Jump to content

Talk:United States/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

GDP estimate for 2014

So List of countries by GDP (PPP)#Lists has a cited list of International Monetary Fund GDP estimate for 2014. Article China has updated GDP to reflect International Monetary Fund data. And this article still uses the 2013 data (CIA Factbook/World Bank data for 2013). So apparently article about China says $17.507 trillion (1st) 2014 estimate, and U.S. article states $16.768 trillion (1st) 2013 estimate. Some readers might get confused by seeing this. So my point is, should we update U.S. GDP data to reflect International Monetary Fund estimates for 2014? Or should we wait until World Bank/CIA Factbook releases their estimates?--Chamith (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Are readers more likely to be confused by comparing numbers from separate articles, or by seeing a discrepancy between ranking given here and that at List of countries..., which still has U.S. first? I reverted an edit recently on the basis of keeping the ranking here in conformance with that at the list, and that seemed acceptable. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It's most likely to be the ranking. Other articles such as Canada, United Kingdom has also updated their GDP to 2014 estimate. List of countries by GDP has 3 lists from different organizations. Only International Monetary Fund has released 2014 estimate and most articles has updated their GDP in accordance with that. I'm not sure whether that's a good measure given that CIA Factbook and World book hasn't released their estimates. But like I said other articles such as China, Canada, United Kingdom seems to be fine with that.--Chamith (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
While I prefer using the IMF as a source, the China article currently uses data for 2013, listing that economy's GDP PPP as "2nd" (looks like a recent revert). That's probably because, last I checked at least, the 2014 estimate you refer to was merely a future projection, based on incomplete data. One can tell by the different color shading for the year's boxes on the IMF site. I'm not sure the IMF's official number for 2014 has been released yet. In fairness there has been confusion on various articles over this stemming from some really sloppy news/blog coverage going back to last year that went for sensationalistic but inaccurate headlines along the lines of "It's official. IMF says China surpasses US as largest economy", which caused some excited editors to rush to Wikipedia seeking to update with the news. While that may indeed be happening, it was not yet official last I checked. We should use the latest hard numbers in this box, not future projections. VictorD7 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree with you VictorD7. And yes 2014 IMF estimates were removed by this edit.--Chamith (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Bias

This is a well written article as it's one of the most popular on Wikipedia. However reading this article in a different language such as Chinese and Japanese (for reference) shows a different perspective of America. In other languages social problems and American culture are discussed in much greater depth. Other countries are more likely to take a nonpartisan approach when writing about a culture that is not their own. This is not to say other countries are producing a better a better article, but rather that they make some excellent points of their own. Sure this is a fantastic article and very little can be done with it. However our understanding of this article can be expanded by taking points from Wikipedia pages in other languages. 79.140.208.62 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I do agree with you. But the problem is that each language Wikipedias are independent. Which means they have their own set of rules, editors, administrators etc. So most of us, editors in English Wikipedia can't get involved in what's going in other languages. And language difference too acts as barrier. You should try talking to editors in that specific language Wikipedia.--Chamith (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the IP's point is to look at the content in other languages and see if this article could be improved by incorporating (translated) content from them. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes I'm talking about translated content. The problem is this is a huge undertaking. We would need to decide which languages can offer useful information. How much to add and remove from this article. Finding translators to add information. Sourcing information from other languages. Even if all of this was done who is to say it's not going to be reverted because it's a massive change to a major article. While this is an extremely awkward thing to do and would require a lot of work, it almost guarantees the article will be improved, it might also mean major sections need to be rewritten. Doing so would make this article more far reaching than other articles on the internet which only source information from one language. 79.140.208.62 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles that are specific to those issues, perhaps it is best to include that translated content in those sub-articles or specific articles and providing wikilinks here without giving them undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Why do we want to rewrite the article? We could definitely add content, but there is no reason to completely rewrite a GA. Could you be specific on what you would like changed so that we can focus on that first, please? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Re-addition of unverified content

Before an edit war starts, I would like to notify everyone of a reversion of a reversion which was done. While some might argue that that the added content was added is standard knowledge, it was placed next to a reliable source that fails to verify the newly added content. Also does the newly added content need to be given weight in the infobox? I would argue that it does not, and best handled in the article Constitution of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The revision is superfluous. The national language is listed as English in the info box. It does not need to reappear as a modifier to each entry on every subject. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To whoever put "The Stars And Stripes Forever" under the National Anthem.

http://thehairpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Ronald-Reagan.jpeg http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/119462478-american-military-commander-george-s-patton-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=oToYvXs3XPbg5%2BsLNpXWIeo4ZzXHcACog7x9a9dEqOb9V0lOTAVN93dJuuvHVcfo http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/08/26/1226458/219667-eugene-cernan.jpg http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/EagleBear.jpg [Bald Eagle Screeching Intensifies] Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.78.70 (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, you're welcome! That would be me. I put it there because many infoboxes of Commonwealth realms have two songs in them; the royal anthem and national anthem. Likewise, the Taiwanese infobox has two songs, the national anthem and flag anthem. So, I decided to put an extra song in the U.S. infobox so it could match them. Great pictures, by the way. With the best of regards, your most humble and obedient servant, Illegitimate Barrister 07:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence

The first sentence is backwards and inconsistent with the title. It should be changed to read as follows:

The United States (US), less commonly referred to as the United States of America (U.S.A.), and sometimes the States, is a...

12.175.62.2 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Except the name of the country is the United States of America. So... --Golbez (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Or The United States of America per the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution uses both forms, but does not capitalise "The". Importance? Collect (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
How about The United States, officially The United States of America, and sometimes known as the States, is a... PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is there this urge to put the article title first? We don't say "Benedict Cumberbatch, fully Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch, is ...", we trust the reader to be able to comprehend. --Golbez (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE says "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence..." Dhtwiki (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, The "United States" is not the only place with that term or a foreign language precise equivalent in its name. Indonesia, Venezuela, Brazil, etc. all have used the term. Collect (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:United_States#Requested move 8 January 2015 for some thoughts on that. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
At present it is the only country in the world referred to ever in English-speaking press as "United States", and is, I believe, the only country with "United States", in that order with no gaps, in its official English name. --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The opening is fine as is. To start with The United States would be (opinion) silly. Carptrash (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Carptrash. Article's title is "United States" because Wikipedia articles use most commonly used names as title. But the country is officially referred to as "United States of America". So I think it's best to keep it this way.--Chamith (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep as is. VictorD7 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed "USA" from the sentence, considering it's already mentioned earlier in parenthesis. It's just ridiculously redundant to have it mentioned as a name TWICE in the exact same sentence. Also, if you read WP:NOTUSA, it says not to use periods/full stops in initialisms that are three or more letters long. So it should be "U.S." and "USA", not "U.S.A." Illegitimate Barrister 05:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it seem less redundant if it were "the USA", which is a common moniker, and is apart from USA as an abbreviation of the full country name. I see we're missing "the States" in that sequence. It was there once; should it be re-added? Also, I had put em-dashes to better separate that series from the rest of the sentence. It seems easily confusing to read otherwise. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
IIRC, "The States" was removed, because that term is rarely used among Americans. Illegitimate Barrister 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Our form of Gov't

I noticed right at the offset that this articles has our government listed as a "Federal Republic"....That is not correct, now it may sound a little picky, because we are technically a "Constitutional Republic" but more and more often these days people have been calling us a 'democracy' which is patently false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.26 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. (I am also an American) is a Federal Republic because they are two main levels of gov't: the federal gov't and the states. Federal Republic is more descriptive than Constitutional Republic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"a constitutional republic not a democracy" is a slogan of some right-wing groups. While technically accurate, it is not informative or commonly used in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not both? Why not label it as a "Constitutional federal republic"? Illegitimate Barrister 08:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I would be OK with that if we can find a reliable source that uses that terminology.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

National March

There appears to be a slow moving edit war primarily involving User:Andreas11213. The march, "The Stars and Stripes Forever", was added to the infobox by User:Illegitimate Barrister on 12 February. The adding editor added a reliable source citation on 15 February. Andreas11213 removed the content for the first time on 16 February, at which point I (RightCowLeftCoast) got involved by reverting the removal of verified content, to which the reversion was immediately re-reverted by Andreas11213. The following day, 17 February User:Sciophobiaranger re-added the content without providing an edit summary. The verified content was removed without reason by Andreas11213 on 17 February (3rd reversion). This removal of content without explanation, was seen as vandalism by myself, and returned back to the article on the same day, 17 February. On 18 February the content was removed by Andreas11213 for the fourth time.

The reply to the claim made by Andreas11213 in the edit summary "you're the one wanting to make the change", let me say that only one editor has consistently removed the verified content. In fact three editors have been for keeping the content. Therefore, I can say that there is a consensus to keep the content, that the content having been verified to at least one reliable source meets WP:BURDEN, and it is in fact Andreas11213 who is the only editor who does not want the content in the article.

Therefore, I ask Andreas11213 to stop blanking verified content as is the case, and abide by consensus. I kindly as the editor revert themselves which is keeping with WP:NOT3RR, and return the content to the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How in any way is the "march" important. The infobox is only for national anthems, not "marches". Please explain why you want to add the march. Andreas11213 (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Because it's not just any march, it's the national march, representing the entire country, officially adopted by the U.S. Congress and codified in U.S. law. See the attached reference citation for more details. Now, that alone makes it notable enough to be included. In a way, it is an anthem. Not the national anthem, mind you, but an anthem nonetheless, as in a patriotic national song. The way the infobox template is presently set up, it allows for two songs to be used to represent a country in an article. The infoboxes for New Zealand, Canada, and Taiwan, all do this. Since the U.S. isn't a realm or a monarchy, this is its closest analogue to a "royal anthem". Illegitimate Barrister 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I myself am not American, however I still fail to see how this march is relevant enough to be added into the infobox. It is, as you said, not the national anthem, so it carries no real significance. In Australia, our "royal anthem" is God Save the Queen yet it is never, ever sung. The national anthem is by far more important. Other patriotic songs from the US such as "God Bless The USA" are also well known, but that doesn't mean we add them into the infobox. All I'm saying is that only national anthems should be included in the infobox. It gets too crowded otherwise. Andreas11213 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Noted. However, the other songs that you've mentioned have no legal standing. They are just plain old, run-of-the-mill, regular songs, which is why they're not in the box. The national march was officially adopted by the U.S. government, which is why it's in the box (see attached reference citation for further details). If that were not the case, then it wouldn't be in the box. As I stated, the way the country infobox template was set up by the community is that it allows for two songs to be used to represent any given country. Your feeling that only one song should be used is just your, as you yourself have said, personal preference, and doesn't have any basis in the congruent Wikipedian guidelines. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 17:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I too am surprised that "The Stars and Stripes Forever" is given prominence next to the national anthem, as it isn't heard very often in an official capacity. TSASF is played as an entrance march for senior officials who don't have their own march, but it isn't usually heard on televised ceremonies. I think "Hail to the Chief", the "National Emblem March", or any of the service marches are more likely to be heard in broadcasts. I don't like the idea of including it just because there's room in the infobox. This article takes an inordinate amount of time to load as it is. Is the march's audio file loaded at the start, and adding to the initial load time? Dhtwiki (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said, it's not included just for the sake of doing so, it's added because it has official legal status. It was adopted by the U.S. Congress and codified in U.S. law as the U.S. national march, which is why it's in there. The country infobox template allows for a maximum of two national songs to represent a country's article. Not only that, it's quite a popular song. As for the loading time, if the article takes a long time to load, then some of the main body content may be moved to other articles or trimmed down. Although I will say that I have a pretty slow internet connection and it loads just fine for me. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

National Hymn [1] Black National Anthem [2] Battle Hymn of the Republic [3] etc. (America was first, and a host of other patriotic songs specifically associated with the US) Collect (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Apples and oranges. From what I can gather, only one of those songs, the "Black National Anthem" was officially recognized by Congress. However, since this is about the United States of America as a whole and not African Americans in general, it's not in the infobox. Simple as that. Since the other two are not official from what I can ascertain, they're not included either. Like I said many times before, and I'm sounding like a bit of a broken record here, the reason it's in there, is because it's officially recognized by the U.S. Congress as the national march of the United States. This is not just any song, it's the national march of the United States, officially recognized by the U.S. government. Key words here, officially, national,and United States. Illegitimate Barrister 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The song served as one of the de facto national anthems of the United States (along with songs like "Hail, Columbia") before the adoption of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the official anthem in 1931. America was used for the US anthem for more years than the Star Spangled Banner has been. Battle Hymn has been used often in the past 153 years (SSB has been the "anthem" for all of 83 years now). "National Hymn" has been around for only 127 years. Collect (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Key word was. It's not used anymore. Therefore, it's not included. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Illegitimate Barrister 23:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh? It is sung in a huge percentage of elementary schools - like every one I know of. I guess your mileage varies when it is only sung about 30 million times per school day. Collect (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Used" was the wrong word. "Official" is a better term. It was never official. Not only that, it has been superseded by an actual official anthem now. So, again, what is your point? Illegitimate Barrister 19:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But the Rose is the national flower - the United State Code requires we add it one supposes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yankee Doodle Rose
No one said we have to do anything by the US Code (well, those of us in the States do off-wiki, but that's beside the point), just keep things consistent on articles. Lovely flower though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Adar 5775 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Really? Then why is the argument made above that because it's in the US Code, it should be in the infobox? A trivial National March that no one marches to is what's in other articles? What poor judgement for those other articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You've made two different arguments, mate. Your first implied we have a legal obligation under the US Code to do so, which we don't. If it were the case, then more than a few of us would have to phone/write strongly worded letters to our representatives and tell them to stay out of our Wikipedia editting, ha. The argument in your reply to me points to the fact that because it's in the US Code that means we could add it and would have reason for doing so. The flower's not as notable as a march, however pretty the flower might be (seriously, need to get some of those). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 2 Adar 5775 15:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No. Same argument, the trivia of the national march, is not made non-trivia by being in the US Code. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trivial to whom? Nobody marches to it? Illegitimate Barrister 03:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How expected. But really marching bands convinces one that it is trivial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. You made a statement, which was false, and I called you out on it. Illegitimate Barrister 19:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No. You merely helped make my point. Focusing on the trivial is what got you into this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Into what? Illegitimate Barrister 09:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Into promoting the clutter of trivia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, if you hold a !vote, mine is it is barely relevant clutter. No one in America marches to it, unless it's there job or something and that is an exceedingly small percentage of Americans at any rate.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
What, should we remove the national anthem from the infobox because only musicians perform it and not all citizens? Illegitimate Barrister 03:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No and no. The silly National March is not the National Anthem, which at least one hears often enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)|
Nor did I claim it was. What's your point? Illegitimate Barrister 19:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
That your question was useless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So you claim. Illegitimate Barrister 09:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I support having the national march in the infobox. However, as a compromise, perhaps for national symbols, as is done in the California article, we can have a collapsed infobox in the lead of the national symbols.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Again, apples and oranges and strawman to boot. There is no syntax in the country infobox template for flowers. There ARE for songs, though. I mentioned the U.S. Code just for notability purposes, so people can understand why it was included. Of course, we work by Wikipedian guidelines and manual of style here, first and foremost. I do support a box in the main body text for other symbols such as flowers and such. Illegitimate Barrister 03:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Should the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 be mentioned in the contemporary history section? Or is it too soon, and only included if it becomes a state?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As it caused no change [yet] to the composition of the U.S., it seems less-than-relevant to this summary article. It's definitely too soon, and the 'only included if' is a question that isn't important until any change comes of it at all. --Golbez (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It is fairly trivial to the overall subject, although Puerto Rico becoming part of the U.S. or gaining independence would be significant. TFD (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has petitioned for statehood as a U.S. territory, it is a part of the United States, which is sourced p.649 [4]; there are no scholarly sources over two years’ discussion to exclude it, despite its “unincorporation” for federal taxes and tariffs.
However the status referendum in 2014 (61% statehood, 5% independence), confirming “our union” with the United States in the Puerto Rican Constitution [5], was not generally received as determinative as a basis for statehood in Congress due to the two-tier referendum used. A Congressional bill was considered to have a vote for statehood yes-or-no.
Nothing seems to have gone forward from the last Congress, although the Puerto Rican legislature had petitioned for statehood, and the PR Member of Congress, Commissioner Pierluisi introduced a House Bill for Puerto Rican statehood, with 130 Members co-sponsoring the bill and a Senate companion bill sponsored by Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico gained the support of Harry Reid of Nevada in 2014 [6].
Of the five territories in the federal United States with delegate Members of Congress, only Puerto Rico has a sustained movement for statehood. That may be of note, otherwise probably not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed the U.S. must ensure that the self-determination of the Commonwealth citizens is respected by ensuring transparency in the referendum process, and not look like Russia in the Crimea. TFD (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean a Ukrainian referendum in Crimea? Crimea is a part of Ukraine, not Russia. The U.S. referendum in Puerto Rico is internationally legitimate as it is a part of the U.S. as we have sourced on this page, with no secondary counter sources to imply otherwise. Puerto Rico is equivalent to DC as a part of the political framework of the United States. State Department doc. item 27 [7].
The 3-5% vote for independence makes a Leninist "self-determination" as-independence-only from bourgeois democracy seem as remote now as it has in the previous five referendums over fifty years. However fringe it is numerically, the modern political party for independence seems to be a legitimate American party; there have been no assassination attempts in the name of Puerto Rican independence on either the President or Congress for decades.
As a U.S. territory, Puerto Rico remains eligible to petition Congress for statehood, which is what one of its major political parties is dedicated to; the other major political party is dedicated to continued U.S. territorial status with U.S. citizenship and "our union with the U.S.A." of the Puerto Rican Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The Russian government says the same thing as you: Crimea is part of Russia. The difference is that the United States doe not claim that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. Canada too was eligible for statehood in the Articles of Confederation. That does not mean Canada was ever formally part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
More misrepresentation on my "Crimea is a part of Ukraine.” see Diff [8]. More non sequitur, Canada has not had a major party dedicated to U.S. statehood as does Puerto Rico, with U.S. citizens, a delegate Member of Congress and a Constitution of "our union with the United States of America" in its preamble. text [9].
But of course the U.S. claims Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S., Puerto Rico is equivalent to DC in the "political framework of the United States". State Department report to the U.N. item 27 [10]. This U.S.G. source is supported by a scholar Donald P. Haider-Markel of the University of Kansas who describes Puerto Rico as “officially a part of U.S. territory” despite its non-state ‘unincorporated’ status [11].
Is there a secondary, scholarly, reliable counter-source to support your contention that Puerto Rico is not a part of the U.S. as a U.S. territory? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is not remotely relevant to the original question. Please stop leaking out of the RFM. Please. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Only Country to Gain Independence From Great Britain By War

I've been reverted twice on this now. The ledge makes the claim that "The United States is the only country that ever won its independence from Great Britain by war." I've pointed out that this is not true in that at least one other country, the Republic of Ireland, was granted independence as the result of war against Britain. The first time I was reverted I was asked to provide a source. So the second time I deleted this sentence I pointed out that there is an entire Wikipedia article about it entitled Irish War of Independence. The words "war" and "independence" are right there in the article title. There are sources throughout the article. I'm not sure what the controversy is. But on the second revert I was told "that's not exactly true, Irish Independence was granted by treaty after peace talks which took place AFTER the war had already ended in stalemate."

I think frankly it's semantics at this point. The partition of Ireland occurred in May 1921 in anticipation of the end of hostilities and independence to the Republic. In the interim, a truce was negotiated and agreed upon in July 1921. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed on December 1921 and, according to a cited sentence in the lede of the treaty's article, "concluded the Irish War of Independence." Of course the war's end and granting of independence was not formal until a treaty was signed! That would be like me arguing that the United States did not actually win independence via warfare because the Battle of Yorktown was in 1781 and there were no further hostilities thereafter, but the Treaty of Paris granting independence was not signed until two years later in 1783. That's a longer period of time than the five months between the Irish truce and treaty. The sentence should be removed as it's a historically inaccurate representation. TempDog123 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion here. The above statement, that the U.S. was the only country to wrest independence from Great Britain via war, is true. The United States wrested independence from Great Britain by war. The Republic of Ireland wrested independence from the United Kingdom by war. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and the "Kingdom of Great Britain" are not the same thing. Therefore, as a compromise, may I suggest we put a note in there to prevent any such confusion. Illegitimate Barrister 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Meh. Looks like a pretty weak argument there. We could add Kenya if you wish. And distinguishing between UK and GB is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
No, because they are not the same thing. Just like the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union are not the same thing. Just like the German Empire and the Federal Republic of Germany are not the same thing. Just like the Brazilian Empire and the Federative Republic of Brazil are not the same thing. Just like the Ancien Régime and the French Fifth Republic are not the same thing, so and and so forth. Illegitimate Barrister 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
They aren't the same thing but they are the clear successor state. But regardless, shouldn't we take the principle of least confusion and not share a fact that at least some experienced editors think is either incorrect or too marginal to include? If editors are confused by it, it's very likely readers are too. --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree. That's why I suggested we put in a note template at the end of the sentence to clear up any confusion that there may be. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 21:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That is an option, but you rarely see such notes on Wikipedia, if ever, because we rarely give such possibly confusing and marginal facts. I think the best answer is simply to not include it. After all, from what I can gather, it was the only nation to win independence from Great Britain through war because it was the only nation to win independence from Great Britain PERIOD. The Kingdom of Great Britain existed from 1707 to 1800, during which time, at least based on my quick look at Wikipedia, the only nation to gain independence from it was the U.S. So, unless you have a second to share, the sentence "only one to gain independence by war" is a useless distinction anyway. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Could we say that it was the "first" country to gain independence from Great Britain, then? Illegitimate Barrister 21:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't "only" be more accurate? And no, because it still doesn't minimize the confusion. The UK is the clear successor state to GB, and this is confusing readers with zero usable payoff. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It would, but couldn't we blue-link "Great Britain" so it would take the reader to the historical state's article? Illegitimate Barrister 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Again - What value does this add to the article? It doesn't seem like it's worth the confusion. You haven't justified that, you've simply tried to find a workaround. --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that it would give the reader a broader historical context and the importance of said event in the grand scheme of things. Illegitimate Barrister 21:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
How so? There are lots of countries that were the only country to gain independence from their colonizer or mother country, we never make a point of stating that though. Does South Sudan say it's the only country to gain independence from Sudan? Eritrea from Ethiopia? Papua New Guinea from Australia? Bangladesh from Pakistan? And based on your own statement, Great Britain only existed for 93 years, so the fact that only one nation has gained independence from comparatively-venerable Australia is more notable. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Golbez that it also seems non-notable, except insomuch as it's trying to cast the revolution as an example of American exceptionalism, but to that end you already have the preceding sentence establishing that it "was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire," which to my knowledge is accurate (at least in the Americas). The distinction drawn between the Kingdom of Britain and the UK for purposes of this discussion is dubious. The implication of Britain, to me, suggests independence from the British Empire, which spanned both the Kingdom of Britain and the UK, and both the American and Irish wars of independence. Again, this seems like an exercise in semantics to me. It's a highly disputable assertion and I fail to see how this sentence can be set forth in the article as a truism, especially in the lede. TempDog123 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we move the fact which can be verified to a reliable source, to the history section, and include a note there, instead of it being in the lead section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. gained independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain, while Southern Ireland gained independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. No source concludes that they were differently states, the full name of the UK was changed after the Kingdom of Ireland was merged into the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and changed again when Sourthern Ireland became independent. Those are no more changes in states than each time a territory was admitted to the U.S. The U.S. is different however because the U.K. signed a treaty with them and recognized them as a foreign state at the time of independence, although that is an obscure point. TFD (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind the "exceptionalism", though. To an extent every country's article on Wikipedia engages in "exceptionalism". I mean, Brazil's article's lead section mentions that it's the world's leading producer of coffee and largest Lusophone country. All articles do this, in explaining what is unique about a topic. It's only encyclopedic. But, that said, the sentence is a bit redundant, as Dog said, the sentence before it mentions that the U.S. was the first country to win independence from a European colonial empire. Two sentences essentially saying the same thing is a bit redundant. Illegitimate Barrister 03:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, TFD, according to Kingdom of Great Britain it was not styled "United Kingdom". --Golbez (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right. But the fact remains that the current state is seen as continuation of GB and that Ireland was merged into it. What is important though is that the text make sense to the readers. TFD (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Support removal of this bit of trivia. Long articles, such as this really, really don't get the leeway for including such things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the statement is true based only on a technicality that is not apparent when the text is taken at face value. This is like stating that there are only 46 states in the United States; its technically true (four of the 50 states are officially commonwealths), but incredibly misleading when presented without this clarification. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose removal of this fact from the article. Move it to the body from the lead, sure. Add a footnote, sure. remove it entirely, hindi.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how this is a fact of distinction and worth sharing. Justify its inclusion. --Golbez (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Justify its exclusion.
Justification:
Frederick C. Schneid (3 May 2012). The Projection and Limitations of Imperial Powers, 1618-1850. BRILL. p. 174. ISBN 90-04-22671-0.
There are likely more, but that is at least one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I may not be seeing it, so please quote the exact passage from your link where it states that the U.S. was the only nation to gain its independence by war from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and why this is a fact of distinction. I see something about being the only country to gain its independence and keep it "in this era... without serious external challenge" but that's not what we're discussing. --Golbez (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It could mean that GB refers to 1707-1800, making the U.S. the only country to gain independence from it by any means. TFD (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
More fun: The Treaty of Paris of 1259 moved the Channel Islands from being held by England to being held by the King of England as "peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine". Ina strange sense, England lost them in official name, but the King of England held them personally. Thus they became "independent" from England as a result of war (Guernsey was styled as "republique"). Collect (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Your source says, "The United States was the only country in this era to gain its independence and to retain it without serious external challenge." The article already has a sentence stating that the American Revolution was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial power. I'm personally fine with the sentence about the US being the first successful revolution against Europe, and even having that information in the lede, because it's factual and notable. What I take issue with is the notion that the American Revolution was the only successful armed rebellion against Britain resulting in the creation of a new independent nation state. It's redundant of the sentiment expressed in the preceding sentence, as Illegitimate Barrister said, but not true unless you simply ignore the existence of the Republic of Ireland or rely upon an ambiguity between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom (a distinction not made in your source BTW) despite both revolutions ultimately being fought for independence from the British Empire.TempDog123 (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
RCLC, you have yet to justify the inclusion. If you do not do so then we'll have to assume that there is no substantive reason for this statement to be in the article and I will remove it again. BRD, I was bold, you reverted, we discussed, and so far, no reason for reversion has been presented. --Golbez (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The statement's accuracy relies on a non-obvious technicality that renders it far less meaningful than it might seem. Even if it were entirely clear that the claim pertained to a specific 93-year period, the distinction is largely arbitrary in this context, making the associated fact trivial. —David Levy 21:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a switch to "The United States was the first nation to gain independence from the British Empire", or possibly adding that bit of information into the sentence about being the first nation to gain independence from a European colonial power. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The lede already contains the following sentence: "The war ended in 1783 with the recognition of independence of the United States from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire." That makes it clear both that the American Revolution was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire, and that the European colonial empire from which it won independence was Britain. Neither of those things are in dispute. What's in dispute is whether the American Revolution was the only such successful war of independence fought against Britain (however it might be defined)... TempDog123 (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The above suggested by PointsofNoReturn would be a fair compromise. While it presently says European colonial empire, it doesn't preclude the fact that the American Revolutionary War was the first successful war for independence against the Kingdom of Great Britain.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Except it adds information not needed. Britain was a European colonial empire; one assumes that if it's the first against a European colonial empire, it was the first against Britain. Either way, none of these solutions require that horrid footnote. Removing it. Y'all can deal with what the sentence should be, but we seem to be in general agreement that the "fact" that it was the war blah blah great britain is not a fact of distinction and worth wasting bytes on. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with what is said above by Golbez, but apparently the fact that the U.S. was the first nation to win a war of independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain doesn't appear to deserve weight from from who want it removed. Can't win everyone.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Only. Was the only nation to do so. Not sure why 'first' is being discussed. And if you're including the UK in that, then being the first to split from a European power also encompasses that. By definition. --Golbez (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Your argument, while detailed and well-written, seems to be a construct of your own making and thus original research. I would certainly be open to reviewing any sources you present for discussion, but without having reviewed them would have to suspect that synthesis was used to reach your conclusion. There is already a sentence in the lede that the American Revolution was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial power. That sets forth sufficient American exceptionalism with respect to the revolution. I think the sentence that was removed is at worst completely inaccurate, and at best relies upon technicalities to state a redundancy in a manner disrespectful towards other countries that fought for independence from Britain. TempDog123 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Really, it's not even technically correct (because "Great Britain" is not the same thing as "Kingdom of Great Britain"), but even if amended it would be misleading/confusing for the reader. The sentence about the first successful war of independence for a European colonial power should be revised as well. It would probably be more accurate to say it was the first successful war of independence outside Europe against a European colonial power since the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Formerip (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TempDog123 (please register your user name for easier communication) and FormerIP. Since the sentence has already been deleted, there is nothing further to do. I hope this settles the matter. American In Brazil (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me put my two cents into this very interesting discussion, since I'm the one who added the sentence to the lede in the first place, before it was moved to a footnote and then deleted. I certainly never imagined that my addition of one short sentence would trigger such a heated debate. I had read this fact in a reliable history book some years ago, but cannot locate it at the moment. I agree that I should not have added it without verifiable citation(s). My good faith edit in adding this sentence was that there is a neutral POV regarding American exceptionalism in winning independence from Britain. (I use that term to get away from the irrelevant argument about 'Kingdom of Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom', the latter being the obvious successor to the former.) The outcome of the American Revolution was a unique event in British history because Britain was forced to grant independence by a successful armed rebellion by a majority of the inhabitants of colonies under its control.

The distinction between Ireland, Kenya and the United States lies in that the Irish War of Independence resulted in stalemate and the Irish Free State obtained independence by negotiated treaty after the declaration of a cease fire in 1921. In Kenya, the Mau Mau Rebellion was clearly defeated by 1959 and independence was granted to Kenya in 1963 as part of Britain's decolonization of its African holdings. This was not the case with the United States. As correctly stated in the discussion above, the United States was not a colony of Britain, but was formed by the 13 British colonies which banded together in a unified effort to prosecute the American War of Independence and then, having found common ground, near the beginning of that war decided to form a single nation by means of the Declaration of Independence. Five years later at the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, the British were decisively beaten by Washington and the British general, Lord Cornwallis, and his entire army were taken prisoner. Thus, Britain was forced to sign the Treaty of Paris (1783) by military defeat. Such was not the case with Ireland or Kenya.

We must also distinguish the times in comparing the U.S. revolution with the Irish and Kenyan wars of independence. In 1781 it took three months for word of Britain's defeat to reach London, three more months for Parliament to convene, debate and capitulate to the American demands, and another three months for London's response to reach the Confederation Congress, successor to the Continental Congress. It took at least three months more for the American delegates to travel to Paris from Pennsylvania (Benjamin Franklin), South Carolina (Henry Laurens), New York (John Jay) and Massachusetts (John Adams). In contrast, by 1921 (Ireland) and 1963 (Kenya) communication was instantaneous and the time to travel was a matter of hours. Therefore, the delay between the end of military hostilities in the American Revolution (1781) and Britain's withdrawal of sovereignty in its 13 former colonies and recognition of the new nation with defined territorial boundaries, by the Treaty of Paris (1783), was due entirely to the means of communication and the modes of transportation available in the 18th century.

I will look for a reliable, authoritative source to document this fact (i.e., that the United States is the only nation to have ever won its independence from 'Britain' through war) and present it here on Talk for further discussion. American In Brazil (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)i

Why is there an infobox section called "Independence from Great Britain"?

Most other countries' infobox sovereignty section titles don't include mention of a preceding occupation by a foreign power. For example-

  • On the Germany article, the section title reads "formation" rather than "establishment/independence from the Holy Roman Empire" or something similar
  • Iceland's and Norway's infobox section titles say "Formation" and "History", respectively, and do not say "independence from Denmark"
  • Greece's infobox section title reads "formation", and then lists the declaration of independence (from the Ottoman Empire) beneath.
  • Similarly, the Saudi Arabia article just says "establishment", and does not even mention the Ottomans.

Writing "independence from Britain" in the infobox only really makes sense for countries like Kenya, which never existed as a country/nation until the British drew borders around the people living there, or Australia, which was settled by British, always controlled by the UK, and never had a revolution. In contrast, the United States was never a British colony; it has always been an independent nation, formed in 1776 by several independent states that were former British colonies. By spring 1775 all British officials and governments had been expelled from the 13 colonies and they were, therefore, independently governed before the declaration.
On top of the infobox section title, and to add insult to injury, some users such as User:Omnisome are adamant that the Treaty of Paris be included in the infobox. Forgive me, but I fail to understand why exactly this is relevant to that section. The British recognized the independence of the US in that treaty, yes, but does that really matter in terms of the establishment of the US? If Serbia gave official recognition of Kosovo's independence, that would not make Kosovo independent. Rather, Kosovo is already independent, with or without Serbian recognition (Indeed, the corresponding infobox of the Kosovo article makes no mention at all of Serbia).
I hope I've not made too many people upset with this, and even if you don't agree with some or most of what I've said I think it should be obvious that the section title at least needs changing from "Independence from Great Britain"; I would propose "Formation", "History", and "Establishment" as suitable alternatives. I'm sorry if it seems I'm making too big of a deal about this issue, but as a United States citizen I find the current section title offensive, and I believe there exists no good reason to keep it. I hope you can find at least something I've said here today that you can agree with.
Please let me know your thoughts below. SStephens13 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It arises from what they themselves wrote about themselves in the Declaration of Independence: "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved . . ." Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The straight forward reading of the passage is that each colony declared itself independent. But like Kenya none of these colonies existed until the English/British "drew borders." TFD (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with “Independence from Great Britain”. Regardless of resolutions to Congress for independence from each colony beforehand, independence was declared “in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies”, all of them united together at the Declaration of Independence. See Pauline Maier, [http://www.amazon.com/American-Scripture-Making-Declaration-Independence/dp/0679779086| American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence].
Agree with noting the Treaty of Paris. The borders of the United States extended over the Appalachian Mountains despite the attempt of the British to limit colonies with western borders there in 1763. The Mississippi River as a western boundary also aligned with North American claims of France and Spain. The Infobox need not account for the previous recognition by the Netherlands and France because of the “Independence from Great Britain” header. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Americans' and their representatives' preferences

In addition to stating the tax rates that the wealthiest pay, as opposed to those with the most income (usually corporations), I also propose citing Dan Ariely (August 2, 2012). "Americans Want to Live in a Much More Equal Country (They Just Don't Realize It)". The Atlantic. to illustrate the extent to which the preferences of the American people diverge from those of their elected representatives. EllenCT (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In hopes of garnering discussion, I propose including "Americans prefer a more egalitarian distribution of wealth than exists, and believe that wealth is distributed more evenly than it is." in the Government and politics section. EllenCT (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:UNDUE. There are surely articles which might be favorable to the POV of class warfare in the United States, the destruction of the bourgeoisie, etc. however that is not what this article is about. Lets leave this out. Stating that X percentage of wealth is held by Y percentage of population is one thing, stating what the median income is one thing, including opinion polls is another ( niemanlab, Opinion poll#Potential for inaccuracy).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the United States. These issues are already discussed at length in its sub-topical articles, and because they are arguably the most important current issues discussed in those WP:SUMMARY articles, they should be summarized here. Because the US is a representative democratic republic, flaws in polls of those opinions to which you allude, including electoral polls, are crucial for understanding the political and economic dynamics of the US. There is simply no way for the unfamiliar reader to understand why democratic republic treats itself the way it does without knowledge of exactly the kind of errors in opinion that you link to, which occur because:
"When income inequality changes, public opinion 'habituates' by adjusting expectations for fair levels of inequality in the same direction as the factual change. This adjustment effect occurs because humans are subject to status quo bias and have a motivated tendency to believe in a just world. In the context of increasing inequality in developed democracies over the last 40 years, the implication is that normative expectations for appropriate levels of inequality have adjusted up." — Trump, Kris-Stella (May 2, 2013). The Status Quo and Perceptions of Fairness: How Income Inequality Influences Public Opinion (PDF). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Retrieved 9 March 2015.
The proposed source is a popular treatment of peer reviewed research which has 246 references in Google scholar, none of which question its veracity. Here's how the WP:SECONDARY literature describes its findings, in precisely the same terms of your links critical of reporting opinion polls:
"The assumption of economists that people only care about their own share and not about fair and equitable distributions, leads economists to propose drastically wrong policies in the domains of taxation and income re-distribution. Norton and Ariely (2011) document substantial consensus in the US population about the desire for a more equitable distribution of wealth. People think the distribution of wealth is more equal than it actually is; and they think it should be much more equal than their already unrealistically-equal notion of its current state. For example, the top 20% of the US wealth distribution actually controls nearly 85% of total wealth; people think the top 20% controls under 60%; and they think it should control just over 30%. Since concern for fairness is not currently part of economic theories, these issues get swept under the rug, to the detriment of all. — Zaman, Asad; Karacuka, Mehmet (2012). "The Empirical Evidence Against Neoclassical Utility Theory: A Review of the Literature". International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education. 3 (4): 366–414. Retrieved 9 March 2015.
Per WP:PSTS that secondary source should be cited in preference to the popular treatment of the primary research. Yes, the proposed statement touches on the political, but only because it is essential for understanding the politics and economic demographics of the US, which this article is about. And it's proposed for the "Government and politics" section, so how could it legitimately not? Electoral polls are opinion polls too, and they are subject to the same problems on which you base your objection. Does the reader deserve to understand why Americans are tolerating increasing child homelessness in times of increasing wealth and total income? EllenCT (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Note that this issue is in no way confined to the children of any particular area in the US. Do we want our readers to understand the largest factor changing the demographics of the United States today by reading this article or not? EllenCT (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

Trollguy13 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_68&oldid=1136226137"