Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 14 September 2015

This page is not a forum for general discussion about United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United States at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 14 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1. How did the article get the way it is? Archives: Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page. Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"? Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case. This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States". If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States": "United States" is in compliance with the Misplaced Pages "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Misplaced Pages naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States. Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States". Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other. This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country. Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Misplaced Pages an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do. The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title. With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Misplaced Pages should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America": It is the country's official name. The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name. The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America." The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America." The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Misplaced Pages articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Misplaced Pages is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States. Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world? 1. Isn't San Marino older? Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution. 2. How about Switzerland? Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848. Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Misplaced Pages articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence. The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut. Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President? The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox. Q5. What is the motto of the United States? There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States. Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy? The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016. Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"? In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas. Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight? The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.

United States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2005 Good article nominee Listed May 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 27, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 6, 2009 Peer review Reviewed January 19, 2011 Peer review Reviewed March 18, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted August 10, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed January 21, 2015 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2015.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States accounts for 37% of all global military spending? A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008. Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. North America Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. United States: Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009. "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources: Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Orson Scott Card: United States, author, critic, public speaking, activism, genre, Betascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Biosphere 2: Biosphere 2, closed ecological system, Oracle, Arizona, Arizona, United States, Biome, space colonization, Biosphere, rainforest, Ed Bass, BIOS-3, Eden project, Alphascript{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Military journalism: Combatant commander, psychological warfare, United States, public affairs (military), propaganda, journalist, Civil-military operations, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Additional comments OCLC 636651797, ISBN 9786130336431.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Phrasing for inequality RFC segment.

I had to start this section because the above one falsely labels Ellen's preferred text "RFC-approved" at the top, when the RFC closer went out of his way to say the material was allowed "in some form", clearly not a rubber stamp approval of her phrasing. Also, I proposed the broader, neutral alternative text during the RFC discussion, not after it, and the above section omits some sourcing involved.

References

1. ^ Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
2. ^ Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation". The Unsustainable American State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
3. ^ Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
4. Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015.
5. "Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.(A collection of articles on various inequality topics by accomplished economists and sociologists who have worked in academia, the government, and the private sector)
6. Stiles, Andrew (May 28, 2014). "The Full Piketty: Experts raise questions about Frenchman's data on income inequality". The Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved 23 May 2015.(Includes essential quotes and links to a Wall Street Journal piece by Harvard economist and NBER president emeritus Martin Feldstein, a widely publicized investigative report by Financial Times economics editor Chris Giles, an article by widely published, influential economist and senior Cato Institute fellow Alan Reynolds, and a National Review article by George Mason University economist Veronique de Rugy that cites views from prominent economist Tyler Cowen and several French economists from the globally prestigious l’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris)

The sources were consolidated into two references with internal breaks to save space in the article.

I made the alternative proposal as a way to include Ellen's sources while avoiding a POV and niche topical skew, particularly one based on a few avante garde, cutting edge, highly subjective research papers of the type we should always be cautious about using as sources. Proposal B deals with the inequality issue in a broader way more appropriate to this article's detail level, neutrally covering opinions on it from all angles, including from a number of established, notable experts. It also includes Ellen's material in a closed way that requires no further expansion, while Proposal A would spark the addition of counterpoints and other controversial talking points deemed of interest to various editors, leading to dramatic article bloat in a page already deemed too long by most and likely contentious edit warring.

A fair discussion can't take place in the above section, where Ellen admits she was pissed off, which may have warped its construction, so I'll ask EllenCT, C.J. Griffin, Casprings, RightCowLeftCoast, Capitalismojo, Mattnad, and anyone else who has participated in this discussion or wants to to do so here. Let's iron out a consensus phrasing. Do you favor one of the above proposals? A modified version? Do you have an entirely different proposal? VictorD7 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Strongly prefer B and oppose A for reasons given. VictorD7 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How many times do you think you can keep calling a new vote while you're losing? I propose including the Wall Street Journal's recent graphic. EllenCT (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Just establishing a fairer baseline. BTW, how many visuals do you want in the Income section, lol? VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you know where to get the time series for the data on pages 12 and 13 of ? It might also be good to present that along with asset ownership by demographic categories from the triennial FRB consumer survey as we had discussed doing elsewhere. EllenCT (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're advocating having at least three and maybe four images in the Income section alone? No, I don't think we should be adding any new images now, especially overly detailed ones on such selectively niche topics. There are multiple editors having a completely separate discussion above about the Income section being way too long and advocating cutting it to maybe a sentence or two. Don't stretch the rubber band too far or you may not like where it lands when you let go. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I prefer A in a copy edited for or this one if not edited. But I also support adding the additional source Ellen provides.

What type of copy editing did you have in mind? And what do you mean by "this one" if not edited? VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see some slight modification:

Increased income inequality and the concentration of capital have resulted in growing individual affluence and created a select economic force, giving business interests more influence over public policy.

But I could live with the original text for now if I had to.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think Proposal A should at least be attributed as opinion rather than presented as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice? And would you support other editors expanding the broader inequality discussion to include views like those from the well credentialed experts I cited above? VictorD7 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I believe that statement A is sourced correctly with expert academic journals. It could be expanded with opinion sources like editorials in support (which in turn would need balance of opposing opinion), but how much weight should be given to opinion or editorials can be very difficult in short summary like this. These do appear to be correct and accurate trends recorded and documented in a number of ways. We could add more supporting primary sources such as the CBO reports and a vast amount of work and research by a number of editors on this subject. I once went to DRN over this subject and the way it was being presented. My main concern is the encyclopedic tone, but the facts were well established in the DRN by two other editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark, you realize that much of what appears in academic journals is opinion, don't you? This topic in particular isn't hard science, and these aren't long established, consensus expert conclusions resulting from a mature discussion. Have you read these articles? These are tentative, recent, cutting edge articles with conclusions that just happen to line up with the authors' political agendas. They're subjectively constructed (being a humanities topic) and filled with speculative assumptions other researchers don't share. What's more, they acknowledge this. Gilens himself states that (564), "Here—in a tentative and preliminary way—we offer such a test, bringing a unique data set to bear on the problem. Our measures are far from perfect, but we hope that this first step will help inspire further research into what we see as some of the most fundamental questions about American politics." Gilens even acknowledges that much of the empirical evidence and many scholars disagree with his views: (page 565) "..a good many scholars—probably more economists than political scientists among them—still cling to the idea that the policy preferences of the median voter tend to drive policy outputs from the U.S. political system. A fair amount of empirical evidence has been adduced—by Alan Monroe; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro; Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson (authors of the very influential Macro Polity); and others—that seems to support the notion that the median voter determines the results of much or most policy making".

Bartels even admits that he hasn't proved the causal link asserted in Proposal A (29-31): "It is important to reiterate that I have been using the terms “responsiveness” and “representation” loosely to refer to the statistical association between constituents’ opinions and their senators’ behavior. Whether senators behave the way they do because their constituents have the opinions they do is impossible to gauge using the research design employed here. It is certainly plausible to imagine that senators consciously and intentionally strive to represent the views of (especially) affluent constituents. However, it might also be the case, as Jacobs and Page (2005) have suggested in the context of national foreign policy-making, that public opinion seems to be influential only because it happens to be correlated with the opinion of influential elites, organized interest groups, or the policy-makers themselves." Like Gilens, he goes on to state "There is clearly a great deal more work to be done investigating the mechanisms by which economic inequality gets reproduced in the political realm", and conceded "the significant limitations of my data and the crudeness of my analysis" meant more work is needed.

Actually these studies are garbage, full of methodological flaws pointed out by me and others elsewhere in previous discussions, but that's beside the point. It's not about whether they "appear to be correct and accurate" or not to you and me, but whether they represent the expert consensus, and the articles themselves admit they don't. The authors are nowhere near as certain as you're suggesting we be with Proposal A. The material should certainly be attributed if it belongs here at all. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That was very extensive, and yet it still doesn't come close to disproving the claims or that the sources do not contain the facts being summarized.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the part where Bartels says his method can't prove that economic elites have greater influence over public policy, completely undermining the factual claim asserted in Proposal A? VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of what you are assuming and a lot of the direction you are taking in regard to the sources but again, you have not demonstrated that they do not support the claims. This argument about academic journals is old is not entirely accurate or we would be removing every journal used to source facts.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, and I'm assuming nothing. I'm also not calling for these sources to be deleted. I'm just saying if we're going to use them we should faithfully represent them, along with other good sources. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A "capitol" is a building in which a legislature meets. EllenCT (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. LOL! Good catch. Capitol is derived from Capitoline Hill.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's 2015. Anyone seriously considering adding the statement "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate" to this article is engaging in outright denial. We know the extent and relevance of income inequality in comparison to other countries. This is not seriously in dispute by anyone other than fringe sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion isn't about "income inequality in comparison to other countries." Try reading more closely, including the sources added from experts who don't share your politics. They're certainly not "fringe". VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is just about improving the article and Viriditas' point seems valid. It would appear like denying facts to use "B".--Mark Miller (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You're saying there's no debate on inequality, lol? How then do you explain all the sources posted by both sides saying there is a debate? It helps to actually read the sources, even the ones your political ally posts. Talk about denying facts....VictorD7 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7, you are intentionally attempting to manufacture doubt about inequality in the U.S. We know there is income inequality in the U.S. and we know about its impact. By continuing to manufacture doubt about income inequality you are engaging in denial. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your vapid name calling is a poor substitute for intelligent, substantive discourse, Viriditas. I manufactured nothing. I quoted expert sources. In fact I appear to be the only one here who's even willing to read Ellen's sources all the way through. No one denied "there is income inequality in the U.S." or indeed in every country. Fortunately. Can you imagine how stifling and terrible the world would be if there wasn't any? But that has nothing to do with this discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Describing your edits as an attempt to manufacture doubt and cast uncertainty on income inequality is not "name calling". For the record, you are the only one who has engaged in personalizing the dispute here in this thread, referring to "experts who don't share your politics" when I have not discussed my politics and referring to other editors who don't agree with you as "political allies". Instead of manufacturing doubt and casting uncertainty on the subject, what you are doing is trying to politicize this discussion by casting doubt and uncertainty on the motivations of participating editors. So when you are not busy manufacturing doubt and uncertainty about income inequality, you try to do the same thing to editors. Yet, here you are accusing others of "name calling"? I'm sorry, Victor, but you aren't playing fair nor are you being reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You engaged in false personal characterizations, and totally dodged the specific substance which I've posted above in abundance. By contrast my description of various editors' politics is accurate, as is my point about you repeatedly not even grasping what this discussion is about (hint: it's a lot more specific than "inequality in the U.S.", and isn't about international comparisons, which are already present elsewhere in the section). I'm being extremely fair and reasonable. Worry less about my motives and focus on actually reading the article, proposals, and sources involved. Think critically about them too. Pay especially close attention to the material I quoted and bolded above. VictorD7 (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal A The evidence is very clear and backed by multiple sources. The "debate" is similar to the "debate" on global warming. Casprings (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you actually read the sources? Because, as I quoted above, even they disagree with your assertion here. Gilens explicitly says "many" (his word) researchers disagree with him, Bartels concedes his method can't prove that economic elites have greater influence over policy, and they both describe their methodology as "tentative", and "crude", calling for more research. In short, they don't support the phrasing of Proposal A. Why would any honest, competent editor oppose attributing this claim as opinion to the authors used as sources, while acknowledging the alternative views even those sources admit exist? VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal B Proposal A, to the extent it's not just a truism, has a bad connotation (that we worry when "business interests" seem ascendant, but not the bureaucracy, academy, etc.), and the sources backing it are insular (two of the three carry Princeton's imprimatur), jargonistic and mathematical (making the argument with labels and mathematical givens, rather than a more accessible historical narrative), and rife with questionable assumptions (that labor unions speak for the workingman, when it's repugnance at labor's tactics—its legal and physical strong-arming, and its corruption—that have cost union jobs, as much as anything). Proposal B is too bland (there is considerable debate on this point) and its sources have their own problems (mockery of liberal academics, but not the authors of the first three papers; aggregation of articles from the Journal, Financial Times, etc., but not direct links to the newspaper articles themselves (probably behind paywalls), and too-laudatory introductions of the authors (this being source 6, Free Beacon something), etc.). But better to say too little than too much that is questionable, and Proposal B does give a more complete array of sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely view B as a lesser evil. VictorD7 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

New source evidence directly contradicting Bartels and co.

Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?, PDF, Brunner, Eric, Stephen L. Ross, and Ebonya Washington, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy: Vol. 5 No. 2 (May 2013), DOI: 10.1257/pol.5.2.53 - Study directly criticizes the methodology used by Bartels and similar researchers and employs its own methodology that contradicts their conclusion; "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation." Study finds partisanship is more important than income in explaining correlation between office holder policy votes and constituent views.

How Poorly are the Poor Represented in the US Senate?, Robert S. Erikson Professor of Political Science Columbia University, Yosef Bhatti Department of Political Science University of Copenhagen, Chapter prepared for Enns, Peter and Christopher Wlezien (eds.): “Who Gets Represented”, New York: Russell Sage Foundation (2011) - While not claiming to directly disprove his thesis, their study failed to replicate Bartels’ findings using a larger sample set and more recent data, indicating the issue is more complex than some may have thought, and sought to correct some methodological flaws in Bartels' work. They found no significant evidence that higher income people are more represented than lower income people, in part because ideology tracked more closely together across income groups within a particular state than in the older data Bartels used.

The Macro Polity (especially Chapter 8; also read this PDF with ideas adapted from the book), Robert S. Erikson, Michael B. Mackuen, James A. Stimson, Cambridge University Press, 2002 - Finds that policies largely reflect the views and mood of the median voter, especially over time; Gilens called this work "very influential", and it better represents the established mainstream scholarly view than the three avant garde primary research papers in Proposal A above. VictorD7 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

New proposals

It's also worth noting the quotes from EllenCT's own sources in the above section where Gilens concedes "a good many scholars" (his wording) disagree with his conclusion (he also admits there is significant empirical evidence supporting the other views), where Bartels concedes his method hasn't proved a causal link (meaning actual "influence" per Proposal A's wording) between economic elites and policy outcomes, and where all her sources cop to the "tentative" and "crude" nature of their methods, calling for more research. I'll add that Hayes (her third source, which I didn't get around to quoting above for space reasons) makes these same concessions, and also produces results that contradict those of Bartels (and the AEJ study above for that matter) in finding that Democrats are more responsive to the wealthy while Republicans are more responsive to the middle class (like Bartels, he finds neither is responsive to the poor, a finding contradicted by the new sources posted here).

There have also been numerous criticisms of the methodologies and political biases of Gilens, Bartels, and Hayes in past discussions here, including contrived definitions, cherry-picked poll (polls can easily yield contradictory results with different question wording) and policy selections, skewed interpretations, disputed assumptions, etc., and Bartels calling anyone with an income over $40k a year "high income" (Hayes uses anyone over $75k a year), hardly what most readers imagine when they see the phrase "economic elites".

Given all this, we'd have to either keep the broad Proposal B (with the new sources added), or at least implement only a modified version of Proposal A that includes the qualification that only some academics believe that, with "many" (Gilens' own word) disagreeing. I suppose we can call the latter Proposal C. The advantage of B is that it would be closed off, while a modified version of A (aka C) would likely lead to article bloat through further expansions and point/counterpoint edits on this and related issues.

Better yet would be to simply delete the entire segment as undue weight for this article and more trouble than it's worth. This is clearly not a mature research field with a firm consensus. There isn't even a consensus on how to approach or define all the pertinent concepts on this issue, let alone consensus results. Indeed there are recent primary research papers producing results that are all over the place. If the various views have to be laid out, that should take place on other, more topically dedicated articles and all significant views should be laid out fully and neutrally.

If there's strong opposition to deleting the segment based on EllenCT's RFC, I'll initiate a new RFC. This would be justified given the new source evidence, the fact that her RFC started with a bizarre apples/oranges false dichotomy that confused respondents, and the fact that her RFC didn't include discussion about what the sources actually said. I'll add that her RFC also failed to mention the previous discussions on this talk page soundly rejecting proposals to include this material. While EllenCT's RFC only saw 8 editors participate, two other recent discussions rejecting the proposed Bartels/Gilens/Hayes material in various forms included at least 12 editors in one and 10 in the other. VictorD7 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support RFC outcome -- Victor is simply continuing his campaign to oppose the RFC outcome, and his advocacy of WP:WEASEL wording which has been soundly rejected by senior editors (although there do seem to be editors who have no history with this article suddenly in support of his anti-RFC drive.) EllenCT (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  How do you think we should incorporate the alternative academic opinions in the new sources I provided above? VictorD7 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

By all means add them as additional references saying that the statements agreed to be added are not unanimously accepted, but not as an alternative to the broader results agreed in the RFC outcome. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That would require tweaking Proposal A (the wording of which was not endorsed by the RFC close anyway) so that it's not asserting the views of a few cutting edge primary researchers as unchallenged fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, to allow room for the disagreement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just restore the edits you reverted and add the challenging references, putting the opposing statements in the authors' voices. That is the "some form" you want. However, I noticed that at least one of your characterizations of the references you found is misleading, so we will need to work on the text. EllenCT (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I said is misleading, and your suggestion doesn't work because the text you want restored simply states the conclusion of Bartels and his two friends as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, without attributing that view to them. The sources directly contradicting them (which you apparently didn't know about when you crafted that wording, or until I posted them) obviously make that untenable, but so do your own sources, who acknowledge that they don't represent the consensus view. We'd need to make that clear even if we were only using your sources. VictorD7 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the sell-by date of RfC outcomes that are sparsely attended, evenly divided, whose closings are equivocally worded, and where few editors defend, or can even define, the RfC in Talk, other than to say it gives them carte blanche? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Every attempt to reverse the RFC has resulted in clear consensus that its outcome should be upheld. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring the multiple discussions here I linked to here where your material was explicitly rejected in discussions involving more editors than your quietly attended RFC pulled, as well as the fact that the RFC only said the material could be included "in some form", and didn't endorse your wording. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You are ignoring the vast majority of admins and users who have since endorsed the RFC outcome and rejected your attempts to disrupt it, including with proposal to topic ban you which seems to be quite popular with admins. What is it going to take for you to ease up on the POV pushing? EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be talking into a mirror here, but since you posted this as a reply to me I'll point out that even fewer people supported your wording in post RFC discussions so far than supported the inclusion of the material itself in the RFC ("in some form"; some of that support even explicitly called for changes to your wording like attribution), and no one has endorsed your wording since I posted the new sources directly disputing your segment. I'll also note that on Casprings' latest ridiculous attempt to have someone who disagrees with his politics topic banned (I've been his latest fixation for a while), there are currently more "oppose" than "support" votes, so it doesn't appear his proposal will gain consensus support. At least one uninvolved person already tried to close it but Casprings reverted. As for POV pushing, I don't even know what to say to that. It's like being accused of irresponsible behavior by Lindsay Lohan. I'm the one opposing POV pushing here. I'm not even the one trying to add items to an already bloated article. I just want to make sure what does get added accurately rather than selectively represents the sources. VictorD7 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the clear consensus supporting the RfC. When I reverted, I did so on the basis of not having seen agreement comporting with Ellen's additions. When I asked to be enlightened as to what the RfC, whose closing found "no consensus to support the reversion" or something seemingly equally equivocal, was meant to authorize, I received no clear direction as to what inference I had not fathomed. The follow-on discussion hasn't indicated that there was a consensus to do much of anything. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You just completely made that quote up out of wishful thinking, didn't you? Some of us care about accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the quote verbatim, from here:

There was no consensus at Talk:United States/Archive 67#Proposal to revert section Income, poverty and wealth to to 13 January version for this revert making the following change, because seven editors supported the 8 February version but only three supported the revert.

Is that not the RfC you're talking about? What were you defending there? Your additions seemed to be outside of merely enforcing either of the texts listed below the closing statement. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the opening statement, not the closing. Each of my inclusions was and has since been discussed above. EllenCT (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Specific excerpts from proposed new references: It took me a long time to read Erikson and Bhatti (2011) and Brunner et al. (2012), netiher of which contradict the existing sources. Erikson and Bhatti's book chapter was not peer reviewed. They say, "Bartels finds that rich constituents are substantially better represented by the legislators in the US Senate than their poorer counterparts. In fact, the poorest third of the population is not represented at all. While we do not find evidence directly contradictory this result, we add some complications." The complications agree with Bartells and the other sources from the RFC, too. Erikson and Bhatti went to great lengths to pose arbitrary hypotheses which came in just over p<0.05 significance, so that they could say that they can't find "statistical evidence." For shame! Brunner et al say, "Republicans more often vote the will of their higher income over their lower income constituents; Democratic legislators do the reverse," which is in contradiction to Hayes (2012) which states, "the major political parties seemed to have recently switched roles as the Democratic Party has become responsive to the wealthy, while Republicans are responsive to the middle-class." While I propose inclusion of those two excerpts on Politics of the United States, they do not rise to the level where they should be summarized in this article. Gilens and Page (2014) address all of the points raised in the 2011-2 papers. Therefore, I continue to support the verbatim RFC outcome. EllenCT (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• False. First, your own Gilens source cited Macro Polity as representing what it calls the views of a good many scholars who disagree with his thesis: ""..a good many scholars—probably more economists than political scientists among them—still cling to the idea that the policy preferences of the median voter tend to drive policy outputs from the U.S. political system. A fair amount of empirical evidence has been adduced—by Alan Monroe; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro; Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson (authors of the very influential Macro Polity); and others—that seems to support the notion that the median voter determines the results of much or most policy making." So you're essentially attacking the reliability of your own source here. And that and your other two sources emphasize that their own work does not represent the established scholarly consensus, but rather is "tentative" and "crude", the issue requiring much more study before firm conclusions are drawn, as I quoted in the above section.

Brunner's peer reviewed journal article most certainly does contradict Bartels, and does so explicitly: (intro) "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation.... Differences in representation by income are largely explained by the correlation between constituent income and party affiliation." (2, 3) "Bartels (2008) regresses the DW Nominate score, a summary measure of the liberal/conservative leaning of a United States senator’s voting record, on the mean liberal/conservative leaning (seven point scale) of lower, middle and upper income survey respondents in the senator’s state. He finds that the ideology of the highest income group enters with a significantly larger coefficient than that of the lowest income group; he concludes that higher income state residents are better represented than their lower income counterparts. Bhatti and Erikson (2011) revisit Bartels’ analysis to address a weighting issue and sample size limitations. While in most specifications the authors find that the liberalness of higher income voters enters with a larger coefficient than that of lower 2 income voters, the difference is not statistically significant. In contrast to Bartels, these authors conclude that higher income constituents are not better represented.1" They go on to conduct their own study also contradicting Bartels' findings.

As I said above, the scholarly book chapter (by Erikson and Bhatti, Columbia and University of Copenhagen political scientists, published by the Russell Sage Foundation) stated that they failed to duplicate Bartels' findings. You left out the portion almost immediately following: "Second, we replicate Bartels’ findings in two recent datasets with larger sample sizes and hence less measurement error. We cannot find statistical evidence of differential representation."

Whether you feel that Bartels has adequately addressed the various criticisms (not that you've made a convincing case for that, or much of any case for that at all) is beside the point. The methodology of Bartels, Hayes, and Gilens has been ripped to shreds by knowledgeable editors here who point out even more fundamental flaws than these contrary sources do. What matters here is that there is strong disagreement among the sources, with even your own three sources conceding that they don't represent the established scholarly view. Frankly none of them belong in this article at all, since we're supposed to be reflecting stable, mainstream, scholarly positions, and not cutting edge recent research involving high degrees of subjectivity and controversy, but I respect the RFC closing, despite it being barely participated in, poorly framed (with a false dichotomy), and introduced with virtually no discussion or attempt by you to find opposing views like those I produced above. However, that RFC closing was intentionally vague, only allowing the inclusion of the material "in some form", which means it was not an endorsement of your wording, wording which the new evidence produced here clearly shows is untenable. Your wording would violate core Misplaced Pages policies that trump a single RFC outcome anyway. The current sentence is an appropriately broad summary for this article's detail level, referenced by sources from both sides. Best to just be happy that you got your sources and the debate into this article at all, and stop pushing to purge disputing sources or alter the wording to make specific, unattributed claims in Misplaced Pages's voice that fail to acknowledge the dispute. VictorD7 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Ripped to shreds" how? And by whom? The results of the RFC have been confirmed four times now. EllenCT (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Even before I posted scholarly sources disputing it, your proposal to include the Bartels and friends material was rejected on this very talk page twice (at least 12 editors participated; at least 10 editors participated), and despite that you ignored these results and kept pushing the material over and over again. Your RFC finally got it into the article (despite only 8 editors participating and there being no preliminary source or other discussion), but since I posted the scholarly sources disputing yours no editors have supported your particular wording (which is untenable given policy) and multiple editors have opposed it. And I and others have posted more detailed criticisms of the methodology employed in your sources on other talk pages, though I won't spend time digging those discussions up now since it's beside the point. VictorD7 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your "scholarly" sources aren't in disagreement with the original three sources. If you say water is wet, and I say I don't have any information to the contrary, but by including ice and steam in sampling I can't confirm your findings statistically at the p<0.05 level, do you think I have somehow disproved you? Or even added anything worthwhile to the conversation? EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

One explicitly stated that it contradicted your source's findings while another criticized your source's methodology and failed to replicate its findings using what it considered to be a superior methodology. And it's amusing that you place "scholarly" in quotes. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the peer reviewed literature reviews on the topic are in agreement, opposed to your non-peer reviewed book chapter and article with it's cherry-picked data set. The subsequent peer reviewed literature addressed and disposed with all of the issues they raised. Why do you constantly suggest that Wikipedians should consider your paid advocacy, non-peer reviewed, and primary source original research to be scholarly? That has never been the standard on Misplaced Pages, but it is often if not usually the standard of those who wish to introduce bias to advance their personal positions. EllenCT (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To what "paid advocacy" and "original research" do you refer? Not only did I introduce you to peer reviewed articles that dispute your sources' findings, but I showed that even your own sources cite numerous scholars who disagree with their conclusion and make it clear that their own "crude", "tentative" methods don't represent the established expert consensus. Even if we just used your own sources your wording would be untenable because it fails to faithfully represent them. VictorD7 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The several advocacy organizations you repeatedly cite expressing opinions in favor of supply side and trickle down economics. You can't find any support for them in the peer reviewed literature reviews, because they are wrong, so you try to pretend that ad agencies are "scholarship." EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. "Ad agencies"? Name them. Nothing I linked to above has anything to do with ad agencies. Also, you should refrain from referring to sources as "paid advocacy", since on Misplaced Pages paid advocacy refers to paid editing, which actually your posting history shows you already knew (e.g. - you participating heavily in the policy discussions on paid editing, and repeatedly using "paid advocacy" to refer to editors being paid to edit , , , ). I'm sure you'd hate for any observers to mistake your meaning, conflate the two accusations, and think that I was being described a paid editor, given the seriousness of that charge here (illustrated by your own strong sentiments in the linked quotes). VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether you personally are paid to edit or not, you know full well that the so-called think tank sources you try to insert as authoritative scholarship are paid to represent their point of view. That is their only reason for existing, to advocate the positions of their donors. Because one of their most prolific and incorrect topic areas is supply side trickle down economics, they belong in the encyclopedia just as much as homeopathy. They are WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in almost any encyclopedic context, other than that of describing them and their activities. By constantly championing their fully discredited views, you play the role of a paid advocate whether you are one or not. EllenCT (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You failed to name any sources, and certainly none of the sources I've supplied above are "ad agencies" or "think tanks" (two very different things, btw), so this appears to be a pointless diversion. Your contention that I "play the role of a paid advocate" "whether (I am) one or not" shows you're happy slapping that label on me even if it's false (as you did with your earlier blunt, unqualified assertion above), a clear violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASS policies. Again, for the record, as I've told you many times before, I am not a paid advocate. I suggest you drop insinuations otherwise. VictorD7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation content supporting supply side trickle down economics which you've repeatedly relied upon and have been trying to insert is worse than the vast majority of paid advocacy. Attempting to insert or rely upon it here is equivalent to a direct attack on the reliability, usefulness, reputation, and quality of the encyclopedia, is equivalent to an admission of a lack of WP:COMPETENCE in creating an encyclopedia, and is equivalent to an admission that the editor repeatedly trying to insert it after being informed of their mistake is WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia, choosing to use Misplaced Pages as a political forum instead. EllenCT (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I posted above is from the Heritage Foundation or any other think tank. I cited a peer reviewed journal article, a scholarly chapter prepared by multiple academics that includes a study they conducted, and an academic book cited in your own source as being "very influential". That said, The Heritage Foundation is one of the nation's most prominent think tanks and a perfectly legitimate source in many circumstances (RS is context specific). You again failed to link to an example, but if it's the home size fact currently sourced by Heritage in the article that's based on easily verifiable government stats and isn't disputed. Think tank sources, mostly leftist ones like Think Progress, CBPP, Brookings (which I've also added), and EPI (featured prominently in the same section you're alluding to), litter this article and others. You've personally sought to add a wide array of much lower quality sources to this and other articles, like this obscure advocacy group called Insight: Center for Community for Economic Development (, ), a lobbying group seeking special benefits for minorities, and of course hotly disputed tax rate charts from the lobbying group Citizens for Tax Justice. Given all this, perhaps the rest of your paragraph is a simple case of projection. VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy section break

If we ban the pro-homeopathy advocacy organizations, does NPOV require that we also ban those opposed to homeopathy? EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I've never supported including anything about "homeopathy", I assume this is an abstract hypothetical question. Your "advocacy organizations" are the fringe ones, though I never suggested banning them per se. RS is always context specific. The problem with your specific proposed inclusions have been that they were inappropriate for a particular article or section, misrepresented the sources, and/or were contradicted by all the other (more) reliable sources. I only mentioned your own inclusion of "advocacy" groups to drive home how bizarre your off topic complaints about me here are. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it in concrete terms for you. If we exclude sources with no support in the peer reviewed secondary literature, does NPOV require that we also exclude sources with peer reviewed secondary support? EllenCT (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I already answered in concrete, far more pertinent terms in my last post. The sources aren't as you characterize them. VictorD7 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So are you claiming that there is support for supply side trickle down economics in the peer reviewed secondary literature, or that the Heritage foundation isn't paid to push supply side trickle down economics? EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean like how your Citizens for Tax Justice and CCED sources are paid to lobby for tax increases and for special benefits for minorities, respectively? Of course there's enormous support for supply side economics in scholarly literature (e.g. like numerous studies showing lower tax rates boost growth), but that has nothing at all to do with this discussion. I don't even recall if I've ever mentioned "supply side economics" in a Misplaced Pages edit, and "trickle down" was a partisan Democrat epithet from the 80s. VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to the OECD, yes, those sources have support in the peer reviewed secondary literature and thus should be favored. The Heritage Foundation and other proponents of supply side trickle down economics should be excluded from any encyclopedia to the extent it is reliable, except to report on their activities. EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing about the OECD. You pulled that non sequitur out of the blue, unless you confused that with CCED, the abbreviation for the Center for Community for Economic Development advocacy group you've used as a source in articles that I just referred to. And no, your material was not "peer reviewed" and has nothing to do with peer reviewed literature. As for you wanting to exclude sources you politically oppose while adding far more obscure sources (like CCED) you politically agree with, I guess you'll have to fight that battle next time it comes up. BTW, it's fascinating that while you're carrying on this discussion you're simultaneously pushing in another section for the inclusion of a column citing a "study" by the Hamilton Project, a subgroup of the left leaning Brookings Institute (a think tank within a think tank) launched in 2006. Barack Obama spoke at the group's launch and most of its leaders have worked for the Obama administration and/or his campaigns at some point. So much for "peer reviewed secondary sources". VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Insight Center for Community Economic Development" in Oakland? They also advocate demand side economics and thus have support from the secondary peer reviewed literature, unlike your supply side trickle down POV pushing. Again, Brookings is centrist and the largest think tank in the world. EllenCT (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

All major economic schools of thought have support in the peer reviewed literature. Heck, the Austrians you always rail against have even collected a boatload of Nobel Prizes, solidifying their "expert" status for Misplaced Pages sourcing purposes. Wanting special benefits for minorities has nothing to do with peer reviewed analysis. It's just a subjective political preference. And the CTJ tax chart you tried to introduce throughout Misplaced Pages has no corroboration whatsoever, and direct contradiction by other, more reliable sources (e.g. the CBO, Brookings' Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation). My expansive reply to your misleading Brookings claim is in the other section. Its ideology is irrelevant to the fact that the study you're pushing isn't "secondary peer reviewed literature", undermining your purported fixation on that sourcing requirement, but I'll point out here that Brookings is liberal and between 2003 and 2010 97.6% of its members' political donations went to Democrats. However, I'm glad to see that you're now a fan of the think tank, and no longer label it "right wing" as you used to when I cited its TPC tax chart to refute your CTJ figures. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not all major economic schools of thought have support in the WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature. Most are firmly opposed by the peer reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses. My "purported fixation" is due to the fact that as tertiary sources, encyclopedias are required to defer to the secondary literature over primary and original research. If your claim had merit, it could be a lot less expansive. You don't need to convince me that you are far enough to the right to think Brookings isn't centrist. EllenCT (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to debate the nuances of economic theory with someone who just claimed elsewhere on this page that Obama was president in 2006, none of this has anything to do with this talk page section. VictorD7 (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I said it's not surprising that a President would speak at the most oft-cited think tank in the world, not that he was President when he did. EllenCT (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that makes a lot of sense. VictorD7 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongly prefer A B is a non-statement that says nothing, and it violates the previous RfC close. Darx9url (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Continued attempts to contravene RFC outcomes

I object to this edit by VictorD7, who continues his relentless campaign to reject the conclusions of four RFCs and their confirmations (or is it five now?) without any serious administrative oversight. EllenCT (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For one thing you tried to sneak in material not even mentioned in the RFC, namely the productivity, gender pay gap, and erosion of safety net stuff in a second segment below, as your own link helpfully shows. Please avoid misrepresenting edits in edit summaries. As for the phrasing of the first segment, again, the one RFC that's gone your way here explicitly avoided endorsing any phrasing as "consensus", stating that the material was allowable "in some form". There was no consensus phrasing. Period. That became even more true after that RFC close when I provided the scholarly sources above contradicting your sources, along with quotes from your own sources showing that even they acknowledge they don't represent the established expert consensus. Even your attempt to go to a noticeboard to have your "reiteration" section closed resulted in you being informed that a closure on this issue wasn't possible, spread across various sections as it was. If you really want to impose your preferred wording, which states your own views in Misplaced Pages's voice while omitting the sources who disagree, then it will require a fresh attempt specifically focusing on wording and arguing why the sourced alternative views (which you've now been made aware of but didn't know about earlier when crafting your preferred phrasing) should be excluded. We've established elsewhere that the phantom "four RFCs" you mention don't actually exist, but I'd advise you to not ignore the last three, very real overlapping RFCs you've flooded this page with that all resulted in the community totally rejecting by strong consensus your attempts to shove POV "inequality" talking points into this article (, , , and to desist from your ideological WP:SOAPBOX crusade here. VictorD7 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I did include the causes of inequality including the productivity "stuff" as proposed and discussed at length. I also propose replacing the graph that used to illustrate the decoupling of median incomes from productivity growth in the early 1970s. (1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) above. EllenCT (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Only your first link is to an RFC (which, again, didn't endorse any specific wording, indeed even some supporters had issues with your wording). Your second and fourth ones were to brief, informal discussions with only a few editors and in each case multiple editors opposed you. Your third link is to your call out section against me and only the two of us participated. When you sought closure via noticeboard the result went against you. "Confirmations"? "Unanimously"? All your proposals have been significantly and sometimes unanimously opposed, and the productivity graph was appropriately removed by another editor. It's amazing that even you concede some of the EPI chart's major shortcomings below even as you try to reinsert it in via your latest RFC. VictorD7 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Graph

I like this graph, but it is now years out of date and the labels are unclear below 450 pixels width. Is there a better version? EllenCT (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC on influence of elites again, with causes of inequality and graph

References

1. Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
2. Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation". The Unsustainable American State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
3. Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
4. Tcherneva, Pavlina R. (April 2015). "When a rising tide sinks most boats: trends in US income inequality" (PDF). levyinstitute.org. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
5. Casselman, Ben (September 22, 2014). "The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years". FiveThirtyEightEconomics. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
6. Parlapiano, Alicia; Gebeloff, Robert; Carter, Shan (January 26, 2013). "The Shrinking American Middle Class". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
7. Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.
   Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation" (PDF). The Unsustainable American State: 167–196. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007.
   Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
8. Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015.
   "Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.
   Brunner, Eric; Ross, Stephen L; Washington, Ebonya (May 2013). "Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 5 (2): 53–76. doi:10.1257/pol.5.2.53. Retrieved July 12, 2015.
   Feldstein, Martin (May 14, 2014). "Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up: Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2015.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which is the best version to include, and with what changes if any? 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Revision A with the graph, as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Either B or neither (you should have added a C, since those aren't the only two options). First, "A" violates WP:NPOV policy because it's biased POV that omits the scholarly sources that disagree with your sources, and misrepresents your own sources by stating their opinions as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice when I've quoted in the above section where even they admit they don't represent the established expert consensus (and cite several of the scholars who disagree with them, along with at least one of the sources I list above, calling it "influential"). This is an extremely complex issue with different POVs and core Misplaced Pages policy requires we be neutral. Furthermore, this is a broad country summary article, not a focused economics article where this issue can be covered neutrally in depth. Your detail level is ridiculous and cherry-picked, and the statements are opinions involving causation that are extremely inappropriate in Misplaced Pages's voice. You also admit above that the graph, which is entirely the uncorroborated, original work of an obscure left wing think tank called EPI, is "years out of date and the labels are unclear". It was removed months ago by editors for being over detailed in a niche, cherry-picked topic and for conflicting with some other sources. This entire proposal is inappropriate for this article. This information belongs in more narrowly focused economics articles if anywhere, and even there with fuller, more neutral and accurate coverage than this. This merits rejection for the same reasons your last three RFCs trying to soapbox on "inequality" here were shot down (, , ). Since you failed to collaborate with me on wording before initiating this RFC, since I think there are more than the two options you present (which were crafted before I posted the contradicting scholarly source evidence), and given the non-neutral personal call out nature of the section in which you tucked this RFC, I also ask that you self revert it so we can discuss a fair way to construct it. Otherwise, I might initiate my own RFC on this topic. VictorD7 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Mediation update Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/United States

Over the course of six months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lede sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox. The mediation has been successful and the participants reached consensus on the issues and have a proposed a new lede sentence for the article which is to be accompanied by a note. It has been agreed by the participants and the mediator that the proposed lede and accompanying note would be presented to article editors and members of the WP community as a Request for comment. It was agreed from the outset that the statement in the lede sentence of the article would have a footnote to explain the inclusion of U.S. territories, the consensus was to use the geographical sense of the United States for a general readership in an international context. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes below and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States. (To review tables, click "show" in column 1)

Mediation US territory discussion

United States District/Territory	Geographically, US national jurisdiction	US Citizens/Nationals	Estimated population	In Congress (Member of Congress)	Local self governance	US Constitution supreme law	US District Court	Presidential vote
District of Columbia	Done	Done 1801 US citizenship	658,000	Done 1971: Norton	Done 1975	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC	Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
American Samoa	Done	Done 1904 US nationals	57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population)	Done 1981; Amata	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi	citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court
Guam	Done	Done 1950 US citizenship	159,000	Done 1973; Bordallo	Done 1972	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU	while resident in a state
Northern Mariana Islands	Done	Done 1986 US citizenship	77,000	Done 2009; Sablan	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP	while resident in a state
Puerto Rico	Done	Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)	3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population)	Done 1901; Pierluisi	Done 1948	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR	while resident in a state
US Virgin Islands	Done	Done 1927 US citizenship	106,000	Done 1973; Plaskett	Done 1970	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI	while resident in a state
uninhabited possessions	Done	Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll	n/a	n/a	n/a	Done fundamental provisions	various	n/a

Mediation sources summary

----------- Scope ---------	----------- USG sources ---------	----------- Scholars ---------	----------- USG sources --------	----------- Scholars ---------	----------- Almanac ---------	----------- Encyclopedia ----------
US federal republic geographic extent	Pres. Proclamation , Pres. Exec Order , GAO (1997) , State Dept. Common Core , Homeland Act	Tarr , Katz , Van Dyke	FEMA , US Customs , Immigration serv. , Education , Soc. Sec.	Sparrow , Haider-Markel , Fry	Fact Book	Britannica
50 states (18 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	Done (1)
50 states & DC (17 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources)	Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland	Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US	Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law	Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	5 USG sources omit possessions	3 omit possessions	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss

which map should we use?

which map should we use? there was a disagreement between me Dannis243 and Dhtwiki about the map so i want to create a new clear consensus on this Dannis243 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Of the two offered, A is superior, as you can actually see elements like Hawaii and the Alaska panhandle in thumbnail, and the Aleutians at all. (Though I note Puerto Rico is not colored in the maps...) --Golbez (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Of the two offered, A is superior, as over 99% of the US population is mapped. (Though another source might supply color for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands.) NOAA presents an alternative global perspective showing the US land and water extent for states, CD, territories and possessions. See discussion at Exclusive Economic Zone online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Of the two offered, A is superior, as over 99% of the US population is mapped." Pretty sure B does the same thing... what added percentages of the US population are missing in B? --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither. We should have one map showing the bulk of the country as we do with France etc. We should also have one that shows the entire country, which neither does. TFD (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A better shows Alaska and Hawaii. It makes sense to have a map of the 50 states and another of the states + territories/possessions, and I believe the first map works for the 50 states. Dustin (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Between the two, A seems clearer. However, a version of A that adds shading to the visible territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands would be better still. ╠╣uw  09:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dustin, it does not make sense because it draws an arbitrary distinction between states and territories. TFD (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Version B is continental US only, without island Hawaii or insular territories. Puerto Rico now falls legally within the US customs borders (Reconsidering the Insular Cases Gerald L. Neuman. Harvard U. Pr. 2015), perhaps the publisher will soon add Puerto Rico.

We can await the publisher while using Version A in the meantime, or use the NOAA map an alternative global perspective rotated so as to show the US land and water extent for states, DC, territories and possessions. See discussion at Exclusive Economic Zone online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Version B includes Hawaii and the Caribbean parts of the U.S, while excluding parts of the U.S. to the east of Hawaii. Why are they are not highlighted in the map? What reason do you have to exclude insular territories from the map? Why does Version A for example not highlight PR and USVI? In what way is Hawaii different from Guam? TFD (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good points TFD, lets upload the NOAA map an alternative global perspective with the globe rotated so as to show the US land and water extent for states, DC, territories and possessions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If the intention is to use that EEZ map (or a similar projection) as the US article's main infobox map, I'm afraid I see a number of problems with that. First, it shifts the continental US off entirely into the upper right corner which I don't think is suitable given what an overwhelming portion of the nation it represents, and results in a map centered on mostly empty ocean. Further, the land area in some of the remote Pacific territories is so minuscule that it'd scarcely be discernible anyway, even if shaded green as in versions A and B (and as is the standard for most of our comparable nation maps). The red-line sea-border outlines are also IMHO inadvisable and inconsistent with the maps we use for most other nations.

Though I entirely support and agree with making it clear in the article that the territories are part of the US, I'm not convinced it's a good idea to use a projection that strains to include every island at the cost of moving the overwhelming bulk of the nation to the side. I would suggest retaining A's continent-centered projection and shading the visible territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, perhaps accompanied by a note indicating that not all US possessions are shown in that view. ╠╣uw  17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

We could use a two map selection as is done for similar articles with the first focusing on the 48 states & DC and the second map showing the entire country. See the maps for France. One shows metropolitan France in a map of Europe, while the second shows all of France in a map of the world. TFD (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Support a two-map version, with the EEZ dataset as map#1of2; that pretty closely represents the U.S. as a superpower (ideally it would be a different map projection so as to permit the lower 48 to be in the center of the image ... I suggest either transverse Mercator projection or maybe the Dymaxion-and-friends many of which are homebrew-American-inventions). Even more ideally, should use dots to indicate airbases (dot-size determined as 50% of the range of non-midair-refueled jets at said airbase), to indicate not just economic superpower status, but also military superpower status; suggest green lines to indicate economic footprint, red dots to indicate military footprint. For map#2of2, something like "Version A" which shows all 50 states (plus Puerto Rico), but preferably add in the green-economic-lines (shown in the EEZ map only at the moment) and the red-airbase-dots (hypothetical at the moment). p.s. I would also support a three-map-solution, with map#1of3 and map#2of3 being the same as in the two-map solution I just outlined, and map#3of3 being the lower 48 only, with the biggest 25 of the ~170 total commuter-centers legibly named (green borders for cash-power), plus major military facilities also noted (red dots for fire-power). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's not. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So, from your comment above I know that you like version_A better than version_B, because the fine details are more visible. And you WP:IDONTLIKEIT my suggestion ... what specifically? Are you against anything but version_A? Against any form of two-map solution? Against some specific map I suggested, or some specific projection, or some specific feature-illustration? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

From my comment above you can know that I hate the idea of including military facilities on the map, it just didn't seem necessary to explain that. --Golbez (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, definitely necessary. Honestly didn't catch your drift from the two-word answer. But since nobody else seems interested by the military-airspace-footprint-idea, seems I will have to await another bangvote, for that one to fly. Pun intended.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative maps showing insular territories for #2 map:

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I like this one, showing all 50 states with labelling of major cities.

SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that won't work because some people here have determined that the United States includes the territories, so anything omitting them can't be used. Someone should inform the United Nations that they are, in fact, wrong. Misplaced Pages has solved it. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The UN is correct in its Exclusive Economic Zones under its Convention on the Law of the Sea. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages reports three territories in France and three territories in the US found in the UN list of non-self-governing places as a part of each nation's geographic extent, so as to include those territories claimed by each nation to the United Nations. WP should display a map of the US Exclusive Economic Zone as internationally recognized. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We can always have our cake and eat it too: why not use one coloration for outlining the economic-zone of the 50 states (plus DC), another coloration for territorial econ-zones, and a third coloration for the econ-zones of the not-fully-agreed-upon territorial claims. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Version A - For the reasons given (any preferences at all shown for Version B?, even though, by the article edit history, some people prefer it). Also, I don't see the advantage of the other maps introduced (needless to say the confusion they might inject into this debate). The infobox map really just needs to say that this country is here in relation to the rest of the world; it doesn't need to be too comprehensive. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox mockup: maps @ 220px
The contiguous United States plus Alaska and Hawaii in green
US Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ): states, territories and possessions in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Version C

• Version A So far we have 5-1 for A as superior, Golbez, Dustin, Huw, Dhtwiki, and TVH. Dannis243 suggesting B? and two alternate map suggestions for the first map. I suggest calling 5-1 a consensus for Map A as the lead locator map.

• Version A I do not see that much of a difference between versions A and B, so I would rather simply stick with the status quo. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

TFD notes France has a global locator map for metropolitan France with 99% of its population without territories (comparable to our Map A for the US), and a second map shows “all of France in a map of the world”, including the three French territories on the UN non-self-governing list. The second map should be the US map of its EEZ which includes states, territories and possessions claimed by the US in the State Department Core Report to the UN, — either the version already at Wikimedia Commons above, or perhaps we should upload , or link to the interactive photographic map at . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree that we have 6-1 local consensus that version_A is superior to version_B, but that is not the same that as "consensus version_A is superior" without qualification. I like the idea of *some* kind of EEZ map (one of the three or four EEZ variants suggested so far) being used in a two-map solution. I would also support the use of some EEZ variant, as a one-map solution that acts as a replacement for the wiki-traditional version_A. The advantage to version_A is that it is very simple, and gives you the location of the main landmass of the USA, relative to other landmasses.

    The main disadvantage to version_A is that is all it gives. The EEZ map also, obviously, gives the reader the same tidbit of information, the relative position of the main USA landmass relative to other places... but in addition, it gives more information. The EEZ map is more complex, but the complexity is justified, because it provides more information to the reader. We need to strike a balance between too-cluttered-to-understand, versus too-simple-to-be-really-useful. How many people, in our readership, need to be reminded that the main landmass of the USA is located in the continent of North America (not named), and that South America (also not named) is to the south, and that there are nameless oceans to the west and east? That is the informative-content of version_A. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember that the infobox map should also be clear at the standard thumbnail size of about 250 pixels, which I suspect is why such maps for most other nations omit text labels and are kept extremely simple. ╠╣uw  09:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've supplied a mockup of the info box with maps only at 220px.

1. Map of the US EEZ omits US claimed Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank which are disputed.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TVH, definitely like the 220px_EEZ_map, as more informative than the 220px_version_A map immediately above it. Almost everybody knows where the continents are already, and most people know Alaska and Hawaii, but the additional blue-zones around the territories is encyclopedically-interesting-additional-info that only the EEZ map offers. Of course, one could always add the bluezones to the version_A-style of map, with a 3D projection... one downside to the particular 220px_EEZ_map shown immediately to the right, is that it somewhat distorts the relative size of Alaska. There are also other map-projection-options, besides the two pictured here, which could be bluezoned. Anyways, I do think the bluezone EEZ data adds something worth keeping. Ping User:TheVirginiaHistorian, can you label your maximally-preferred EEZ-style map "version C" so that folks can bangvote in favor of it please? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The US EEZ map now labelled Version C is currently in use at United States#Political divisions to highlight states, territories and possessions. But you hold out the chance at creating a new blue zoned map on another projection, and that sounds interesting. Ping ] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest taking a copy of Version_A, which is currently a two-color map (green landmass-of-interest and greyscale everything-else), then converting it to be a three-color map (through the addition of the EEZ dataset). Because of the wiki-tradition of centering the lower 48 in the middle, plenty of EEZ data for the Pacific island territories would be missing or just barely visible, but a modified version_A_with_blue_EEZ_data_added would be a more consistent fit with the usual wiki-traditional simple-orthographic-maps, and might have a better shot at getting bangvotes. Personally, I like Version_C, but that one isn't gaining much attention from other bangvoters. p.s. Unfortunately it is a technical limitation that pings don't function for anons; you have to do it the old-fashioned way, with a separate post on usertalk. Or just wait patiently until I circle back.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note to mention that the article currently uses an SVG image that may or may not be the same information as the PNG and the PNG file cannot be edited, while the SVG file can.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, technically the PNG *can* be edited, but it is incredibly more awkward/difficult/etc, so SVG is strongly preferred. If we get a local consensus for a map-switchover, conversion of the chosen map-rendering into SVG fileformat would be the next step, logically. But I don't think we should discount prototype-maps, because they haven't yet been converted to SVG fileformat. That's a technical detail, that can be remedied later, right? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Version A - If I have to choose between A and B. Some suggestions : (a) Add a note below this map that territories are not included and point to the map that includes them. (b) Close this discussion and open another one about including territories into countries maps (not just for this article but in general). Gpeja (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Version A - Looking closely between A & B - A seems to include more green parts as well as grey parts so personally I'd say A is a better choice here. –Davey2010 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Version A -- The two maps honestly do not look that different to me. I don't see many distinctions between the two. However, I am going to go with Version A because I think it shows Alaska and Hawaii better. You can't really see Hawaii at all in Version B. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Nor does B show the Alaskan panhandle very well. Juan Riley (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Version B - It just looks better and is smaller. There is also a consensus on WP:Maps to use that specific version of the map (I am unable to find it). Someone (I don't know how) can edit Version B to better suit what you all want but Version B is much more aesthetically pleasing. Luxure Σ 11:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I have found it here. Luxure Σ 11:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Luxure is correct, that there is a cross-wiki and enWiki-wide longstanding tradition to use maps that are simple, essentially label-free, and give *only* the location of the landmass in question. I don't like that wiki-policy, and if local page-specific-consensus were to be achieved, that the bare simplistic label-free low-information-content green-highlighted-landmass could be replaced, with something more useful such as Version C, 'twould overjoy me.  :-)     However, there does not seem to be much traction, for anything but version A, or the ever-so-slightly-distinct version B, presently anyways. I agree that version B has better Great Lakes, but I also think (as others have mentioned) that version A has a better Hawaii. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What convention is being cited and how does Version A, the preferred map by a wide margin, violate it? The maps are very similar and both are of the preferred svg type? Dhtwiki (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's here. Similar, but not the same. Version B is the one preferred by the convention. Luxure Σ 10:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The map convention motivation is, "To identify where a country is, with respect to other nearby countries that the viewer may know about.” The United States is located in the North American continent, the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. In a general way, Hawaii represents the insular territory which is a state in the Pacific without showing Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and American Samoa. Still, Hawaii is relatively nearby the East Asian nations the other US Pacific territory is. Coloring in Puerto Rico which is already mapped on map A (90% population of all US insular territories) would represent the insular territory in the Caribbean Sea without showing the U.S. Virgin Islands, but also identifying the US as nearby other Caribbean nations that the viewer may know about.

So A is better than B because it includes Pacific Ocean US territory, and an orthographic map also including US territory in Puerto Rico colored in would be best. At the modification of A, there might be further discussion whether to use color #346733, representing the Subject’s area (country, province) or color #C6DEBD, representing “Other areas part of the same political unity”, which Puerto Rico is in the US federal republic, as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A doesn't conform to border colour and "outside area" colours of the convention. So B > A. Luxure Σ 10:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Also notice the examples section of that page. Luxure Σ 10:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the borders instead of the substance of the information conveyed? The choice should be made on the basis of substance rather than window dressing. Surely the editor who colors in Puerto Rico can change the borders as well. Until then, A > B. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Mate, we have reached our conclusion. The editor who edits A to look aesthetically like B but have A's quality is a champ. Until then B > A (aesthetics) but A > B (quality). Luxure Σ 06:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Article clean up

Much of the content in this article strays from the topic of the United States. The article should be limited to the Unites States as a political and geographic entity. It should not go into great detail about history, political parties, crime, and several other off-topic issues. In almost all cases there are separate articles to discuss any historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics. Sections for these topics should include only a paragraph or two summary following the main, details or see also templates. Also, the lede is too long.Phmoreno (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not the policy taken at any other country's article; I see no reason it should be the case here. Better to err by providing the reader too much information than too little. Rwenonah (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what other country articles say, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a book. And most importantly, this is not an appropriate place for political and social commentary. I would rate this article as low quality for style and content. No doubt some other country articles deserve the same low rating, but let us focus on improving this one.Phmoreno (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't presented any reason not to include "historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics" in detail, or presented any evidence other than your opinion that the article is less effective as a result. Any understanding of the US (or any country) as a "political and geographic entity" will inevitably be impaired if readers are not provided with the historical, economic, sociological and demographic context. Misplaced Pages's strength compared to conventional paper encyclopedias is that it isn't bound by the space constraints enforced by books. Statistics have shown that readers are significantly less likely to look beyond an initial article for information by clicking on links; by not providing information in a widely-searched-for article like this one, we impair their ability to get information and thus their understanding of the topic they searched for, directly in contradiction of Misplaced Pages's goals. Your opinion of this article as "low rating" isn't justification to drastically rewrite it.Rwenonah (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of this is amateurish garbage based on a very limited understanding of the subject matter and supported with low quality references.Phmoreno (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If we exclude historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics, what should we discuss? TFD (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion is not the proposal. Quote: "Sections for these topics should include only a paragraph or two summary." In other words, instead of spending, at this point in mainspace, ~850 words in the population-subsection of United_States#Demographics, followed by a medium chunk of text about languages, a big chunk about religions, and a relatively-small chunk about family structures (itself ~238 words), we should be able to condense that *entire* demographics section down into a two-paragraph-summary of the demographics-related material. Here's a shot at cutting the first big chunk down to size: "The population is over 320m today, up from 75m circa 1900, and is still growing relatively quickly." "37 ancestry groups have more than one million members: 13% African American, 5% Asian, 1% American Indian and Alaska Native, and 2% multiracial. (Orthogonally, 17% identify as Hispanic/Latino.)" "Something about racial-percentage trends." "Something about immigration patterns, maybe just a wikilink." "Two sentences on sexuality and family structure, respectively." "Two sentences about major cities and percent urbanization and such." That's under 100 words, but includes some handwaving; it would probably still be under 200 words once fleshed out, and once wikilinked, it decently summarizes the topic of United_States#Population (that currently burns up 850 words).

    That is what Phmoreno is proposing, as I understand it: slash the verbiage, and just wikilink to the main articles, for the small slice of the readership that wants all the details, such as the exact number of millions of people in the United States with "exclusively native Hawaiian or Pacific island ancestry". It's 0.5 million, mainspace currently claims. But who is checking that summarized-figure stays up to date? Who comes to the United States article seeking that particular factoid, is also worth asking? We give that factoid in the subsidiary article, Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity, and *there* we say the exact figure is either 481,576 or maybe 540,013 ... with roughly 58,437 of those (we don't say which estimate is "those" unfortunately) identifying as Hispanic/Latino. I'm reasonably certain somebody is keeping up with *that* exacting census-data. I'm not sure the parenthetical 0.5m factoid-estimate at United States is getting anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny. Better to send the readership to the dedicated article, where they can see the exact figures (and the conflicting sources!) for themselves; rather than have it here in this article, just link to the article that properly covers the datasets in question. It is not just a question of whether this article is too long to be read comfortably, it is a question of whether this article is too overly-detailed to be reliably maintained. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is notability to the content about the Hawaiian population and a good amount of readers may well be coming here for basic information in regards to the US State Department's recent declaration and it's actual efforts to regain a government to government relationship to the nation of Hawaii. Of all the states, Hawaii is still considered a stand alone nation, even among the US government officials. The content seems relevant to that section to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the wiki-notability of the government of Hawaii (either the state-of-the-union government or the quasi-independent-royalty-one), nor the population-demographics of Hawaii, I'm arguing that we don't need excruciating detail in this top-level article. Broad strokes for the top-level article, not pointillism. I picked the 0.5 million-exclusively-native-Hawaiian-or-Pacific-island-ancestry number on purpose as an excruciating level detail inappropriate for a toplevel article. Here is the full sentence mainspace has: "In 2010, the U.S. population included an estimated 5.2 million people with some American Indian or Alaska Native ancestry (2.9 million exclusively of such ancestry) and 1.2 million with some native Hawaiian or Pacific island ancestry (0.5 million exclusively)." I'm suggesting that the particular factoid at the end, the parenthetical "...(0.5 million exclusively)" factoid, is excruciatingly detailed. There are 1.2 million Hawaiian-or-other-islander people, so presumably they'd make the cut at getting a mention in the list. But of the 37 ancestry groups with more than a million members, we don't need to list them all, in the top-level article; the exact percentages of German-stock-population, et cetera, are not something that the usual encyclopedias will cover the the thousandth decimal place. You are suggesting that Hawaii is important, and deserves at *least* as much coverage as we already give it in mainspace at the United States top-level article, right? So you want to mention the 1.2 million figure mixed figure, and also the 0.5 million pure figure. But why stop there? We could actually mention what percentage of that 0.5 million is directly descended from specific famous families, and mention notable members of those families. We could do the same for all the other states in the United States, mentioning all the wiki-notable people and families that make up the population of those states, because what is the United States, but the sum of all her citizens? But then the article would be a hundred times longer than it already is, and it would contain duplicative content, that better belongs in subsidiary articles, and is not helpful in the toplevel article. You have to draw the line somewhere. Currently, the article draws the line at 850 words on population-demographics, including the 1.2-million-but-also-0.5-million bit about Hawaiian-and-other-islander ancestry (we need both numeric factoids?), the recent growth of San Bernardino (and four other cities?), the average number of of children per woman in the 1800s (a good statistic for a toplevel article but do we really need that factoid to a precision of two decimal places?) ... and a bunch of other stuff. We have lost sight of the forest, for all the undergrowth. The suggestion that we cut the verbiage by half, is a suggestion that we cut out the details that are better and more accurately left to subsidiary articles, rather than maintaining them imprecisely, twice. p.s. Technically, WP:OR strongly suggests Alaska is more-standalone than Hawaii, no matter what "many" politicians say; Alaska has more oil, and more assault-rifles-per-citizen, than Hawaii.  ;-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statistics are less likely to be updated on a much less high-profile, less edited article like Demographics of the United States, meaning that the problem you mention is just begin shifted off to another article where it is less likely to be solved. There's no objective reason an 850-word section is worse than a 100-word one. In fact, given that most readers don't click links, it's better that we provide more detail in the main article than less. Misplaced Pages isn't a paper encyclopedia limited by page space; as long as the article is fluid, readable and easy to navigate, we should include as much detail as possible, rather than removing things for the sake of removing things. When we cut detail, we aren't "sending readers to the dedicated article"; we're effectively denying them information for the sake of unnecessary brevity. Rwenonah (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that having two sets of statistics, in two places (at least!), is somehow making both sets more likely to be updated, and more likely to stay in sync. Having one set of detailed statistics, and on overview-which-elides-most-details, is the correct way to achieve one reliable set of statistics: put all your eggs in one basket, and then Watch That Basket, is what I'm advocating doing. The reason that readers don't click into another article, is because they believe what they see in this article. But as Phmoreno ... albeit with a rather pointed lack of tact unfortunately ... was pointing out, the problem is that this top-level article has Too Much Information to be completely accurate, the sheer bulk means *some* small bit of it is going to be outdated, at any given time. There are 331,360 bytes of wikitext at present; even if only 0.01% of that is wrong, we're still talking 33 bytes of inaccuracy, aka six wrong words. Whereas for my own argument, per my reply to MarkMiller above, I'm pointing out that this article has too much *excruciating detail* to be completely accurate. Specifically, when we give the rounded mini-factoid "...(0.5 million exclusively)" we are glossing over the *actual* status of that figure -- one source estimates 480k and another source estimates 530k, if memory serves. Sure, those both round to 0.5 million ... but doing the rounding, and conflating the two sources together, to cram the factoid into this already-bloated toplevel article, means that readers don't get informed of the fact that the sources are not in agreement with each other... and their disagreement is fairly significant, tens of thousands of people, is the differential. Anyways, significant pruning like what is being proposed here needs strong consensus, and from the look of EllenCT's push to add more and more details, and other bits of this talkpage, the article is likely to grow even more gigatic than ever in the near term, rather than experience the drastic verbosity-lossage I'm advocating. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Parties and elections edit

In “Parties and elections” section, propose to remove outdated photo of political branches leadership (executive and legislative) and replace it with a map representing divisions found under a two party system as illustrated in the 2012 Electoral Vote cartogram.

Add to the one sentence third paragraph to read,

The winner of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, Democrat Barack Obama, is the 44th, and current, U.S. president. Current leadership in the Senate includes Democratic Vice President Joseph Biden, and Republican President Pro Tempore (Pro Tem) Orrin Hatch. Current leadership in the House includes Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner, and Minority Leader Democratic Nancy Pelosi.

1. US Senate, Senate Organization Chart for the 114th Congress, viewed August 25, 2015.
2. US House of Representatives, Leadership, viewed August 25, 2015.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The photo serves as an illustration of the bipartsian process of governing; the map does nothing but show how particular electoral votes were doled out in 2012. It doesn't indicate how strongly each state is for that color, like a congressional map would; it has absolutely no relevance to congressional representation at all. If people want to know how the election went, we have more than enough articles about that very subject. I would sooner suggest removing the photo than adding this map, it has no place in this summary article. And even if your point is to illustrate the lockdown of the two-party system, I'm sure there are better ways than this. --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The section is “Parties and elections”. National party legal existence is in National Conventions to nominate presidential candidates, not in Congressional caucuses, the section is not "Congressional caucuses". The 2012 Electoral Vote represents party successes in state elections voting for the national office of President of the United States. The map as a cartogram shows the relative size of the states casting Electoral College vote, the people choose a president in their states independent of Congressional lockdown, Congressional District turnout per se is irrelevant.

If your point is that state geographic diversity should be reflected in the Electoral College, then we can work together to expand the District Plan that Maine and Nebraska have, but the President is not elected by the Congress, so a congressional map of presidential votes would be irrelevant to “Parties and elections” in the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is simply that the map is irrelevant. It shows how the states voted for president in 2012; what does that illustrate for this summary article? If people want to know how the states voted in 2012 the article is linked right there. Basically, the image illustrates a subtopic, rather than improves general understanding of the topic of the United States. Knowing how the electoral votes were doled out in 2012 doesn't enhance my knowledge of the topic "United States" at all. Of the 2012 election, yes. Of people involved in it, perhaps. Of the country as a whole, not really. --Golbez (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course the map is relevant. The section is “Parties and elections”, the map depicts the two major parties in an election reflecting persistent regional divisions as a whole as it really is. Of course another aspect might show the disparity between presidential returns and the gerrymandered state results in Congressional Districts.

That would take two maps, though again the cartogram is better graphically. What is called for is an update of this cartogram Congressional District map for comparison.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not follow that since every illustration considered is of something specific, it cannot be admitted since it does not encompass the entire nation’s history in all places at a glance. The section will admit one perhaps two images of something.

US national parties meet in national conventions to select candidates for president, a national office. They are made up of state and territory delegations reflecting the party voting and population of each. For an article about the nation's Parties and elections, a national office is appropriate, and this rationale serves for picturing elected national office holders. But an image of the US process of nominating a presidential candidate informs the reader's knowledge of the topic "United States, parties and elections" by illustrating part of the process among citizens by states meeting nationally, not just the result of Congressional party office elections.

WP prefers not mirroring other articles. The selection here shows a recent national convention (Democratic 2008) for the sitting president at the time of a roll call of a particular state (New York), and the companion major national convention (Republican 2008) from the floor addressed by the nominee. Each image is used in one other article, at the NY Democratic primary 2008 and at John McCain. Neither is linked in the United States article in the way the election maps are. These image should meet all previous objections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the maps? Please keep talk page entries stable. The maps made more sense than these pictures, which say nothing; they're just pictures of conventions. But we don't need any more graphics than necessary, because this page is so slow to load as it is. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The section is “United States, Parties and elections”. It has had an illustration which is now out of date showing the leaders of the two political branches, a sitting president and four past Congressional leaders. It should be replaced with an alternative which will not recognizably slow the loading speed of the article but related to parties and elections.

I propose two alternatives, a) one with national maps objected to on the grounds they do not represent the country as a whole, and b) one with party conventions nominating candidates for elections to illustrate “Parties and elections”. That is now objected to on the grounds that it is only an illustration of conventions of parties for elections, and that says “nothing” about “Parties and elections".

The images explain how it is party candidates in elections for the national office of president and vice-president are chosen, by delegates from states in conventions of all 50 states, DC and 5 territories. Please explain your objection further. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I rather like the Democratic convention photo, though the caption is needlessly descriptive. I don't see a purpose to the far lower quality Republican convention photo. --Golbez (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The right-hand map is an excellent graphic, showing constitution of the House by party and concentration of population. It's a good summary map, not used elsewhere, that I could see. It's too bad that the presidential results aren't shown on it. That states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted Democratic for president is remarkable, given how covered in red they are otherwise. Having a second map showing the presidential results as just labels is a much lesser graphic, as I indicated before. The problem with the convention photos, for me, is that they don't elucidate the process (note the barely visible state-delegation signs and tiny, off-to-the side total shown for New York, in the D. convention photo), with the R. photo being definitely sub-par (focus very poor). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We have maps illustrating the section above, the crowd photos add visual interest. The congressional election map on the right is used at United States elections, 2012, and United States House of Representatives elections, 2012.

The convention photos elucidate, explain and spell out the process of electing a national office by state, as the electoral vote is made by state: the DNC photo shows the NY roll call vote, the delegation spot lit, and the RNC photo from the floor clearly shows the signage at the location of the Kentucky, Wisconsin and South Carolina delegations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the map when I looked. However, it's of more intriguing visual interest to me. The convention photos are pretty poor, IMO. What about an updated photo such as what is there now, with a caption enumerating the current political leadership (including Senate caucus leaders, which aren't mention in the extract you posted above)? Dhtwiki (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

All objections removed. I simply don't care anymore. --Golbez (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Update to section done, adding current congressional leaders, linking to sources for any further updates in this Congress, and removing outdated image. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture of Congressional leadership is a function of Congressional in-house elections, not directly related to the people. Not sure why Dhtwiki's CD map is removed, but Wikicommons still offers this map of Congressional District elections. Is this agreeable? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture was a good one, and it allowed the listing of important officials (caucus leaders) not listed in the infobox, a good representation of national political leadership. What is "Dhtwiki's CD map" and where has it been removed? Both maps that I like are now present on the talk page. However much I like the map, because it's limited to House districts, it's somewhat flawed as the representative graphic for the section. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

At least we now have sourced narrative in the section to justify a congressional leadership image. Wikicommons does not seem to provide a current one. As possible alternates for upload, Truth in Media has a leadership image from 2014 at . And IBMs API page seems to invite free usage of its image, which might qualify for WP use at .

I still prefer the double convention illustration as the best example of “Parties and elections” with samples of the entire national population gathered in one place, but I can live with an image of current Congressional leadership, as Congress is the First Branch and closest to the people. In the mean time, should the Congressional District map be used as a place holder? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not put the old picture back, with the caption reworked to show the changes (Cantor replaced by McCarthy; the majority/minority roles reversed in the Senate), until we get an updated photo? The CD map is pretty but needs study in high res, and the second map to show how "red" states in terms of cong. district area can be "blue" in terms of how the population votes. I don't think that the convention photos offer much, as I've said. I haven't examined the photos you referenced, and am not well-versed enough in copyright to offer much help in determining whether they're usable here. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A picture of the US President with House and Senate leadership still does not represent the voters of the country in party elections as well as the national party conventions nominating candidates for a presidential election. The old picture had a caption longer than 1-3 lines which cluttered the section. It seemed like a Hill staffer did a promotional hack job for his/her Member. Leadership is listed at United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, so the caption could be shortened to 1-3 lines, "the US President with 2013 House and Senate leadership”. But we should await a current photo unless you think dating the shortened caption is sufficient. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the picture there now is as representative of elections and their outcomes as any one photo can be. The convention photos just aren't good, and where are the Libertarians, the Green Party, Peace and Freedom, etc., as they have conventions too? The caption could simply read President Obama meets with congressional leadership in 2011. BTW, the linkage in your proposed caption is not as good as what you set up in the article body, which leads directly to pages giving Senate and House leadership up front. The photo is by a White House photographer, and works by U.S. government employees seem to be usable on Misplaced Pages by that reason. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Other than the Democrats and Republicans, other party conventions do not rise to the level of significance. Libertarians (on the ballot but gaining 0.5% of the vote), Green Peace (0.4%) and Peace and Freedom parties (on the ballot in California, Iowa and Utah) do not gain electoral college votes,

So we are agreed, over a ten-day discussion, and since Golbez dropped out, to the pre-existing photo, caption “President Obama meets with congressional leadership in 2011” without links, adding updated narrative with links to support the image. Very well, collaborative improvement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The independent parties don't get electoral votes in presidential elections, but there are two independent senators, and there are, no doubt, other elected officials of independent affiliation. Plus, for how many is a party political convention that relevant? I suspect that most vote for party candidates in primary elections, and that's the limit of their involvement. A better representative picture would probably be one of a voting booth or ballot, if we had to find something other than one similar to what's there now. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'independent' Senators caucus with the major party that is closest to their stances; they are independent in name, but not in voting-pattern. Most people don't vote, roughly speaking; those that do vote, only vote in the general elections (and often only the presidential ones not the midterms), but only rarely vote in the party-primaries. That said, I think that the usrep-maps and ecVote-maps are important because they show political *control* of the country... I don't think they have any substantial correlation with what people actually *want* (or would be perceived to want if we used some other kind of voting system), but that doesn't mean the maps don't have meaning, just that we should be careful to neutrally and accurately describe the meaning the maps do actually convey. p.s. TheVirginiaHistorian, the Green Party e.g. Jill Stein is distinct from Greenpeace e.g. Michael Bailey.     75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Well, 1) we have me and Golbez for convention floor pics, but Golbez withdrew, but it is still my druthers, and 2) me and Dhtwiki for the existing pic of president and Congressional leadership until an updated image is located, and 3) at different times, me and you for the us rep-map, with Dhtwiki once saying he could live with it, but for me, that’s now visually awkward with a map in the section just above. Did you have a caption in mind to run by Dhtwiki? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've looked for a suitable replacement photo at whitehouse.gov. They have mostly videos, not still pictures. The most promising video, from which I might have gotten a frame with everyone in it, had Sen. Durbin subbing for the injured Harry Reid. So, it may be awhile. However, their copyright (i.e. no copyright) indicates that we can use whatever we can find. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It is a government source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Why has Misplaced Pages stopped showing the breakdown of religions in the summary panel in entries on a respective country?

This seems to have been a unilateral decision affecting all entries for countries - I was advised by the Misplaced Pages information team to address this question to an article talk page.

"Decisions like these are made by the volunteer editors who donate their time maintaining our various articles. You can ask questions to them on the article talk pages. Simply click the "talk" or "discussion" tab at the top of any article, then click "new section" to start a thread with a new section. Click the "edit" button next to a thread title to add a message to an existing thread.

Yours sincerely, Robert Johnson" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.188.122 (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're referring to? --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the state of the article, in June. Looks pretty similar to now. But my guess is that we used to have something about "47% Protestant / 21% Catholic / etc" up top, in the infobox (which is what I think Robert meant by "summary panel"). Definitely seems to be some changes to infobox-content between June and now, anyways. Ping User:Golbez, do you remember, did there used to be an infobox-sub-section which listed major religions and their percentages? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe? But it's better handled in the text rather than the infobox. We don't have ethnicity or relative language use in the infobox either. --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This Article should be called The United States of America because the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico.

This Article should be called The United States of America because the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.184 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The official name of Mexico is "United Mexican States". There are virtually no instances in English of Mexico being referred to as "United States", so I don't think your concerns are realistic. Dustin (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That line of reasoning has been rejected in the past. Also, unless something had changed it has been shown previously that even the Spanish Misplaced Pages does not use Unitied Sates of America.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"the United States of America" is common enough for us to rename the article just that. The United States of America is often called "United States" and "America". However, those are just shorter terms for the country's name; "the United States of America" is both the official name and is very common so I support renaming this article. However, my reasoning for changing the name of this article is for a different reason than the original reason given. Prcc27 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Regardless of any "official" name, the WP:COMMONNAME of our southern neighbor in English is simply "Mexico", a fact which leaves "United States" both unambiguous and WP:PRECISE. The status quo naming of the two articles is fine (i.e. in accordance with policy).--William Thweatt 09:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the likelihood someone searching for "United States" is looking for Mexico rather than the United States of America? TFD (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, not using Unitied States since it is the shorter term does not fly either since if Misplaced Pages wanted the full names North Korea would titlec the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Tne Unitied Kingdom does not use the full name for the title either.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mexico's official name is the United Mexican States, not the United States of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the two just variant translations? "Mexican" literally means "of Mexico". How is this different from "steel bar" vs "bar of steel"? Admittedly, the "United Mexican States" is the usual translation, but how can you say that "United States of Mexico" is wrong when they are exact synonyms? --Khajidha (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

How many sources do you have that use "United States" to refer to Mexico? WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear on this; when people use the term "United States", they overwhelmingly mean this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply asking a question about translation. To me, the English forms "United Mexican States" and "United States of Mexico" seem to be exactly equivalent, but others seem to see some distinction that I am missing.--Khajidha (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

They aren't exact synonyms. For example, on the Spanish Misplaced Pages, the United States is "Estados Unidos de America". But Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". Not of Mexico, simply "United Mexican States" (or, "Mexican United States"). The distinction is being made for a reason, so we should respect it. It's the difference between... I'm not sure if this specifically applies in this case, but it's just to illustrate that the terms are not synonyms: "Republic of Madagascar" vs "Malagasy Republic". The former is saying it's the republic of a region named Madagascar; the latter is saying it's the republic of the Malagasy people (who happen to live on the island of Madagascar). Similar, but not synonymous, despite pertaining to the exact same land. --Golbez (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So the term "Mexican" is being used to mean the people? Is that the distinction you are making? Because otherwise "Mexican" is simply an adjective meaning "of Mexico" and, again, the two forms are equivalent. In English we COULD say the "American United States" with no change in meaning from "United States of America". We don't, but we could. --Khajidha (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying "United States of X" and "Xian United States" are not 100% synonymous in all cases. Furthermore, the official translation is United Mexican States. And yes, you could say American United States, but you'd be wrong because no one uses that name, either officially or colloquially. Some people might use "United States of Mexico" informally but it would be incorrect to use it formally, just as it would be incorrect to say "American United States" formally. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I still haven't seen an English example of when "______an" and "of ______" would have different meanings (not a Spanish example, not Madagascar vs Malagasy). I'm not arguing about what is the officially used translation, I'm not saying we should use "American United States". I'm simply asking how "__________an" and "of ________" can have different meanings. But this is way off topic, so let's just drop it.--Khajidha (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't name articles based on what could be, we name them based on what is. This article is called United States because this subject is called that. "United States of Mexico" is not used by reliable sources in the English language, and even if it was, no source uses United States to refer to Mexico, so there is no cause to rename this article on that rationale. Even if United States were used to also refer to Mexico, WP:COMMONNAME would apply, and even in that incredibly hypothetical situation, it couldn't be argued that when the overwhelming majority of sources use the term United States, they mean anything other than this article. That is why there is absolutely no reason to change this article based on that rationale. There's an album called United States (album), but we don't change this title for that per WP:COMMONNAME. This scenario you're presenting is even less of a reason to, because there's no way someone would confuse United States for Mexico. - Aoidh (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for "Very long" template?

This page may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (September 2015)

Any explanation?Ernio48 (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That was just added here. I don't remember any discussion, so can't explain why it was placed; but I can't say that I disagree. However, if you want a discussion, I think you should come up with a less-cryptic section heading, as well as posting more fully as to why an explanation is needed. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I spot checked over the last six months, the page is saved as File size 66 kB including yesterday, but it shows on the current page as 1174 kB. Otherwise the page size is "readable prose size" in all cases, since April up 1 kB in prose size, up 1 kB in references, up 98 words. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading again, to something closer to what the OP's concern was. While loading time isn't complained of here, that is my complaint; and my problem may be due to the unusual number of references generating tooltip javascript on my computer that doesn't have a dedicated GPU. Not at all sure of that, but slowness in loading is my complaint, not just length of the article, which is reasonably coherent and navigable by me. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I too think that reference-list might be the reason for network congestion here. Even though the list is already divided into 3 columns it takes about 1/4 of the article space. -- Chamith (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it. Drive by tagging is discouraged. Calidum 04:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Redundant

Not all immigrants came from Europe in Ellis island, did you know you also had immigrants from other parts of the old world?????. The word "European" in the image caption wrongly narrows a wider concept. It's better to keep it general because keep in mind that people came from all over at that time and it would be imprudent to say that Ellis island was a European-only gateway of immigration because of the major influx of immigrants in the island. Taking away European would sound more fitting due to the uncertainty of the possible origins of immigrants to Ellis island. Yes, there were many immigrants from various parts of Europe but also from other parts outside Europe. Many tend to hear of Europeans in Ellis island and wrongly associated Ellis island as a gateway for European immigration and miss that it also a gateway for other immigrants but due to associations to European immigration, tend to think only about the European immigrants and not other groups, cultures, ethnicity and so on. I had people who constantly reverted my edit without saying a "concrete" why. Nevertheless I hope someone will join. (N0n3up (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

The image caption in question says Ellis Island in New York City was a major gateway for European immigration., which doesn't say that it handled only European immigration, nor that it was the only place European immigrants came in (the large influx of German and Irish immigration for which the 19th century is famous must have happened elsewhere). So, the caption isn't in error. The question then becomes is the caption somehow unduly misleading. Ellis Island has become associated with European immigration. If the percentage of non-European immigration is statistically large enough to show that that is an erroneous impression, then the caption probably should be reworked. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dhtwiki Right, but then you had immigrants from all over. Even though most of them came from Europe, they also came from other places. So it would be prudent to be a bit more general in this type of description. Because you also had Immigrants that came from the Levant such as Lebanese and Syrians who would have taken the same route as Europeans to the US. An example would be New York City's famous associations with Italian immigrants due to famous interpretations (e.g The Godfather), but you also had Greek-Americans in New York City, where their population is the largest in the US. So letting the redundant "European" would give an idea of the European migrants but not the wider image if you know what I'm saying. So why not be a bit general in the caption.

Here's something to look at. (N0n3up (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

It is true that it was not just Europeans that came through Ellis Island. However it is wildly known and The gateway for European immigrates. "Immigrants sailed to America in hopes of carving out new destinies for themselves. Most were fleeing religious persecution, political oppression and economic hardships. Thousands of people arrived daily in New York Harbor on steamships from mostly Eastern and Southern Europe. The first and second class passengers were allowed to pass inspection aboard ship and go directly ashore. Only steerage passengers had to take the ferry to Ellis Island for inspection." http://www.powayusd.com/online/usonline/worddoc/ellisislandsite.htm Reb1981 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

DhtwikiReb1981 aight guys Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC))

Ellis Island only operated from 1892 through 1914 at high-capacity; prior to that it was an arsenal, and both during and immediately after WWI immigration was greatly restricted (especially after 1924). Here is the breakdown of the country-or-religion-of-origin during the ~1895/~1903/~1911 centerpoints:

• ~#1, ~#1, ~#1, italian
• ~#2, ~#4, ~#4, german
• ???, ~#2, ~#3, jewish (not sure if this was tracked the same way prior to the 1900 re-opening of Ellis)
• >#8, ~#3, ~#2, polish

Those are the major groups. There are also several second-tier groups:

• ~#3, >#8, >#8, austro-hungarian
• ~#4, >#8, >#8, russian
• ~#6, ~#5, ~#6, scandinavian
• ~#5, ~#7, ~#7, irish
• >#8, ~#6, ~#5, british

These figures are not broken down in any exact fashion, and in particular, I don't know how accurate the rankings are. Generally speaking, though, during the main years when Ellis was a major immigration-processing-facility, the top dozen-or-so groups (with slovak probably being tenth place followed by croat at eleventh, and then scotland/france/greece/spain shooting upwards following the end of WWI when throttles were put in place) were European, broadly speaking. Since no percentages are given, and smaller ethnic groups are not enumerated, I don't know if that is good enough for wikipedia. But to a rough approximation, it seems fair to say Ellis was mostly processing European (and Jewish -- we cannot say they were specifically-European-Jews without engaging in WP:OR here) immigrants, primarily. As was mentioned by User:Dhtwiki, this is a question of percentages, which my source does NOT give us: does anybody know what percentage of Ellis Island processing was for European-origin immigrants, and what was not? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: debt owed to Haiti

https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/inside-ccr/why-us-owes-haiti-billions-briefest-history-bill

Haiti is a special case which should be reported in a general article such as this one. 184.99.206.71 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Chamith (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That article could help improve Haiti–United States relations. EllenCT (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Progressivity of taxes, again

I strongly object to this edit attempting to restore extremely biased Heritage Foundation and Peter G. Peterson Foundation sources to support the absurd assertion that U.S. taxes are "among the most progressive in the developed world." EllenCT (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not an absurd assertion that "U.S. taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world." If you look at a list of OECD countries (generally equivalent to the term "developed world") sorted by percentage of taxes paid by the top earners, you will see that the US is at the TOP of that list. The statement that U.S. taxes are AMONG the most progressive in the developed world is, if anything, an understatement.

The fact that US taxes are very progressive isn't just made up by the Heritage Foundation and Peter G. Peterson Foundation. It is extensively documented in news media and respected organizations, ranging from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-tax-system-just-keeps-on-getting-more-and-more-progressive/) to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/) to the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/). I'm sure you can agree that these are valid sources and most certainly not biased in favor of conservative politics. It's also noteworthy that in the Atlantic source, it's mentioned that the OECD has explicitly stated that the high percentage in taxes paid by America's highest earners is due to the unusually progressive tax system (in addition to being caused in part by the high share of income of the top earners).

Not to mention, you keep altering a statement that is absolutely, 100% indisputable: that the U.S. tax system is "generally progressive." This is a graph that shows what a progressive tax distribution looks like: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/distribution/progressive-taxes.cfm If it were even remotely flat, then you could make an argument that our tax system isn't "generally progressive." But you are just wrong on this one. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

U.S. taxes are generally progressive the same way the plains are generally sloped. http://www.itep.org/whopays/executive_summary.php EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your mathematical analogy is incorrect. Please see these definitions on regressive, proportional, and progressive taxation. The tax system in the USA is progressive. This is a mathematical definition used to describe the economic situation; it has very little relationship to the term progressive politician. Bernie Sanders is a progressive politician, and thus he favors mathematically-progressive taxation system such as the IRS, but plenty of "conservative" politicians (using the American lexicon not the worldwide view of what it means to be "conservative") are also in favor of mathematically-progressive taxation systems to one degree or another.

In any case, though, before we can discuss the mathematical degree to which the USA is a progressive-taxation-regime, relative to France and other countries, first we have to define our terms: progressive-taxation is a mathematical concept, used by economists, and is only vaguely correlated with Progressive political views. Misplaced Pages should state the facts succinctly and in a neutral tone, and explain how the terms are defined and used, so that the readership is not confused about what the meaning of mainspace prose actually is. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

How many kilobytes do you think it would take to support the contention that U.S. taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world? EllenCT (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your source is dealing exclusively with state taxes. It should be noted that the size and scope of state taxes pales in comparison to that of federal taxes. On the whole, the U.S. tax system is very progressive. Yes, you can cherry pick for tiny components of tax revenue that are not progressive (e.g. FICA tax, certain state income taxes), and I could respond by cherry picking for components that are extremely progressive (corporate income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, etc.), but at the end of the day, that gets us nowhere. Instead, why don't we just mutually acknowledge that when taking everything into account, the affluent pay a significantly larger share of their incomes than the lower-classes, and to a degree that exceeds just about every other developed country on earth. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah.... good old ITEP.org. It's an advocacy group and not at all a reliable source and makes absolutely no comparison between countries. OECD doesn't have an axe to grind and provides context relative to other nations. States vary, and frankly ITEP uses a black box calculation which they use to push their agenda. We cannot accept it for the basis of changing the article.Mattnad (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Which OECD characterization do you like? One of them treats taxes and transfer payments differently than the other countries. EllenCT (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Progressiveness of taxes is separate from how a country spends. You like to conflate them to confuse the discussion. We've been through this before. Not biting. And don't bring back ITEP again please. Not a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Since EllenCT misrepresented the sources she was removing and failed to provide anything close to resembling a valid basis for disputing the material, I propose that the garish factual accuracy disputed box tag she decorated the article with be removed. This has been discussed to death over the years with EllenCT across multiple articles and she refuses to get it. Even her lone ITEP source doesn't dispute the fact that US taxation is progressive, nor does it make any international comparisons (so it can't dispute that portion of the well sourced segment either). The fact that ITEP/CTJ is a lobbying outfit with an opaque methodology and its results are dramatically contradicted by more reliable sources like the CBO, Tax Policy Center, and Tax Foundation is almost beside the point. The fact that EllenCT spent over a year misrepresenting ITEP's methodology on corporate tax incidence in an attempt to spin away this discrepancy (she claimed they treat corporate taxes regressively when they actually treat them extremely progressively, one of the few relatively transparent aspects of their process) is also almost beside the point. Even her source acknowledges US taxation is "progressive" (ITEP/CTJ publications regarding overall taxation; as was pointed out above, the specific page she links to here doesn't even comment on federal taxes). Case closed. Since she's identified me in the past as her chief opponent on this issue she may have thought that because I was away from this talk page for a while she could sneak this ridiculous, baseless change in. Fortunately there were responsible editors like Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq, Mattnad, and Capitalismojo paying attention. VictorD7 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented ITEP's findings or methodology, and their findings are far more accurate than the discredited supply side trickle down contention that taxes should be less progressive. http://www.itep.org/whopays/ is far more accurate than opposing sources from the Heritage or Peterson foundations. EllenCT (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT> Yes you have, and you're still misrepresenting the sources disputing you on this. For example, neither the CBO, the Tax Policy Center, a joint creation of the left leaning Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, nor the academic Oxford Journal study used to source the segment advocate "supply side trickle down" economics. VictorD7 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a well-known OECD report attesting to this; surely you're not really asserting that IETP is more neutral or a better source than the OECD? Rwenonah (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several OECD reports on the topic, but one of them is often misrepresented. Is that the one you meant? I would gladly replace all 2,000 characters of Heritage and Peterson foundations' sources with an unbiased characterization of those OECD figures. EllenCT (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Even your link doesn't dispute the basis of OECD report, it just says that the US does "less to fight inequality" than other countries. Progressivity of taxes and these spending of those taxes (on welfare, etc.) are totally separate issues, and I don't know why you're trying to pretend they're the same. Rwenonah (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So that was indeed the specific OECD report to which you were referring? Please see tax expenditure for the symmetrical equivalence of taxes and transfer payments. EllenCT (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT, that's apples (progressive taxation) and oranges (social welfare spending). To other editors, EllenCT repeatedly uses the same arguments, has received pushback over the years, and when things go quiet, she tries again to push her POV. Be warned, you're in for a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Mattnad (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources that say the tax system is among the most progressive in the world are all unreliable, either they are "conservative" think tanks or columnists. It is very easy to take selective information to come to any conclusion one wants. We need a reliable source to support this. TFD (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How's OECD for a reliable source? Rwenonah (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, please tell me you're joking. Forbes, the Washington Post, and the Atlantic have all explicitly stated that US taxation is among the most progressive in the world. Don't try to tell me that the Washington Post and the Atlantic are conservative. I'll post the links again here, because clearly you didn't look above:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-tax-system-just-keeps-on-getting-more-and-more-progressive/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

If you have a problem with the current sources in the article, you could perhaps replace them with one of these. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And indeed the article already covers the US having a proportionally smaller welfare state elsewhere. Tax progressivity is a separate issue. VictorD7 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Forbes does not "explicitly state that the U.S. taxation is among the most progressive in the world." Rather, it published an opinion piece by a fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, a right-wing think tank, that says that. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources for facts. "Wonkblog" although hosted by the Washington Post is actually a blog, providing opinion reports. The Atlantic Journal report is also an opinion piece. Notice that the last opinion piece sets out to rebut another opinion piece that says U.S. taxes are not progressive. Notice that it also mentions that Paul Krugman, who is an economist, also does not think U.S. taxes are progressive. None of your sources meet rs standards. TFD (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually opinion pieces can be reliable sources for facts depending on circumstance. In this case they're just reflecting underlying facts produced by groups like the OECD, CBO, and this academic study published in the journal Socio-Economic Review that you apparently missed. I doubt even Krugman, who's widely known as a wild eyed partisan fire breather (some might say lunatic, but I'll refrain here), would deny that taxation per se is progressively structured (he might try to conflate taxes with another issue, like spending, as EllenCT did above). Regardless, if you actually read the Krugman piece linked to in the article you mention it's just a few lines of name calling and vague, disjointed claims about inequality, not tax progressivity per se. I'll add that Washington Post writer Dylan Matthews is an admitted liberal writing to liberals in his piece acknowledging that US taxes are more progressive than in Europe, citing facts from the aforementioned study, since you were so eager to tag an ideology to the Forbes article. Some don't like to emphasize the fact that US taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world, preferring instead to focus on spending or income inequality (both also amply covered in this article), but as far as the facts are concerned, this isn't controversial. VictorD7 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion habits food USA

"American eating habits owe a great deal to that of their British culinary roots with some variations. Although American lands could grow newer vegetables England could not, most colonists would not eat these new foods until accepted by Europeans." is what I deleted

References

1. Harvey A. Levenstein (1988). Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23439-0.

The source here is to a broken link. The link is to a page where I can buy a book. Not an actual source, there's no proof and all that this quote is in the book. I have researched this independently on my own and have not found anything of the sort related to this material. This is an opinionated argument and not a fact you can easily look up. The source does not share this quote or fact; it isn't in it from any link posted and is in fact a broken source and a link that does not lead to the information written.

I recommend deleting this post until the user or whoever has written it can find identifiable information by a credible source leading to the statement. It does not further the page or help anyone understand anything about this topic nor is credible or have any identifiable backing of any kind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryantheravensfan1 (talk • contribs)

That info is on page 3 of the book; anyone can look it up. Go to Google Books, type the name of the book ("Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet"), scroll past the table of contents to page 3 and there it is. In general, it's not a requirement for Misplaced Pages sources to be actually online for immediate access, although Google Books makes it easy in many cases. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Orange Suede Sofa is correct that Misplaced Pages does not require sources to be available online. See Misplaced Pages:Offline sources. As it happens, this source is viewable at Google Books; here is a convenience link to the cited page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Links are never required, although page no., which is now added, is. I do not see anything opinionated about it Why wouldn't colonists eat the same types of foods as they did in the UK? TFD (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

United States of America - request the name for the article Suggestion

I request the article be named the United States of America as the common name and a better proper name

The name of the country is the United States of America per the USA Constitution: "...establish this Constitution for the United States of America" the name used on US paper money, Air Force 1, et al.

WP recommends doing a google search as a technique to find the common name. United States of America gets 1.5 billion results United States gets 3 billion results.

But I don't think this is a good technique here, I see lot's of double counted results, and results like the United States of ISIS, etc.

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, United States is such a broad definition, even mexico is the UNITED Mexican STATES officialy. But this page should obviously not be moved to "America", as that would cause so much more conflict, so why not just move it to it's official name, United States of America?

AvRand (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You can see which search term is more popular by visiting this link. Clearly, "United States" is more popular, according to Google. If you are suggesting a move based on the constitution then it's most likely WP:PRECISE you are looking for, not WP:COMMONNAME. However, another editor recently brought up this topic, and the consensus was to keep the title as it is. -- Chamith (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What to do about users reverting to versions linking dispute tags to nonexistent talk page sections?

Could an uninvolved editor please clean up this revert by User:Mattnad who, among other things, replaced a {{disputed-inline}} tag linking to the "Republican Party description" section which has been archived away from this talk page for over a week? Note that he also attempted to revert the unanimous and repeated endorsement of the four income inequality RFCs. And saying US taxes are "among the most progressive in the world" along with several hundred bytes of Heritage and Peterson Foundation sources is not just completely wrong, it's puffery and WP:WEASEL wording, too. EllenCT (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• GA-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
• WikiProject United States articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• GA-Class North America articles
• Top-importance North America articles
• WikiProject North America articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States Government articles with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment