks and balances in 1789." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "...proclaiming that people are created equal," without quotes, please! EllenCT (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Insert. okay, "...proclaiming humanity is created equal in (their)(its) inalienable rights", without quotes or quoting either phrase. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I prefer using the actual quoted words if we're saying what they were "proclaiming", but maybe it's not a huge deal either way. Should we spend a few words mentioning what those inalienable rights are though? Most notably life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or would that be frivolous space consumption? VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very conscious here at 'United States' for this history section to be very abbreviated, not drifting into territory better treated in History of the United States, so I wrote out all references to presidents by name, for instance, not because they are not important, but only because the main points can be covered without naming them per se. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You should explain how your proposal differs from what is already there and why the changes should be made. Incidentally, if you do not use quotes, then you should use modern spelling, viz., "inalienable."  I doubt that the term "nationalist" would be applicable, and the current reading that talks of the "ideology of republicanism" is questionable.  TFD (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal is shorter because the article is too long. "Nationalist" is sourced by the original contributor, that's how they are characterized in the literature in Wood, Maier and elsewhere, and you offer no sources for an alternative. Wikipedia explains "ideology of republicanism" more fully for you at the subsidiary article linked there in blue at "ideology of republicanism" in the proposal, i.e. Republicanism in the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The source uses the word "nationalist" in a non-standard way to mean people who wanted a national government. Wood saw republicanism as only one of two ideologies - the other one was liberalism.  We need to be careful in phrasing.  TFD (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wood says the national government was "created" in the 1790s (2011, p.255) and the Anti-Federalists claimed with some justification that they were the real federalists. Instead of parsing which group were the 'real' federalists here, as we are constrained by an encyclopedic style, we should use the standard way of referring to --- those who innovate and impose a national government ---, as the "nationalists", just as we find both a) in common usage by a general readership and b) in the literature. You have not offered a source to justify altering the standard meaning of 'nationalist' in the existing text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it okay if you added a quick mention of George Washington being unanimously elected the first president in 1788 at the end of the second paragraph? I don't think it would hurt as he of course left a major influence on how govt was conducted and set many precedents as first president, one of many being the two term tradition, which should maybe be mentioned. Cadiomals (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My instinct is to agree with Cadiomals about mentioning Washington, since he explains the name of the capital and a state and was crucial to nation's formation and development in many ways (it'd be bizarre for this article not to mention him at all), but I'm curious to see how TVH's entire History draft unfolds without presidential mention first. I suppose we could revisit the Washington issue later. VictorD7 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if one were to be mentioned, Washington would be the one, indispensable man, as Flexner put it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit. Independence and expansion - part 3.
edit independence and expansion. part 3. proposal:

''From 1820 to 1850, Jacksonian democracy began a set of reforms which included wider male suffrage, and it led to the rise of the Second Party System of Democrats and Whigs as the dominant parties from 1828 to 1854. The Trail of Tears in the 1830s exemplified the Indian removal policy that moved Indians into the west to their own reservations. The U.S. annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845 during a period of expansionist Manifest Destiny.[88] The 1846 Oregon Treaty with Britain led to U.S. control of the present-day American Northwest.[89] Victory in the Mexican-American War resulted in the 1848 Mexican Cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest.[90]

The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 spurred western migration and the creation of additional western states.[91] After the American Civil War, new intercontinental railways made relocation easier for settlers, expanded internal trade and increased conflicts with Native Americans.[92] Over a half-century, the loss of the buffalo was an existential blow to many Plains Indians cultures.[93] In 1869, a new Peace Policy sought to protect Native-Americans from abuses, avoid further warfare, and secure their eventual U.S. citizenship.[94]

end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Wars of extermination" can easily be misinterpreted by a modern reader out of context. If we're replacing direct quotes from the Declaration of Independence, we should probably replace that colorful quote too with language more accurately describing the policy shift. VictorD7 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is why Ulysses S. Grant's phrasing is in quotes. Would you prefer a more modern term like genocide?  TFD (talk)
 * You mean the word that was overwhelmingly rejected by consensus here a few months ago? Nah, I'd prefer non loaded, non emotive, coherent language. And yeah, I mentioned the quotes. The deleted Declaration of Independence quotes were quotes too. VictorD7 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How about 'reversed the previous costly policy of wars to extermination, intending to civilize' without quotes? see revised proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is "policy" and "extermination", since it wasn't US policy to exterminate the Amerindians, and the Grant quote was obviously hyperbole describing something he didn't want to happen in the future (a few years earlier he had laid out the Peace Policy: ) "To" is still problematic because Amerindian non-combatant deaths at the hands of the US military were actually quite small. Legislation to at least nominally protect Indians from white abuses long predated Grant, as did pro-assimilation sentiment, but the new "peace policy" was primarily an attempt to strengthen the largely dysfunctional and sometimes corrupt Indian relations infrastructure (e.g. more robust reservation system; replacing appointed administrative political cronies with more sincere Christian outfits), and a key shift in actual policy was to treat them as wards of the government rather than independent nations (complete with discarding the chaotic treaty process), with an eye toward "civilizing" them in the American fashion. All this was intended to minimize or eliminate future wars.   How about something like this? In 1869, a new Peace Policy sought to protect Native-Americans from abuses and avoid further warfare, intending to civilize and eventually give them U.S. citizenship.[94]  Or maybe the sentence should focus on the key shift from independent nations to government wards. Here's an alternative proposal: In 1869 a new Peace Policy sought to reduce warfare by treating Amerindians as federal government wards rather than independent nations, civilizing them, and eventually giving them U.S. citizenship.[94] Regardless, the current wording is misleading and should change.VictorD7 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a variation of your first alternative. 'In 1869 a new Peace Policy sought to protect Native-Americans from abuses, avoid further warfare, and secure their eventual U.S. citizenship.' TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. VictorD7 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Talking About Languages
I was looking at the language chart that said that about 80 percent of Americans spoke English. I have to wonder whether I'm reading that wrong, because in the way im reading it theres no way it's 80 percent, it's more like 99 percent honestly. Even as a 1st language that seems off... Themane2 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's referring to Language Spoken at Home, which is the standard proxy the Census uses to describe language preference. It doesn't preclude also speaking other languages. There's probably no data on how many Americans don't know a word of English; more likely you'd find surveys measuring English proficiency, which is probably another way of saying level of educational attainment. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of number of legal residents who can speak English, it probably is 99%, but 80% is the percent of people who speak English as a first language and only speak it at home. The remaining 20% are people who have other first languages, not people who speak other languages but don't know English. Cadiomals (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, except first language is not the same as Language Spoken at Home. The cited sources don't say anything about first language; that's a different set of statistics. My mother in law's first language is not English but everyone in her house speaks mostly English at home. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Tag at demographics.religion
At 'demographics.religion', the tag reads, ''This section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2013)''.

This seems to be no more than a drive-by disruptive speculation, with no discussion here of the promised new data. Without the advertised discussion of the current sources available, I'll remove the tag. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the religious demographics info has been of concern to me because the data has not been updated since 2007, 7 years ago; there is even one statistic from as far back as 2002, and as many know America's religious demographics are not static. If someone could find a more updated source (preferably from the same one, Pew) it would be better. If not we will have to wait till newer info is released. Cadiomals (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Therefore the tag can be removed until there is more up-to-date information.
 * We are reporting the best information to our knowledge at this time, there is no annual report to my knowledge, I have seen Time use seven-year old data for a religious article, and when the less frequent religious demographic studies are taken, we will post them as editors with this area of interest make their contributions.


 * Or the tag is an invitation for an editor with the interest to make a more current contribution? Tag or no tag? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Align images 'right'
I have aligned the only 'left' image to the 'right' in accordance with WP:ACCESS.

It allows access to those readers with sight disabilities, including those who are legally blind in classroom settings. Computer screen enhancers magnify text in WP articles in such a way that it can be readily followed only with all images aligned to the right margin.

For articles using the WP:ACCESS convention, the student can actively participate in group projects and in-class research available through few other formats. It is good thing at Wikipedia. Without it they are unnecessarily handicapped a) in topic searches to locate material and b) in reading speed for text comprehension, both of which are essential for real-time classroom participation with fully sighted peers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This alignment right for images necessarily places a limit for illustrations in sections of very short text. But the general rule is to align images with text, that the encyclopedia be primarily text unless the article is explicitly a gallery of images.


 * Alignment right makes impossible the "ears" layout of an image on each side of a center gutter of text, makes impossible left-right slalom of images with text snaking down the page --- regardless of however crafty that might appear on the browser of the composing editor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Added facts deleted
At B. Fairbaim’s “added facts” edit to the article, I deleted the lengthy and undiscussed paraphrase of British convict labor found elsewhere in History of the United States at British Colonization.

It is not useful for the history section in this United States country article to mirror subsidiary history articles piecemeal in their detail. Convicts working a term until freed were a form of indentured labor encompassed in the reference found in the existing text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also reverted his Columbus "discovery" deletion for the reason given in my edit summary. It's not that I oppose his alternative wording per se, but I don't want a fallacious argument (Columbus supposedly not discovering America) to set in and possibly influence future decisions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the added info on British convicts is irrelevant to the overall "big picture" focus of the section. However, in terms of Columbus' "discovery" of the New World, that can and will be interpreted in different ways by our readers. For example, most of them know that Asiatic Paleo-indians were the first humans to set foot in the Americas, while many of them may even know that the Norse were the first Europeans to encounter North America; Columbus "discovered" it for Western Europe but many readers may not think of it that way at first. I can see them raising such objections on this Talk page in the future, so I think "first voyage" is the most neutral and clear-cut wording to prevent any potential confusion. Cadiomals (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We might say 'indentures and convicts' -- were the editor to collegially join the Talk page for a discussion, especially considering Georgia's unique beginnings, but convicts are a small percentage overall, and otherwise not worth inclusion at this summary level. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, I can live with the wording. But hopefully those people understand why we bother mentioning Columbus at all, because I guarantee that in this age of dumbed down curricula and deemphasis on history many don't. Addressing the opening words' own purpose in the section was one advantage of using the completely accurate "discovery". VictorD7 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Religion pie chart needs updating
I updated the text in the body to the the most recent Pew Forum survey from 2012 (which is necessary because it showed notable trends), but so far the pie chart does not match because it still shows data from 2007. Someone who knows how to do these graphics should tweak it. However, since this recent survey did not expand on "other religions" (such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc) and only treated them as a broad category the "Other religions" portion of the chart may need to be expanded just to cover those. Cadiomals (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Geography
The U.S. is in a geographic sense, the 50 States, the District of Columbia and outlying areas, iaw the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 48, Chapter 2. Also, outlying areas includes U.S. commonwealths (2), territories (3) and minor outlying islands (9). Puerto Rico is a commonwealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True. The Supreme Court said in Insular Cases, courts could not incorporate territories politically into the U.S., and now a First District Court and Appeals Court said Congress had by the twenty-first century for Puerto Rico. The District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa have mutually agreed with Congress to citizenship broader than than held by the territory of Hawaii or the Territory of Alaska, self government in three branches, and territorial representation in Congress. All but American Samoa have organic statutes making them organically part of the U.S. by law.


 * However, three editors here say that once the Supreme Court labels islanders "savage", their great-grand children cannot be recognized as a part of the U.S. until that same court which gave us Plessy v. Ferguson reverses itself and proclaims them no longer savages. This, even though the Court said only Congress makes citizens, and the holding of the Insular Cases was only that a discriminatory tax regime could be established to ensure domestic sugar oligopoly, nothing about islander citizenship, only that the Court could not make them citizens.


 * There is an uninhabited Pacific island of coconuts which are no longer harvested as a plantation free of the protective sugar tariffs, and so deemed "incorporated" relative to the discriminatory tax regime. But I once argued that the four millions U.S. citizens represented in Congress should be included in the WP article for the United States, and got walls of text without sources opposing, although I showed primary and secondary USG sources in law as well as scholarship from legal, political science and historical scholarship to include islanders in the modern U.S. of the twenty-first century.


 * The three editors lost in a dispute resolution to exclude islanders last year, but an administrator asserted that since he had allowed the inclusion of islanders in the U.S., he could overturn the dispute resolution and wiki-cecede them from the U.S. on his own authority. Since the first sentence addresses the federal republic, it should read, "The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district and five territories represented in Congress." But the subject is moot for now until the attention of an alternate administrator. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "However, three editors here say that once the Supreme Court labels islanders "savage", their great-grand children cannot be recognized as a part of the U.S. until that same court which gave us Plessy v. Ferguson reverses itself and proclaims them no longer savages." OK, so you have no interest in coming to a consensus, merely insulting your fellow editors (if not their persons then their intelligence) because you disagree with them. (also, that same court also gave us Brown v. Board of Education, but no, go straight for the racism angle, because that's how we do things here apparently) --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * insert. "Race angle" is a red herring. The three editors insist on their unsourced interpretation of Insular Cases, regardless of subsequent Congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders and federal judicial acknowledgement of Congressional political incorporation of islanders who are citizens, self governing, and represented in Congress.


 * There is no insult on my part. The editors chose the grounds of their original research based on the Insular Cases --- which characterize islanders as "savages" to justify withholding citizenship until Congress acted, that was their only grounds --- But that is a history irrelevant to this article lead. My point is now Congress has acted, and so the Insular Cases are superseded, despite the WP resistance by unreconstructed editors here. There are no sources to deny including islanders in the U.S. federal republic for this article as it related to the modern U.S. Excluding them is the insult. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Many countries in the world have outlying territories, and that is to be elaborated on in Political divisions, not detailed outright in the lead. Cadiomals (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although State Department reports American Samoa is the only "outlying territory" of the 'big five'. Countries which have outlying territories without representation in their national legislature exclude those territories as in U.K. and its U.K. Virgin Islands. Those with outlying territories WITH representation in their national legislature include those territories, as in France and the United States.


 * But the U.S. article in WP does not. There are no sources to exclude U.S. citizen islanders from the lead, --- only reference by original research to Insular Cases by the Supreme Court a century ago, which since have been superseded by Congressional law and islander referendum -- since the 1990s. In that way the article lead is more out of date than the religion section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, I do not know what you mean by "in a geographic sense." Under U.S. constitutional law and international law, the territories are outside the U.S., but subject to it.  The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the 5th or 14th amendments are the only parts of the U.S. constitution that apply to territories held by the U.S., including Guantanamo Bay, and the U.S. Congress may and does apply federal statutes to them.  TFD (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Geographic sense" means the places of the United States. Guantanamo is not included. It has been U.S. practice for two hundred years to extend essential protections to territories, but some privileges inherent in states are denied to territories until statehood. Federal statutes apply to both states and territories by law, that is an unexceptional observation as all are in the federal republic, part of the U.S. --- "outside the U.S., but subject to it" refers to the states in free association with the U.S., i.e., the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.


 * As usual, an IP editor who would contribute has a source, U.S. Code, Title 48, Ch. 2, and TFD has none to deny the international legitimacy of the USG, and administrators will decide. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Was there a point to the IP's original post here? Looking at the current text for the lead of this article, I see the United States How is that in any way discordant with U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 48, Chapter 2? older ≠ wiser 13:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit that added that has been reverted. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit is consistent with the IP source. CMD reverted it claiming there was no discussion here, and without a source himself. An administrator chose to oversee no source blanking without discussion here to overrule a sourced contribution discussed at Talk.


 * So we have Seqqis, IP and TVH support the sourced change, older-wiser makes no objection, and no one else opposes, unless you count TFD disruption implying Puerto Rico status is equivalent to Guantanamo, which is clearly fringe. Administrator Golbez observes islanders are excluded from the lead without discussion.


 * The lead which now excludes four millions who are territorial islanders and --- a) mutually U.S. citizens with three-branch self-government and territorial representation in Congress, and b) enjoying all fundamental protections and more privileges than 20th century territories of Alaska and Hawaii ---, is an unsourced insult from the fringe. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the decision to delete mention of the U.S Virgin Islands from the lead. However, Puerto RIco should probably be put back due to its huge population particularly in relation to some of the states, it for example has a population that is exponentially larger than Alaska.  If we want to delete something from the lead it probably should be the mention of the nine unpopulated territories.  Also, this sentence in the third paragraph could also go: " The Spanish–American War and World War I confirmed the country's status as a global military power."  On a related topic, the political divisions sub-section is a mess.  It currently weirdly equates the District of Columbia  with a tiny unpopulated territory in the Pacific.  I'm surprised no one has noticed.  I'm going to delete that right now.  It also gives a tiny amount of info about the political status of the populated territories.  But oddly makes no mention of the political status of D.C.  The positioning of the map also looks kind of weird with its huge blank spots on both sides.Lance Friedman (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alaska and Hawaii are only mentioned by name because they are the parts of the U.S., except Palmyra, that are not contiguous to the rest of the country. California, and many other states, are exponentially larger in population than Alaska, but are not mentioned in the lead.  I do not see why we should mention Puerto Rico just because it is the most populous overseas territory any more than we should mention California because it is the most populous state.  I think Palmyra should be mentioned in the article because it is part of the U.S., according to the U.S. government.  TFD (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Palmyra should be noted in the article, as should all the territories; it should not, however, be noted in the intro. Even if it is part of the country, it's an exceptionally trivial part. --Golbez (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

DC is constitutionally alike the 'big five' territories in its territorial representation in Congress. But DC is considered part of the U.S. federal republic everywhere except in outdated Encyclopedia Britannicas. There DC is lumped into the same section as overseas territories because constitutionally it is not a state in the United States. Britain does not acknowledge its own overseas territories in Parliament, so Britannica does not recognize U.S. territories as a part of the U.S. though they were represented in Congress.

But British practice should not govern the U.S. article, U.S. practice should. See. U.K. Virgin Islands without representation in Parliament, a governor appointed by the Queen, and without citizenship until recently, versus U.S. Virgin Islands with territorial delegate in Congress, a popularly elected governor, and with U.S. citizenship. DC and the "five territories represented in Congress" deserve mention in the lede. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A sidenote on Britannica, it has been an American-controlled encyclopaedia for over a century, and is designed for American audiences. CMD (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unlike an outdated edition of Britannica, the source says the U.S. is more than the 50 states. Since 21st century DC and the 'big five' territories are the same in that they are not states, but alike --- in U.S. citizenship, fundamental constitutional protections, three-branch self-government, and territorial representation in Congress, --- so they should have like treatment in the lede as included in the U.S. "federal republic". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

,
 * Does anyone have any specific proposals? I'll put one out there.  There is no need to specifically mention trivial unpopulated U.S, territories in the lead.  I propose the 4th sentence in the first paragraph be tweaked to read the following:  "The country also has five populated U.S. Te territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean of which Puerto Rico is the most populous.Lance Friedman (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When mention Puerto Rico, but not California, or any of the states that have larger populations? It seems like too much detail for the lead.  I agree that Puerto Rico is the only territory that receives significant attention, but even then it's not as high profile as say India was in the British Empire.  TFD (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * insert. India was never represented in Parliament as Puerto Rico is in Congress. Direct representation of citizens in the U.S. territorial tradition of two-hundred years is not the same as imperial rule of subjects by Britain. Seven times over fifty years only 3% Puerto Ricans vote for independence from the U.S., whereas India sought and gained independence from British empire shortly after WWII.


 * All U.S. citizens represented in Congress in the modern era should be represented in the lede as belonging to the U.S. There is no legitimate grounds for excluding them in the 21st century, so TFD has no source to counter the IP reference to modern U.S Code at the beginning of this thread. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't think it would be a bad idea to add a single sentence to the lead that mentions the gigantic population differentials between the states such as: "Among the states California has the largest population at 38,332,521, more than 10% of the U.S. population and Wyoming has the smallest population at 582,655, a population smaller than both Puerto  RIco and the District of Columbia."  The huge population differential between the states is far more notable than a lot of the stuff that is currently in the lead such as info about unpopulated territories.Lance Friedman (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not "a lot of the stuff that is currently in the lead such as info about unpopulated territories."  The lead merely says, "The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean."  I would rather cut that back to say, "The country also has overseas territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean."  TFD (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * American Samoa is the last “overseas territory” of the U.S. according to the U.S. sate department. TFD edit for conciseness would be inaccurate. Making no distinction by populated islanders is confounding U.S. citizens with coconuts in as fringe a way as the previous assertion that Puerto Rican commonwealth status is equivalent to Guantanamos orange jump suits.


 * TFD confounds states and territories. Mention Puerto Rico as a territory because it is constitutionally different from states, but larger than 20 states, and represented in Congress. Then add a note to note the four others represented in Congress and the nine uninhabited -- footnoting maintains conciseness in the narrative and accuracy in WP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The U.S. state department does not say American Samoa is the "last "overseas territory" of the U.S." Instead, under "Certificates of Non Citizen Nationality", it refers to the INA 1952.  The INA, Section 101 Definitions, says, "As used in this Act- (29) The term "outlying possessions of the United States" means American Samoa and Swains Island."  TFD (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well, your proposed edit would be technically in error as well as fringe conflating a) uninhabited territories of coconuts and b) inhabited territories of U.S. citizens.


 * Citizens just like those in DC that is mentioned. Islanders in the 'big five' are a) mutually in the U.S. by local constitutional convention and referendum, b) with fundamental constitutional protections under federal courts, c) under three-branch local self-government, and d) territorial representation in Congress consistently following national practice of two hundred years.


 * And now some would exclude islander citizens from the U.S. federal republic in the lede because, ... unstated, unsourced POV in the face of IP reference in U.S. Code.


 * Three millions Puerto Rican U.S. citizens who voted in referendum again in 2012 with an 80% turnout to belong to the U.S. --- 3% voted for independence---, they amount to more than 20 states, the Puerto Rican legislature has applied for statehood. --- And they are not worthy of mention in the lede because, ... unstated, unsourced POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

History draft
I know y'all are passionate about this topic, but I hope it doesn't distract from or derail the unfolding of the History draft. VictorD7 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which section did you want to address first? Should one or more existing sections be combined going forward? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlike the settlements subsections section and the other history sub-sections that have been shortened. The rest of the sections in the history section are not overly long.  I would be opposed to deleting material in the rest of the history sub-sections if the reasoning for the deletion is simply to make them smaller.  The only remaining size issue in the history section is that there are too many graphics in the section resulting in the 911 now awkwardly being in the geography section.  I am going to delete the mayflower compact pic in an attempt to at least partially rectify this issue.    Anyone looking at the overall United States article can see that the section that is currently most screwed up is the demographics section.  Attention needs to be focused on that section.   Some of the graphics in the section need to be deleted and there is no reason to give such a confusing and overdetailed racial break-ground of the country in the population sub-section.  The current name of the subsection is not accurate.  As currently written it is more a race and ethnicity subsection not a population sub- section.Lance Friedman (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the Mayflower Compact picture has no influence on the positioning of the 9/11 picture, at least not on my computer where it has always been in the Contemporary history section. I don't know what the resolution is on your computer but no matter how much I zoom in it stays in that section. I think the only way to solve your problem is to get rid of one of the pictures in the section above it, either the cold war or civil rights image as they are the only ones that could push down the 9/11 image. It would be unusual for there to be at least one image in every section except the Settlements one. Cadiomals (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree that the Demographics section needs clean-up, but I also think at least one more History section needs trimming of some excess detail that doesn't fit into the big picture we are trying to paint in History. The last paragraphs in the Cold War and Civil Rights section devolve into a listing of major events under each of the last several presidents, and I'm pretty sure that falls under WP:RECENTISM. The father of this country, George Washington, is not mentioned once in the article but the last several presidents are as a result of recentism bias. We need to remove mention of specific non-pivotal events under each president and reorganize it to paint the Big Picture of the overall impact of the Cold War instead. Cadiomals (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On my computer deleting the Mayflower pic moved the 911 pic up causing a portion of it to now be in the contemp. era subsection. Though as you point out, the main problem is that as currently positioned the two pics in the subsection above contemp. era do not fit into that subsection.   Deleting one of the two pics from the article would probably be too controversial.  Probably the Kerry pic in the foreign relations section should be deleted and replaced with the Reagan/Gorby pic or the two pics in the  civil rights/cold war subsection simply turned into a double image.  I'm open to more changes in the history section, but a lot of the remaining sections in the history section are pretty tight.  Some actually might actually require modest expansion.  I think the civil rights/cold war section actually needs an additional sentence mentioning the end of America's second longest war in 1975.  As currently written it misleadingly makes it look like the Vietnam war ended in the 1960'sLance Friedman (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * insert. Mechanically, I think

at the end of a sentence keeps the image above it from pushing down the page into following text. I'll give it a try. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * TVH, I thought you were doing the entire section, especially given your comments about dementioning the presidents. What would be the point of removing mention of the most important presidents but retaining the awful current format where all the recent ones are listed? Every remaining History section needs serious work. There are also still some outstanding quality/accuracy issues that need addressing as we proceed. Length isn't the only concern here.VictorD7 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The following paragraph shows the recentism I am talking about. It includes an arbitrary listing of major events under the past several presidents. Changes in taxation and spending, recessions, and scandals have happened countless times through American history and I don't view them as big picture details. The paragraph needs restructuring to mention the broader impact of the Cold War and its aftermath, as well as the rise of tensions in the Middle East that continue to affect us today.


 * In the 1970s, the American economy was hurt by two major energy shocks. The Nixon Administration restored normal relations with China and oversaw the beginning of a period of generally eased relations with the Soviet Union. As a result of the Watergate scandal, in 1974 Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign, to avoid being impeached on charges including obstruction of justice and abuse of power. The Carter Administration of the late 1970s was marked by the Iran hostage crisis, stagflation, and an increase of tensions with the Soviet Union following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. The election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 heralded a rightward shift in American politics,[122][123][124][125] reflected in major changes in taxation and spending priorities.[126] His second term in office brought both the Iran–Contra scandal and significant diplomatic progress with the Soviet Union.[127] The subsequent Soviet collapse ended the Cold War.[128][129][130] [131][132]
 * Agreed. A link to List of Presidents of the United States ought to be enough to assist readers with a presidential bent. And impeachments and scandals belong in History of the United States article rather than in this country article.
 * What is the practice for the 'See also' section? Does it reiterate the "Main article" and "See also" sign posts found throughout the article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)