Talk:United States/Archive 77

Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome
I object to this revert because it continues to oppose consensus. I also object to this revert because there have been no compelling reasons stated to omit the fact, against plenty of evidence that it is the most important determinant of economic outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I object to the misleading title of this section, since the RFC close explicitly said the material could be allowed "in some form" and wasn't a rubber stamp approval of the phrasing, which is still being discussed (I just recently initiated the first discussion about what your sources actually say). But I object even more strongly to you telling me you agreed with my compromise proposal on the other issue involving tax progressivity and redistribution, which I led off by stating, "The current long standing Government finance segment stays the way it is..." and you replied to by stating, "I'm completely okay with that," only for you to wait several days after I implemented the other part of the compromise in the Economics section to try and sneakily completely delete the comparative progressivity segment that you had agreed to keep as is. Reprehensible. Honesty and good faith are vital to productive collaboration. VictorD7 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My proposal for an alternate form is better than yours because it incorporates more comprehensive supporting sources. Do you have actual objections to the education statement? The characterization of tax incidence is a separate issue, and I guess you don't like the changes there, either, but similarly, are you able to say why you don't like them? EllenCT (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you agree to the compromise proposal ("completely" in your words) and then blatantly violate it a few days later? As for inequality, my proposal incorporates all your sources and a few others, and is a far broader, comprehensive textual statement, so I have no idea what you're talking about. As for your education statement, I might not necessarily oppose some version of it in a vacuum or in other contexts, but I mostly reverted it because every editor to comment on it here opposes it, and because it's just a random statement that doesn't coherently fit into this article. If we allow that then why not segments on the relationship between single parent homes and income, the impact of centralized bureaucracy or teachers' unions on education, or all sorts of other causal statements? VictorD7 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any evidence that any of those factors, including single parent homes, or even all of them together, are more determinant of income inequality than education outcomes. I am not opposed to describing the changes in household composition over time, but I would like to see peer reviewed literature reviews or meta-analyses on the extent to which they are a cause of deleterious outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Such research exists on single parent homes and countless other topics (involving income level and totally different subjects) not included in this article, but I think you missed the point. This is a topical/page layout issue, not a sourcing one (recent research papers on complex topics usually don't make good sources anyway). This isn't the place for adding opinions on causality, much less selective ones on selective niche topics, much less to a section most editors already deem too bloated. Let me know if you ever want to explain why you agreed to my tax/spending compromise (at least twice: "I'm completely okay with that" [, "I agree with VictorD7's compromise proposal" ) only to completely violate it a few days later. [[User:VictorD7|VictorD7]] (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the difference between recent research papers and literature reviews? I changed my mind about agreeing with you when you made it completely clear that you had zero respect for the RFC outcome. If there is research meeting WP:SECONDARY on your claim of a relationship between household composition and economic output, you have already had ample time to bring it to our attention. EllenCT (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If your agreement to the proposal was contingent on me doing something else on a different issue you shouldn't have stated that you agreed to it without condition and then waited until after I implemented my part of the compromise days later to violate yours, not that I accept the premise that I disrespected the RFC outcome on that different issue anyway (it's why your sources and the general topic are in the article; plus it's not like my position on that issue changed at some point between you accepting and violating the compromise on the much more long running tax progressivity issue dispute). VictorD7 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to think ignoring RFC outcomes is acceptable and would not make ordinary editors immediately see that you have lost whatever remaining good faith you had left, then would you mind if I just make a few edits according to how I wish the last dozen RFCs had closed out instead of how they actually did? It's a hypothetical question because I have no further interest in your opinion until you find some peer reviewed literature reviews instead of just propaganda sites. EllenCT (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it should be clear to any good faith, at least reasonably intelligent observers how fruitful attempts at rational discourse are with you. VictorD7 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We are supposed to be improving the encyclopedia with WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, not as a forum for propaganda discourse per WP:NOT. When was the last time you cited a peer reviewed literature review or meta-analysis? EllenCT (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Apart from me citing your own sources and quoting what they actually say? I've put lots of peer reviewed journal articles, reviewed government publications, and other sources that include surveys of existing scholarship on a topic into various articles (not that we're limited to such sources or that you in particular haven't used plenty of other kinds), but instead of continuing this unproductive exchange, whey don't you respond above to my question about what exactly you're opposing, if anything, regarding my proposed caveat to "conservative"/"liberal" (apart from the screenname attached)? BTW, in that section I'm proposing using sources like vetted university level political science textbooks, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.; Also note - "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.".....and....."Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields."). VictorD7 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when have you shown any indication that you are here to write an encyclopedia based on secondary sources that you haven't depended on others to find for you? Your insinuations are false. Until you show respect for WP:SECONDARY and the RFC process, my attempts to compromise with you will be more advantageous to me than to you. EllenCT (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's littered with false non sequiturs and generally makes no sense, but if you refuse to actually register any opposition to my proposal in the above section then I won't count you as being opposed to it, which may be for the best. VictorD7 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase the question: Have you ever once, in your years of editing, found a single WP:SECONDARY source on your own, which you have used to improve the encyclopedia? Not counting being dependent on others to find them for you. EllenCT (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You know I have, and you of all people presuming to lecture me on research skills is hilarious. Even in this discussion so far I've produced far more sources than you have, in addition to reading and having to explain your own sources to you. Ellen, most sources apart from news articles are secondary sources. Most of the academic papers and almost all of the books I've added over the years are secondary sources, like these several scholarly books I found (actually some of them I own) and added when we substantially rewrote the history section. This section is pointless. I'm not jumping through any more of your hoops when you're being so uncooperative on every front. VictorD7 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You honestly think that non-peer reviewed monograph intended for undergraduates meets WP:SECONDARY? It doesn't even have a bibliography. Is there any evidence whatsoever that you are here to build an encyclopedia based on the best secondary sources, and not just as a forum for primary source debate? EllenCT (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reiteration
I reiterate my concerns above in the enclosing section as the first two of several post-discretionary sanction proposals for improvement to follow. EllenCT (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Any objections? EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Objections to what? VictorD7 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you proposing? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That both edits be reverted due to the lack of any cogent arguments in opposition and the lack of competence evident in the above attempts at such arguments. EllenCT (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You should have "reiterated" precise proposals, since you have yet to construct alternative wording on inequality that would meet the policy minimums given the disputing scholarly sourcing I provided that your earlier edit failed to even attempt to account for, and since it's unclear what other "edit" you're talking about wanting to revert here. You and I strongly disagree about which of us has displayed a lack of "competence", and I'd advise you to refrain from derailing discussion with ad hominem distractions and creating a Battlefield environment. VictorD7 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I refer to the two edits mentioned at the top of above, as most people find entirely clear, I'm sure. EllenCT (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently not, since the only two editors to reply to you in this separate subsection indicated otherwise, but I appreciate you clarifying. I don't recall seeing anything other than opposition by editors to your "education" proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That doesn't change or hold a candle to the fact that the RFC has been confirmed four times in four separate polls. EllenCT (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your proposed inclusion was rejected at least twice on this talk page and was only barely supported once via RFC, each of the discussions rejecting it involving more editors than your poorly constructed RFC did. I have no idea what these alleged "four separate polls" you're referring to are. Despite that, the material has been included per the RFC. However, the RFC did not endorse your wording. We've repeatedly been through all this. VictorD7 (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Subsequent to both of those links, which were different proposals with different text and fewer corroborating references:
 * Talk:United States/Archive 69 "The consensus is to include both in some form."
 * Influence of the wealthy / RFC outcome (above) unanimous support for the RFC outcome
 * Phrasing for inequality RFC segment. (above) no consensus to reverse the RFC outcome
 * Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome (below) zero support for your proposal that "some form" means deleting the sources you don't like. Additionally, you indicated that you thought a freshman textbook without a bibliography qualifies as a WP:SECONDARY source.
 * how can this constant back-and-forth be resolved? Can you please make a formal close on all of these post-RFC requests? EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not; I haven't been paying any attention to this, and I'm not in a mood to decipher a political argument at the moment. A neutral third party might be best. Maybe all they need to do is close it but that's beyond even my ability at the moment. --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your first link is the RFC we've already discussed, and none of the other three are RFCs. Your last one only involved the two of us, lol, and was started by you, so perhaps you meant that your claims there gained "zero support" (and no one suggested that "some form" means deleting any sources, contrary to your claim). Also, none of those discussions even come close to involving the number of editors that the ones I linked to above rejecting your material did (and those rejecting discussions regarded the same Gilens/Bartels/Hayes stuff you're pushing here). Yours were mostly slapdash and quickly petered out. Regardless, the RFC result hasn't been disputed (the material has been included in some form), only the precise wording involved (which the RFC closer went out of his way to not endorse). Since those discussions I posted source evidence rendering your desired wording untenable, and no editors have signified support for your wording, which would violate policy. The only other editor to comment since then has opposed your language, and your two most recent RFCs attempting to insert even more "inequality" talking points into the article have been soundly rejected.

As for your frivolous off topic claim about the alleged "freshman textbook" from the last discussion you linked to (an exchange that had nothing to do with this topic), leaving aside the fact that textbooks often are secondary sources, and the fact that tertiary and primary sources are both also acceptable anyway, I didn't specifically mention any books, much less a "freshman textbook". You absurdly asked if I had ever supplied a secondary source, so I generously jumped through your ridiculous hoop by linking to an edit on this very article (one of many) where I had added several such sources, more than answering your question, unless you're denying that any of those are secondary sources. That I and other posters have repeatedly had to explain the basics of research, sourcing, and policy to you, along with economics and the other topics which you prefer to edit about for some reason, and read your own sources and explain what they actually mean to you to correct your habitual comprehension failures (assuming good faith) that lead to your frequent misrepresentations, make your failed ad hominem diversions against me even more surreal. VictorD7 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no faith that there is any reason to believe your edits are those of someone who is here to write an encyclopedia. I have filed Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. EllenCT (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

further inconsistencies

 * The footnote in the intro includes Seranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank; these are not shown on the map.
 * Since the populated territories have been determined by this community to be "judicially incorporated" the territories map needs to be updated to mark them all as incorporated.
 * The article mentions acquiring the Philippines but doesn't mention when this notable territory gained independence. That should be fixed.
 * "The southern tip of Florida is tropical, as is Hawaii." Are any of the territories tropical? Like Puerto Rico? If so it should be mentioned here, since we're being specific over which states (or even portions of states) are tropical.
 * Why include the anachronistic "state" map in "political divisions"? It's ignoring at least a full 1% of the population. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We should use sources for maps which are readily available from published sources without copyright; those maps reviewed to date do not meet your specific interest in Seranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank, perhaps because their status is disputed, but the US claim is worth a footnote as overwhelming mediation and RfC consensus allows.
 * If sourced maps disagree with sourced data then we need a footnote explaining this discrepancy. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Territories remain ambiguously both judicially "unincorporated" in the US, and politically "within" the geographical extent of its constitutional framework as sourced; it's a federal republic of three branches and multiple agencies; there is no unitary standard enforced across all published databases.
 * "Scholars note that the racist Court of Jim Crow invented the term “unincorporated” by judicial fiat to allow imperial governance of indigenous peoples without the protections of the Constitution except as future Congresses might allow." Why are we pandering to racism by continuing the supposed judicial fiction that the territories are unincorporated? --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some bold editor is bound take it upon himself to note when the Philippines gained independence sooner or later without impacting readability.
 * Florida is part tropical, Alaska is part arctic -- probably too much detail for this summary article except to generally note the country's climate variety.
 * So prune it. Otherwise the territories are being unfairly omitted. Don't you care about islanders? --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "state" map in "political divisions" is useful for the general reader for internal purposes such as locating place names for presidential elections or Senate representation, rather like admitting the geographic extent of the United States including territories is useful to the general reader in an international context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They can go to the list of US states for that; the map here should include the whole country, not just those areas relevant for elections. Also, I don't really see the point of the statehood chart. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Golbez. And there are no "unincorporated" territories, since the overturn of the insular cases by federal court decisions.  The independence secession of the Philippines is surely significant since the U.S. lost 1/10 of its population, similar to when Ireland became independent of the UK.  TFD (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Golbez: It'd be good for territories to have a mention in the geographic and climate summaries along with the other regions. Since I've already started looking at some adjustments of that nature for the geography page (and plan to look at the climate page next) I'd be happy to make that addition.
 * As for things like the map in the political divisions section, I'd be fine with a new one that adds territories, but I'm also fine with the current map as-is. As I see it, just because we recognize territories as part of the US doesn't somehow mean that we must never again use a map of the states.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do, and soon; the article is internally inconsistent, which is going to confuse our readers. And some here would say it's discriminatory to islanders to give an image of the United States that lacks them. It would be like showing a picture of the UK with Northern Ireland omitted, or Australia with a gap where the Northern Territory is. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the US political map referenced, "USA midsize imagemap with state names", also lacks mapping for the tribal areas mentioned in the political divisions narrative. Further, Hawaii and Alaska are not to scale and not properly located. The presentation is however, an often found convention, even though it has been proven to confuse some students into believing Alaska is south of California and adjacent to Hawaii. If there were a reasonable objection and a viable alternative, perhaps a consensus can be developed as seems to have come about for the info box orthographic map.


 * Wherever sourced narrative disagrees with sourced maps, a footnote can explain discrepancies which arise in a federal republic with databases generated by three branches and multiple independent agencies. The existing consensus seems to find the map useful, but I would have no objection to another map on whatever grounds seemed to them to be reasonably sourced based on the Assume good faith among editors participating in the new consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think an often used convention should make us discriminate against islanders. Your first map seems best, but it does not include American Samoa and draws an arbitrary distinction between islanders using now overturned and discredited insular cases' incorporation theory.  (See the different borders used for islanders' islands, as opposed to Hawaii.)  TFD (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Mock-up maps for the Political divisions section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The yellow markings on the left-hand map signify inclusion in some humorous segment of The Colbert Report TV show. The animation of the middle map - how much slower will the page be to load if we have this, assuming these maps are candidates for inclusion and aren't already part of the article? Dhtwiki (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Something akin to the first map (but with an additional inset for American Samoa) seems best to me.
 * Wherever consensus ultimately points, it's probably worth taking some cues from the exemplar maps at the Maps WikiProject. As a matter of fact, if we can agree on roughly what we're looking for in a US map, someone there could probably make a new, custom one just for the article.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've changed out the maps per Dhtwiki, substituting EEZ map and Electoral College map. Three maps with different political divisions to replace the existing one political map of states only. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded the Census 113th Congressional District wall map with includes 50 states, DC and five territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that existing maps draw a distinction between the 50 states and DC, and the territories. Their reasoning is that only the first are part of the U.S., while the territories (with the possible exception of Palmyra) are possessions of the U.S.  We however have accepted the argument that the U.S. does not and cannot have possessions, that every area under its jurisdiction is equally  part of the U.S.  So our maps need to show that.  If we are to have one map, it must show the entire country, which requires basically a world map.  We should also have one map showing where the bulk of the U.S. is, which means the lower 48 states and D.C. This map shows a possible area to use:  it includes the 48 states, D.C., Puerto Rico and the other Caribbean parts of the U.S., while excluding the distant areas of Alaska and the islands in the Pacific.  TFD (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such reasoning in the maps making distinctions of constitutional status, not in the US Economic Exclusion Zone, nor in the Congressional Districts. There is no assumption that the US cannot have possessions. Continuing efforts to exclude Pacific islanders altogether in the "US of 48 states and Caribbean" map is misplaced. The discussion has moved on. See “Political divisions edit” below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Map three has thin borders around Hawaii and Alaska, and thick borders around the Pacific and Caribbean territories. Why do you think that different borders should be used?  Also, the concept that the U.S. cannot have possessions is the reason why we know that territories cannot be possessions.  TFD (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We use reliable published sources available and follow their conventions in mapping and in terminology. Thick borders on the Census map show a different scale from the center map. The source agreed to (22) by a) super majority in the mediation and b) super majority in the RfC, refers to the US as “states, territories and possessions”. So we are bound by the existing consensus to use the adopted conventions based on reliable sources, because WP is collaborative.


 * Residents of territories take pride in their self-determined elective self governance within the US constitutional framework which is has not historically been available to US “possessions” under military rule, military courts and representation in a territorial legislature partially appointed by the US president. But we in the mediation and in the RfC have agreed to address the geographic extent of the US, and not split hairs over constitutional status — as the country article is meant for a general reader, not as arcane legal treatise.


 * In any case, we should use conventions of terminology established in consensus-adopted references, rather than unsourced editor speculation. Why do you ask? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Political divisions edit
As suggested by others above, removed mirror of List of states and territories of the United States map and statehood chart — which is already linked in the Main article hat note to the section Political divisions, and added national maps, including the two (EEZ and CD) recently uploaded from government sources: TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The three maps together force my screen into horizontal scroll mode. The second map conveys relatively little information. The third map is useless as a thumbnail and is a very slow to load PDF, rather than PNG or SVG. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in including the middle map. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The second, middle map conveys the political importance of the state political divisions showing their relative influence by population. The third map illustrates the territorial representation within the US as a federal republic. The source offers GIF and PDF, is there a wizard app to reformat? The triptych can be made smaller. The "Political divisions” section should be copy edited to read as follows (maintaining existing links), removing excessive detail concerning state history belonging to another section and that relating to the territories belonging in the subsidiary article:


 * TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The second, middle map conveys the political importance of the state political divisions showing their relative influence by population. Not really, because the sparsely populated states have disproportionate influence in the Senate with regard to population; and that map doesn't separate Senate from population-determined House membership. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The political character of the states is expressed in the Electoral College related to their population in a meaningful way though the extreme outliers are moderated. The ranked order of states in the Electoral College is the same as the ranked order of states in the House of Representatives and by and large the same as population ranking. The ratios in the Senate (all equal at ratios of 1:1) do not pertain to the Electoral College at all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I uploaded a .gif file for the Congressional Districts ... it is advertised as smaller. Does it upload quicker? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, much quicker, dazzlingly quick; but at highest resolution the legend is still too small to be comprehensible. It would make little sense to have that map unless it can be read. Also, the middle map still seems unnecessary, because it doesn't show anything graphically that wouldn't be just as well, or better, expressed in a table. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting the one map without objection makes for a much more compact section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you listing the states? If not, why are we listing the inhabited territories? --Golbez (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We probably need not; proposal copy edited. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "The United States is a federal republic of states, territories..." "The United States also possesses five major insular territories" First of all, not sure we need to repeat that they're insular; the word already appears three times in the article. All of the present territories are insular, we don't need that adjective every time. Second of all, if the country includes territories, how can it also possess them? No one would say the United States possesses fifty states.
 * "The bulk of the U.S. land mass" The last two words are unnecessary.
 * The phrase "principal administrative district" seems clunky in a way I'm unable to put into words, except that the phrase doesn't really exist in any usage relating to the U.S. In fact, that whole sentence is clunky; the "along with territories" particularly sticks out.
 * Hawaii's mention seems random; why does that state get a separate mention and description?
 * Why is the number of states hidden until midway through the graf, after the number of inhabited territories?
 * Is "Native Nations" usually capitalized such?
 * Will there still be a map showing the administrative divisions of the country? Or just this EEZ map? Because we kind of need a map of the divisions in the divisions section. Even countries so complex as France and Russia have that. In fact, the section in France is particularly well put together, we would do well to emulate their example, especially since the situations are so similar (scattered country, territories without full rights, large EEZ, etc.) --Golbez (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I realize I above urged the removal of the "anachronistic state map"; I admit, I was trolling. shit, I've been trolling this whole time; you wanted the territories part of the country, by god you're going to get it. But. Seeing France's article made me realize that we can have multiple maps, and we don't need to include everything in one map, because that's stupid and I was stupid for urging it, so I'm sorry. --Golbez (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Further copy edit of proposal narrative. I'm looking at the US population density map as an alternative to the Electoral College map, it gets a two-fer by mapping states and counties/independent cities. It also enlarges with a reasonable resolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's too bad that the new map doesn't show Alaska and Hawaii (and the territories). There are some blank maps out there such as this one. Here's an electoral college map, keyed to the last presidential election, which shows graphically what your previous map showed numerically. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, DC, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions." You should say 'a federal district' here instead of DC; also the paragraph is inconsistent with punctuation, it uses "DC" twice but "D.C." once. --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No reason to distinguish between inhabited and uninhabited territories. It was originally made by TVH when he believed the uninhabited territories were not part of the U.S.  TFD (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a substantive difference, though; the uninhabited ones don't have a civilian government or representation in congress. And seeing how this is the political divisions, we should be specific about the divisions and types thereof. Of course, then the question is, ... why treat them as individual territories? Yes, to pick two random ones, Howland Island and Baker Island are both under the jurisdiction of the United States, but are they individual, notable polities of their own, with notably separate jurisdictions and governing policies that warrants mention? Or are they simply two of many minor, uninhabited or almost uninhabited islands that the U.S. has jurisdiction over? To list them individually feels like listing the Florida Keys or Channel Islands individually, or the counties of the country, or listing what the independent cities are. Perhaps we should simply use the grouping "United States Minor Outlying Islands" and not attempt to afford them more status than they actually have. Am I making sense? I feel like I've rambled a bit here. --Golbez (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)




 * The distinction between the five major (inhabited) and eleven minor (uninhabited) territories of the United States has been maintained on these pages for a two and a half years since the GAO 1997 report on U.S. Insular Areas was introduced for editors to access together in our collaborative good faith efforts.


 * I note that at France, that article enumerates inhabited insular territory represented in its National Assembly.


 * Copy edit proposal using DC consistently.


 * I really like the 2012 Electoral vote cartogram map for the Elections section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the difference? TFD (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Electoral Vote map illustrates the results of a two party system elections, rather than nonpartisanly portraying political divisions of states, counties and independent cities -- which can be distinguished in the Population density map. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Any objection if I make some inquiries at the Maps WikiProject? I'd be interested to know what the experts there could come up with...  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No objections at all at casting a wider net, I find the categories at Wikicommons somewhat like the wild west. Sometimes google searches come up with results on Wikicommons from search terms that the Wikicommons searches do not find. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the photo of the burning World Trade Center towers
The original twin towers stood for over a quarter of a century, but are depicted here only in their final moments as macabre charnel houses of mass murder -- a photographic monument to murderous Arab/Muslim supremacists. We don't post photos of the bodies of murder victims on other nation's Wiki pages, so why do we let anti-American vandals deface this page with such an incredibly disrespectful and insensitive crime scene photo? Please relegate photos of 9/11 to the U.S. history, 9/11, and World Trade Center-specific Wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.185.50 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Most historic sections once had two illustrations, but the consensus was that two images per historical era was too much clutter. The image which illustrates the ongoing preponderance of American urban life is a skyscraper which is not aflame. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it better myself. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
 * I agree too. A picture that depicts twin towers in their former glory would look much better than a picture of its final moments. However, if there's consensus to not to include two images in historic sections it'd be better to simply retain the image of One World Trade Center. -- Chamith   (talk)  12:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, at least with the OP's reasoning, and certainly with the tone. I don't think that placing the photo was an act of anti-American vandalism. We don't suppress photos of the Pearl Harbor attack or of the Kennedy assassination (just the moment of his most grievous wounding). Photos of the old World Trade Center burning are iconic, and encapsulate what those buildings have come to signify. We don't have to have that photo, if enough people find it disturbing, but the characterization of its inclusion here is over the top. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - A quick perusal of the uncurated videos of the World Trade Center attacks on YouTube shows that the comments are rife with anti-Americanism, 9/11 "Truthism", and other examples of hate speech, bigotry, and idiocracy. This, in fact, is a true representation of the response of the average world citizen when he sees images of the World Trade Center attacks. I'm not advocating censorship, but being classy. There are countless Wiki pages devoted to 9/11 and the World Trade Center attacks. By all means, include photos of the World Trade Center attacks there, but not on the United States landing page. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
 * From to my experience, the response of the average world citizen was sympathetic. I don't know where you found it to be otherwise without it's being promptly denounced, but you shouldn't read that into why that rather demure picture was placed. We usually rate a picture's unsuitability by its explicit depiction of horror not by what we can imagine is going on, as you seem to be doing further down (because you went out of your way to satisfy your curiosity?). There's a possibly related discussion at WP Village Pump (policy) on placing images apt that are to trigger unpleasant emotions. It might be of interest here. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree - The section that the image is located is about contemporary history and talks about the attack on 9/11. So showing what happen and then having the new building next to it shows that we are a strong country and can recover, and show how terror can not keep us down. Reb1981 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - Why should the casual visitor, who's maybe only interested in looking up population or economic stats, be sadistically reminded with an incongruously placed photo bomb of death and mass murder on the worst day in many Americans' lives? Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
 * Disagree - probably one of the defining events of recent American history, especially in terms of its relations to the rest of the world. It may offend some, and it may represent a tragic and unrepresentative moment of American history, but we don't remove Holocaust or Srebrenica photos simply because people might find them offensive, or because they are tragic or fail to accurately represent everyday life in the nations in question, and there's no reason this should be different. Also, OP should know that there's no such thing as an "Arab/Muslim supremacist", and Al Qaeda certainly doesn't espouse any such ideology. Rwenonah (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - How apropos that you should mention the Holocaust. I, in fact, do not see any photos of the Holocaust on the Germany page, nor even of the Allies' destruction of Germany itself, but I do see a rather classy photo of Hitler. I also do not see any photos of killings of any kind on the Srebrenica page; nor of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the Japan page; nor of starving Russians resorting to cannibalism during the Battle of Stalingrad on the Russia page; nor of Chinese being raped and murdered at the Rape of Nanking on the China page; nor of the genocide of Tutsi on the Rwanda page. It's certainly not because there's a lack of photographic documentation of these events. The issue I am bringing up is not one of censorship, but of context. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
 * I prefer two images for each historical era, and that would allow an image of the WTC burning, but that is not the consensus. The modern era should not have more than one, so that would exclude the WTC burning imo.
 * The IP characterization is over the top, though Al Qaeda does not promote cultural diversity where it holds sway, rather it “espouses” or rather administers ethnic cleansing of non-Sunni Muslims and other nonconformist faiths in its domain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To the IP: all this page shows is a building with smoke coming off it. That's not even remotely graphic. Other country pages regularly show burnt or damaged buildings; the Serbia page shows a bombed-out courthouse, the Hungary and Bosnia pages bombed bridges; the Netherlands page the remnants of bombed Rotterdam. Equally, the aftermath of tragic events, such as the aftermath of the Utoya massacre on the Norway page, the aftermath of Srebrenica on the Bosnia page, or the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge killings on the Cambodia page. So other country pages clearly have no issue with including photos of tragedies; why must an American tragedy, which had a smaller impact than the massacres in Cambodia or Bosnia, be removed from the page? Rwenonah (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not one of your examples is that of an active massacre in progress; moreover, I'd support demoting some of those photos to sub-Wikis as well, if they are in fact showing the active killing of people. What you callously regard as being a "building with smoke coming off it" and "not even remotely graphic" is me seeing thousands of souls dismembered, blown out of 90-story windows, and incinerated alive. That the enormous size of the Twin Towers relegates its trapped occupants to mere subpixels of human anguish doesn't sterilize the image. Much as that photo of a stupa on the Cambodia landing page is reminder enough of the Killing Fields, the current photo of the Freedom Tower is reminder enough of the events on 9/11. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.187.1 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't remove images solely because they represent tragic or bloody events; we remove them because they are graphic. This image isn't; it simply doesn't show anything anyone would find controversial if they didn't know the context. On the whole, I think this image better represents 9/11 than simply an image of a fairly generic skyscraper, so if we were to show a photo of something involving the event, this image is better. You're not protesting about the Rotterdam image, or the clear image of genocide victims on the Armenia page, or the picture of the bombing of La Moneda on the Chile page, or the images of bombed houses on the Saudi Arabia page, or the pictures of executed civilians on the North Korea page, suggests that you find this one somehow more deserving of removal than these equally (or in some cases far more) graphic images. I'm not sure why. Rwenonah (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is this "we"? Is this the royal "We"? I haven't bothered to visit every single one of the pages you mentioned -- there are, after all, almost two hundred countries and thousands of major cities in the world, and millions upon millions of Wiki pages. As I said, if someone has a similar problem with photos on those other national landing pages, I support their removal. I suspect someone from Armenia is going to have a much better idea about whether a particular photo of her country from one hundred years ago is going to be as offensive to living Armenians as this photo of the burning World Trade Center is to me. Let each citizen police his own country's pages. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
 * I completely agree with you Rwenonah it was a tragic day that no one will ever forget that was around that day. I feel having both pictures show how we triumph over evil. It was a major event in our county's history. Just like the other picture showing the landing in normandy. You know there is death in the distance.Reb1981 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but I also believe in the right to forget. It's why authorities in the U.S. try to prevent photos of murder/accident victims from making it onto the Internet (albeit not always successfully). What's drama and documentation to the average person can be searing trauma to loved ones, and the latter have spoken of not being able to use the Internet for fear of coming across such photos. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of living eyewitnesses to 9/11 along with an enormous number of bereaved. If someone wants to go actively looking for snuff images, then let them wallow in it, but someone simply looking up summary information on the United States should not be compelled to see this atrocity all over again. I have no problem with having the event mentioned in the text, with links to more detailed accounts, but photos are too eye-catching to ignore. And make no mistake, the photos of 9/11 "inspire" psychopaths around the world. The images of suffering from the first World Trade Center bombing didn't chasten the Islamists; nay, the images quickened their black hearts and inspired them to try again. It's precisely for this reason why we dumped bin Laden in the Indian Ocean and the Soviets destroyed Hitler's remains: the less inspiration for nutters and other copycat killers, the better. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015


 * Terrorism is not featured in other country articles as descriptive of their societies. I have searched through the France article and find no double images for historical subjects. There need not be any double image for New York skyscrapers. France has had a continuing problem of terrorist attacks since the Algerian revolt continuing to the present day, and it does not feature illustration documenting their successes.


 * The US article does not need a representation of terrorist successes, foreign or domestic, until they become more commonplace in everyday life on trains, at worship and in bakery shops as they are in France, or Iraq, for instance, which also does not feature any illustration of terrorist attacks which have caused far more deaths there than those in the US, over a longer period of time, more generally throughout the country, and at a greater ongoing frequency. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks in France or Iraq, however tragic, never had anything like the same impact on the countries they occur in - 9/11 on the other hand, caused massive changes both in the US and internationally. It caused a global shift in attitudes toward terrorism, resulting in changed domestic policies, such as airline searches, throughout the Western world. Not to mention it caused the Bush administration to embark on an invasion of Afghanistan, intervention or involvement in numerous other countries, and the widespread use of summary executions through drones. That's why we're showing it in a picture, I would assume. It's strange that you find it objectionable if a "terrorist success" is shown on the US page, but perfectly okay for the aftermath of successful genocides to be shown in other country's articles, especially when these images are far more graphic.

IP, that's not how wikipedia works. If we treat the Armenia article differently than the American one based on the objections of wikipedians, we end up with systemic bias differing standards for the same thing in different national or cultural contexts. This image isn't a snuff image - it's impossible to tell than anything particularly bad is going on unless you know the context, which is far less traumatic than the context of the Armenian genocide photo, (an event in which hundreds of thousands died), or the Korean War photo, (a conflict in which more than 2 million civilians died). That being the case, it seems your objection to the image isn't that it shows a tragedy, but that it shows an American tragedy. Rwenonah (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Significant as it is, the American photo is appropriate to September 11 attacks. Country articles do not illustrate major atrocities. The Turkey article mentions major atrocities against Armenians, but it does not picture the Armenian tragedy in the country article. Germany does not feature an image of the Holocaust. You refer to the Armenian article? You may have meant Armenian Genocide, which is comparable to the September 11 attacks article. You linked to a disambiguation page, not a country article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Armenia or North Korea both contain far more graphic photos. Rwenonah (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. Also, the 911 attack, though technically part of our history, did not involve the 'actions of Americans', as did the Civil War, moon landing, etc. It was simply a terrorist attack. The 911 attack has about as much to do with American History as a bank robbery that happened to take place on Broadway. Seems we could find far better examples to represent American History. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement above is a bit off...as both  the domestic and international aftermath was big. That said many other images can be used. -- Moxy (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I again agree with User:Rwenonah also this is more than just a terror attack, comparing it to a bank robbery is more than a bit off too. This is defining moment in our domestic and global policies. It also caused a increase in patriotism throughout our great country. Reb1981 (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The photo has historical significance and for that reason I'm against its removal. Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the removal of the images. While 9/11 was a tragic event, it is also perhaps the most significant event worldwide in the 21st Century. Showing a picture of the towers intact does not demonstrate the gravity of what happened. Removing the picture does not erase history. ISIS followers will just get the image from Wikimedia Commons or some other site. Even as a New Yorker, I believe that showing the towers burning to the ground is vital to the understanding of the American mindset after 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this picture is fundamental to the section of the article on 9/11. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)