Talk:United States/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Racial breakdown in Law enforcement and crime section.

Especially since there have been recent efforts to expand the section again anyway, it's long way past time to revisit this old problematic segment:

"African-American males are jailed at about six times the rate of white males and three times the rate of Hispanic males."

Having a racial breakdown of incarceration rate without also including a racial breakdown on crime rate is inflammatory and misleading. We should either delete the racial sentence or add a segment on racial crime rates. Racial crime rates can be found through many sources, including the FBI's site. Drugs (sans racial breakdown) are mentioned separately in a following segment, but I'm talking about things like murder offender and victim rate broken down by race, and possibly some other items like juvenile offender or gang membership rates by race. Without tying it to disparate crime rates, the current segment could be interpreted by readers who don't know any better as meaning the US is simply rounding people up and incarcerating them at a shocking racial disparity solely because of their skin color. VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

By all means, let's include the difference in minorities' population proportion with their arrest rates per suspect race reported, charges requiring a mandatory minimum sentence, plea bargain offers, jury verdict outcomes, sentencing outcomes, and execution rates compared to whites.[1] EllenCT (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>Sidestepping your link to an advocacy group, I'm guessing even they don't deny that blacks commit crimes at much higher rates than non blacks, a fact far more salient in societal impact than alleged disparities of a few percent in court system treatment (which can arguably be explained by unaccounted for variables other than racial discrimination anyway), something the section currently doesn't mention. Nor are victimization rates mentioned. Most crime is intraracial (e.g. black on black, white on white), and blacks are victims of murder and other serious crimes at far higher rates than whites, so it's not like "the system" is skewing the stats by letting a lot of white murderers go free while only rounding up blacks for some reason. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The disparities are far more than a few percent, as both of my links show through the objective sources they cite, which are easily verified in academic studies and reliable media sources. What kind of sources claim that minorities commit crimes at greater rates, controlling for socioeconomic strata and education levels? EllenCT (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't bother clicking on your overt advocacy links (because I've studied this issue and am already familiar with the arguments on both sides), but the abstract in your own link states on black/white sentencing disparity that "Pre-charge characteristics, including arrest offense and criminal history, can explain about 80% of these disparities". I suspect other variables they don't account for can explain most or all of the rest (studies on the issue are contradictory, with some actually showing more leniency toward blacks), but no one denies blacks commit crime at much higher rates. Adjusting for socioeconomic status isn't pertinent unless you were planning on adjusting incarceration rates by socioeconomic status, but since you asked there is a ton of research showing that racial crime rate differences "persist even after controlling for socioeconomic status" (p. 332). To underscore this, blacks commit homicide at roughly 7 times the rate of whites, but have only about twice the poverty rate of whites, indicating there are other cultural factors at work. It also adds nothing pertinent to this discussion, but I do appreciate you linking to the USA Today piece (I've read before) that points out disparities like those emphasized recently in the inappropriately singled out Ferguson exist all over the country, from New England to San Francisco, underscoring (yet again) what an unmitigated, intellectually dishonest, cowardly hack Eric Holder is. As the law professor from your own article states (and any honest person with some knowledge of statistics knows), "That does not mean police are discriminating." But I think we've risked derailing this discussion enough. Our very debate underscores the inappropriateness of the current article segment. Better to remove it than blow it up with an undue point/counterpoint mess. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"what an unmitigated, intellectually dishonest, cowardly hack Eric Holder is." well as long as we're discussing improvements to the article --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledged in the same post this was a tangent unrelated to article improvement, except insofar as the debate further illustrates the problem with injecting a cherry-picked racial breakdown into the section in the first place. VictorD7 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

At the rate violent crimes have been falling, I suggest that your 1997 source based on data from a 1994 symposium is as far out of date as it is currently possible to be. Also, is it counting homicides or convictions after all of the choice points at which racial discrimination has been documented (detention, arrest, charge, plea bargain, trial)? Moreover, the alternative hypotheses based on lead poisoning are extraordinarily strong although I doubt you will bother to study them because you believe the publisher is biased. EllenCT (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Naahhh. Why would anyone accuse that blog you posted of bias? What's next? Predicting someone will suggest Michael Moore is biased? BTW, lead poisoning, lol? Regardless, whether it's that or cosmic rays from extraterrestrials, it doesn't refute anything I've said. I posted the Harvard study to answer your question about whether economic status sufficiently explains racial crime rate disparity (it doesn't). The ratios have stayed roughly the same since then. "In 2008 the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000)." (p. 11) If I remember right such stats include witness descriptions of uncaptured suspects along with captured ones (there are also "Other" and "Unknown" categories), and is roughly similar to the victimization rates (though blacks are somewhat more likely to commit murder than be murdered), so it's not like it's a bunch of witnesses in white neighborhoods making up stories about a phantom black killer. More recent info is available if you want to spend time looking for it. Now your questions have been answered, and I think this tangent has run its course. VictorD7 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I still say your 1994 data could not have been more inaccurate if you had tried. By "offender" you mean "convict," don't you? So that statistic is suspect. However, we should be able to use victims' reported race of the perpetrators for nonlethal violent offenders without suffering systematic bias, if you can find those. EllenCT (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, everything I posted was accurate and I took the data up through at least 2008. Like other DOJ stats they include an "Unknown" category, since in some cases there are no witnesses, which would be bizarre if they were only counting convictions. Plus there are comments like this in the underlying data source: "The information provided on the SHR form reflects what agencies know based on their initial police investigation and does not reflect subsequent decisions made by prosecutors or courts." You should actually read the studies I quoted from. VictorD7 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good find. While we're on the subject, it seems astounding to me that the Law enforcement and crime section omits any mention of the militarization of the police force, rampant police shootings (more than all other developed nations combined) and police brutality.

I restored and modified the sentence on the privatization of prisons and cited WP:RS (two books published by academic publishers, one article from a peer-reviewed academic journal and one recent article from The New Yorker). It is certainly a notable topic given the growing controversy and worthy of one brief sentence.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You're astounded that not every pet soapbox topic you've become interested in crusading on isn't included in the article? Coverage of a "controversy" entails covering more than one side. Controversies by definition are disagreements. I haven't read all your new sources yet, but the old ones (and I'm guessing the new ones) only espouse one POV. You also haven't established that it's a noteworthy controversy for coverage here. Are private prisons regularly a major national election issue? I don't recall the last time I heard a politician mention the issue. There's also a SYNTH issue with placement. Your page version seems to imply that the high incarceration rate is at least partly due to private prisons. Since they don't convict people, I suppose you're pushing a conspiracy theory about tough sentencing resulting from a desire to please privately run prisons rather than most Americans, who have desired tough sentencing since at least the 1980s. Whether you believe that or not, this isn't the article or indeed the website for "social justice" crusading. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

All you have to do is a simple google news search and see for yourself that prison privatization is a contentious issue garnering ever more media attention. Your nasty and ill-informed rant about conspiracy theories aside, what I restored (I didn't add the content originally - must be another "conspiracy theorist"!!!) and modified is backed by reliable sources.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your Google search mostly shows leftist blogs. My comments were informed and never claimed there can't be more than one conspiracy theorist. Do your sources prove that support for tough sentencing isn't due to its popularity among voters? How? Psychic powers? Or are they just giving their own opinions? You ignored everything I said about a controversy involving disagreement. Controversy - "1. A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." Do you care at all about covering the other side? VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. The phenomenon of prison privatization has been reported in The New York Times, Al Jazeera America, Politico, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, the Associated Press, et cetera. Just because it wasn't an issue in a national election (are you kidding me with this? National campaigns rarely focus on anything of substance by my estimation) doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. Not only that, but the sources I cited speak for themselves, unless you believe peer-reviewed academics and The New Yorker are peddling conspiracy theories. Your only role in this discussion appears to be setting up straw-men and attempting to knock them down. There is no basis for synth accusations as what I restored does not link incarceration rates to prison privatization, regardless of placement. As it stands now no "side" is given. That being said, while you would no doubt dismiss the following as "conspiracy theories," prison companies and ALEC have played their part in pushing for draconian laws to keep prisons filled and pressuring states to sign contracts guaranteeing 90% occupancy or higher. I did not add this content to this particular article as that would be giving undue weight to the issue. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Countless "phenomena" have been mentioned in a few articles, but at least you concede it's not a national level political issue. This is a very broad national summary article and not the place for covering any random niche issue that fits your whimsy. In addition to placement (and yes, implied conspiracy theory), the "side" is taken in what you're calling a "controversy" by all your sources being anti-private prison. If it's truly a "controversy", much less one that rises to the level of meriting coverage here, then there is by definition more than one side. You dodged my question; did you even try to find a single source from the other side? VictorD7 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have conceded no such thing; quite the opposite based on my statement about political campaigns being more fluff than substance. I can find dozens more articles on the subject reported in national and international media (i.e., The Guardian) in the last several years, indicating just how widespread the discussion of the issue has become. I'm working on a rewrite of the passage to have "controversy" removed completely given this is one of the big sticking points and replacing it with "The privatization of prisons, which began in the 1980s, has been the subject of mounting criticism in recent years," which is actually more accurate. Outside of industry funded studies and a few "reports" published in neoliberal rags and by corporate-funded think tanks, there aren't too many articles praising the for-profit prison industry; certainly nothing in peer-reviewed academic sources that I've seen.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Now you're backpedaling away from it even being a "controversy" (your original word). It's more like niche criticism from some like minded ideologues that doesn't rise to the level of meriting coverage in this brief summary article. Niche criticism in the US exists on countless topics we don't mention on this page. Many are covered in subtopic articles, which is where (neutral) discussion of private prisons belongs. For the record, acknowledging that prison privatization isn't a national election issue is hardly the "opposite" of acknowledging that it's not a national political issue, whether you feel the former is "fluff" or not. The sentence should be deleted, but if it remains expect me to significantly tweak it and/or the references at some point. If you instead take the matter to a subtopic article, you should include coverage of the views of the industry, "neoliberal rags", and think tanks you mentioned, even though you personally disagree with them. We aren't limited to "peer reviewed academic sources", especially on subjective political issues where the sources in question are overtly championing one side. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not backpedaling away from anything. The original sentence was something I quickly came up with in order to restore materials you arbitrarily deleted; I merely improved upon it and now it better reflects the sources cited. I have demonstrated time and again that there is a growing chorus against prison privatization in the United States - in both national and international media on a significant scale. This is what makes it relevant in a section on incarceration, especially considering it's just one small sentence. That a fringe minority views private prisons in a positive light is irrelevant. I don't know what binary world you live in, but there aren't always two "sides" to every issue. For example, should we now include views on holocaust denial on the Holocaust wiki article for the sake of representing all "sides"? Of course not. And don't preach to me about neutrality on wikipedia and rant about so-called ideologues as though you aren't one. Just based on what you've posted in this section it is quite obvious.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the sentence I deleted (for good reasons given) called private prisons "a subject of contentious public debate", which is even more explicit than just labeling it a "controversy". You're backpedaling from that claim now. And no, society's status quo position can hardly be dismissed as a "fringe minority view". Such rhetoric is ludicrous. The truth is that a few fringe activists have started complaining about it (with think tanks and other sources disagreeing with them, as you've already conceded), but it's not (yet at least) a matter of contentious debate nor much of a "growing controversy", at least not one meriting coverage in this article. Even if it was a national controversy it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate material for this encyclopedia article. There are many far more significant controversies given little or no coverage here. We all have our political views. The difference between you and me is that I'm not trying to hijack Wikipedia articles for one sided soapbox crusading. We can have our views and still edit for neutrality. If your monochrome worldview won't allow you to do that then maybe this isn't the best site for your energies. VictorD7 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"the current segment could be interpreted by readers who don't know any better as meaning the US is simply rounding people up and incarcerating them at a shocking racial disparity solely because of their skin color." so, it would be interpreted correctly? --Golbez (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This segment is too controversial for an article about the entire nation. Any mention on crime and race should be in a dedicated sub-article. This statement is too POV for such a broad article in Wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with PointsofNoReturn just to much detail for an overview article. To generalize... this topic is not even covered by most FA like articles Australia, Canada and Japan. All that is needed is a section called "Law" that mentions the structure of thing. There is no need foe detailed stats of executions, imprisonment rates or murders by state. Just over kill that can be covered in the main article. I also agree with User:Golbez POV on how it looks. -- Moxy (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this article needs to stop being a WP:SOAPBOX. There is a place on Wikipedia for this, definitely in some sub-article somewhere. But not here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing we purge the entire crime section? I really don't see that happening considering it's a long-standing section and is backed by reliable sources. I sure would not support that. If anything, some of it needs updated.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't need to purge the entire section necessarily. It would just be necessary to leave out any racial components from the section and simply leave them the the dedicated sub-articles on crime in America. I do not have too much of a problem with the section otherwise. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that it's just one sentence and it is backed by a reliable source. If it was an entire paragraph I would see your point. I don't see any issues of undue weight given the nation's long history of racial problems. It would be like purging the China article of any mention of repression of Falun gong members and harvesting their organs (among other things). Is that too much detail for an overview of China?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

But it's not going to remain one sentence, because it's currently misleading and in violation of NPOV. If it remains then racial breakdowns of at least some of the major crime rates must be added, and it sounds like you may be interested in further expansions, which will in turn invite even more expansions to maintain some semblance of neutrality (including at some point commentary on modern American black culture by people whose politics is different from yours and all sorts of tangents), bloating that part of the section into an overweight mess. VictorD7 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Golbez, because I'm a nice guy I'll charitably allow for the possibility that you misread the op and give you a chance to clarify. Do you really believe that the racial incarceration rate is solely due to discrimination, and that blacks don't commit crime at a rate any higher than non-blacks? As for the discrimination angle, we've been through that with a long debate that ended when I quoted how your own posted meta-study refuted your position. That said, regardless of what you personally feel is "correct", this isn't the place for soapboxing. The section currently tramples NPOV. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

protip: i agree with you on omitting the sentence, just not on your reasoning. "this isn't the place for soapboxing" so why did bring racial politics into it, when it would have been easier to just point out "this is a specific concern of a small aspect of the nation that doesn't belong in this summary article, and also has more to do with the state and local authorities than the national". easy peasy. so the question you must ask yourself is, do you really want to start an argument over this with someone who agrees with you? because we can burn the whole talk page to the ground til we get blocked, or we can clam up and keep this discussion to what is best for the article. --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I've said both here (and I'm reacting to racial politics, not injecting it), but I'm glad to hear that you agree with removing the sentence. VictorD7 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Golbez: America has the largest proportion of people in jail, and the largest relative proportion of ethnic minorities in jail. Why are those facts "small aspects" of the US? EllenCT (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Most people in jail, relevant. "largest relative proportion of ethnic minorities" is... well, first of all, I'd ask for a source but I don't particularly care. And also, disproportionately jailing ethnic minorities is certainly nothing that the US has a monopoly on. That is a detail that's not necessary in this article. And really, you're going to have this fight with me? And yes, civil law enforcement practices pertaining to one aspect of sentencing are one specific concern of the small aspect of the nation that is law enforcement, which usually gets no more than a couple of paragraphs in an article; the inclusion of every sentence in a crowded article like this must be justified, and this one hasn't been. --Golbez (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to fight, I just want to understand your reasoning. If, after understanding it, I think there is sufficient room for improvement, then I'm willing to try to communicate the rationale for those improvements. I don't see that as fighting. EllenCT (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

but that's just it, all people ever do on this page is fight. they're in love with the sound of their own voice. I'm tired of it. While you and Victor do, occasionally, from time to time, work towards a valid edit, 99% of the time it's just argument for the sake of argument that leads literally nowhere. Though that's still better than the 100% we have for the territories argument. Sorry, I'm just really, really burnt out on this talk page's bullshit right now. I could leave. I probably should. But I'd rather sit here and snark. --Golbez (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think we're not sincerely trying to improve the encyclopedia? I know I am, and I think Victor thinks he is too. I just feel like he's been lied to by those who wish to profit from mass disinformation, and I'm pretty sure he would probably say the same about me. Therefore I think it's very important to hash out the facts, even if it takes a long time. What makes it seem like we aren't trying to improve the encyclopedia instead of reflecting the trend towards wider and harsher disagreement in American society? EllenCT (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you and Victor certainly are sincerely trying to improve the encyclopedia. You two are just bad at it. You both bring up arguments here that have been argued forever on other parts of the internet, expecting a different or lasting result to come of them here. --Golbez (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree of course, and that's especially rich coming from you, Golbez. About all I see you do here is derail threads (look at your initial response to this op, which apparently didn't represent your pertinent article position which you didn't bother stating until later), behave like a hot head, and personally attack people. Your newest comment here is no exception. I criticize others sometimes but at least I also offer substance, and the tangential subject commentary I sometimes add is usually either just graciously answering someone's questions, correcting posted misinformation, or illustrating that there's serious disagreement on a topic that other editors may not know about. All of that can be useful to long term article improvement. VictorD7 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad relative to whom? Even I would prefer Victor to someone who wants to add something about how a tributary of some river was or was not part of the Louisiana purchase, maybe even two or three hours out of the year. EllenCT (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Compare the volume of argument here over crime rates and the relative merits of the black race to how much change has actually come of it. The signal:noise ratio is astoundingly small. And neither of you care what the other has to say, or, I dare assume, even read each other's sources. It is literally a forum argument in wiki form. This whole thing could have been dealt with in a far more efficient manner if you two had decided to treat this as a collaboration instead of a battleground. And Victor - I decided to respond to your needless political remark (and it was indeed needless and political, as it was your own specific viewpoint on something you know people disagree with) because, well, I wanted to, and because we each got one. But then you kept on with it. But eh. I've decided to fully ignore everyone in the interminable territory debate, I can ignore everyone in the interminable right wing/left wing debate here, and just make my goddamn maps and lists. --Golbez (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• The argument above outlines why this controversial and misleading section should be removed. Great example of how people will see the info in a different light.-- Moxy (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that the entire section will be removed. You seem to be the only editor pushing this. Much of the content, from gun violence to executions to the fact that the US has the largest prison population on earth, is significant and relevant as the US is clearly an outlier among developed nations in the area of crime and punishment, and warrants mention in the article. After all, the China article discusses "controversial" issues such as executions and persecution of religious minorities. If such content is relevant to an overview of China, how could the aforementioned content not be relevant to an overview of the US?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not remove the entire section, remove the POV SOAPBOXING being advocated, especially as it is presently one sided in the article, and to create a BALANCED presentation of the issue would give the issue far too much WEIGHT in a summary article. As I said here before, this content has a place on Wikipedia, just not on this particular article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I see none of the soapboxing that you are referring to, just facts that could make some people of certain political persuasions very uncomfortable. That being said, I'm willing to compromise and let the sentence pertaining to the racial breakdown of imprisonment rates go if the rest remains intact.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As to avoid an edit war, please see WP:RELTIME regarding the above editors most recent edit to the section being discussed.

Also, "I'm willing to"? Please see WP:OWN. I wasn't aware that C.J. Griffin had to sign off on all edits of this article.

There are editors here of differences of opinion as to what should and should not be included, and how much weight certain controversial items should be given in this article. What we can do, and what I am suggesting, is attempt to collaborate here on the talk page, and reach consensus to create a balanced section. One way to achieve balance is to not include either side at all, and link, in a see also hat note of the section to those articles whose scope is specific to those controversial subjects. This leaves whatever back and forth debate/argument on those related articles, and keeps them off here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I altered my most recent edits.

Oh come on. you know perfectly well that I was merely informing others in the discussion that I would not challenge any removal of the sentence in question so long as there are no other attempts at removing long-standing materials in this section. This seems to be the main sticking point. But like I suspected I have a feeling that more than a few here would like the entire paragraph on incarceration deleted for political reasons. Now that I will go to the mat over.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I just don't want the racial sentence in the article. I am fine with the rest of the section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No one wants to delete the entire paragraph, though many of us believe the section is currently extremely skewed (with opinions, not just facts) for political reasons. And I'm all for adding facts, which is why in the op I proposed going that route as a potential alternative to deleting the racial breakdown, but some of those facts made some people very uncomfortable, which is why deletion of the most egregious sentence is likely at this point. Maybe at a future date we can address the gun control soapboxing by adding facts on guns' role in thwarting crimes, the relationship between concealed gun laws and falling crime rates, the fact that other developed nations already had lower violent crime rates than the US long before they passed gun control laws, murder rates in the US cities with the strictest gun control, and the relationship between "gun free zones" and mass killings, or we can trim more, but that's a discussion for another time. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously something must be mentioned aboiut criminal justice in the U.S. The fact that it holds a quarter of the world's prisoners, that it is one of the only developed countries that executes people and that minorities are overrepresented in its prisons are all significant. Certainly they are also overrepresented in other countries, but it is particularly noticeable in the U.S. due to the larger minority populations. Saying the reason is that minorities commit more crimes is just one spin on the issue - minorities are more likely to be prosecuted and attract longer sentences. And the reason they commit more crimes is that they are more likely to be economically disadvantaged. But detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this article. If we were to treat every significant aspect of the U.S. in this detail, the article would run into dozens of pages. Readers who have a particular interest in this topic may go to the sub-articles that explain it in detail. TFD (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'd argue that racial disparity in crime rate is more fundamental and significant than the racial incarceration breakdown (hardly "spin"; if anything it's easier to accuse the latter talking point of deflection), but I don't think either needs to be discussed in this brief summary article. For the record the sentencing claim is disputed and economic status doesn't explain the racial crime rate disparity. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, if it's not that African Americans have been a marginalized and economically disadvantaged segment of the population since even before the nation's founding, then pray tell what is the "real" (i.e., right-wing) reason (propaganda) for the racial crime rate disparity? This in and of itself is a red herring. In fact, studies have shown that black male youth are much more likely to be incarcerated at higher rate than their white and hispanic counterparts even though they don't commit crimes at a higher rate.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please. A garbage self reporting study on kids (that measured frequency rather than severity anyway?) doesn't change the fact that blacks commit crime at much higher rates than non-blacks (shown by concrete data), and that this can't be accounted for by controlling for economic status. You seem to just be rehashing the discussion with Ellen near the top of this section. Refer to my posts there for sourced refutation. As for why, we could discuss things from the legacy of slavery to the destructive impact of the welfare state and growing racial grievance movement in eroding personal responsibility, or maybe the unchecked and self crippling simmering bigotry within black communities, but all that is beside the point. The facts are the facts. We don't have to answer why. We certainly shouldn't be implying a specific, misleading "why" (like institutional racial discrimination accounts for most or all of the incarceration disparity; easily debunked) with cherry-picked facts as part of a soapbox crusade. Better to not get into this niche racial issue at all in this brief summary section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed we don't have anything about the falling violent crime rate which is prettly clearly a more profound and substantial change than many of the other statistics in the Law enforcement and crime section. Any objections to inclusion? EllenCT (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, the section's second paragraph has long led off with a segment (I added, thank you very much) about the murder rate falling 54% from its modern peak in 1980 to 2012, mostly sourced to the FBI. If you want to expand that to broader categories of crime, we should tuck that in after that sentence. We should probably use more recent data than 2009 if we're posting specifics though. It would also be wise to post sources and specifics here before adding them to the article (I'm assuming you aren't proposing adding that image). VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. How do you feel about law enforcement, corrections, and indigent defense spending? Anyone else object? EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think apples and oranges comparisons from totally unrelated categories forced together on a graph for emotive impact on a far left blog would be moving the section in the right direction. I suppose the most charitable thing one can say is that it's overly detailed for this article. VictorD7 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

When did Mother Jones become a reliable source? Again, NOTSOAPBOX.

Saying how much is spent on law enforcement is one thing, saying how many people are incarcerated is one thing, but no need to push a POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

They won a Pulitzer, didn't they? And they have a bunch of fact-checkers on staff. How are the Murdoch outlets doing in the fact-checker sweepstakes? Has FNC caught up to the WSJ yet? I keep forgetting the relative scores of Mother Jones and Democracy Now, which is another left wing source with far better fact checking than Fox News but they like dissidents. Should we have a section on American dissidents? Like, how many are there? I couldn't tell you, and I read lots of pro-dissident outlets. EllenCT (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A single ideologically driven Pulitzer doesn't change the fact that it's a half assed, far left opinion blog, most recently making a splash for getting caught red handed lying in an attempt to smear Bill O'Reilly (even left leaning Mediate took the blog to task on it). But that's not the most important factor here. Even low quality partisan blogs are "reliable" for their own views, but this isn't the section for POV soapboxing, no matter how "reliable" a source is. RightCowLeftCoast is right. That said, if we were to inject random liberal opinions on new topics, we could probably find better sources to represent those views.

BTW, what "fact checking sweepstakes", lol? There are dozens of blogs calling themselves "fact checkers". If you're referring to Politifact, I've quoted for you before where they admit their scores aren't comparable to each other, because they only cherry-pick a few claims from each outfit in a totally ad hoc, unscientific manner. Politifact has also credibly been accused of partisan bias and inaccuracies anyway. But that's yet another tangent unrelated to article improvement. VictorD7 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You pick. Name any fact checking series which has Fox News Channel in the top half. EllenCT (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just cause they call themselves fact checkers don't make them so. As VictorD7 has pointed out on this talk page. This is not a page which to attack Fox News, there is enough of that here on Wikipedia and eslewhere. It is the favorite pass time of those who oppose what it calls "fair and balanced". It just happens not to be as Left as the rest of American News Media (Gallup, UCLA, U.S. News & World Report, Rasmussen, Business Insider, Goldberg (2001), Groseclose (2011)).

Back to the question at hand, do the crimes committed by race, judicial prosecution by race, and incarceration population by race belong in this article? No. Take it elsewhere, please. Create its own article, and link it here. Expand on it in relevant articles where that is that articles primary scope, and link it here. But this is not the place for detailed examination of this, or even significant mention. There is an attempt by certain segments of the population to claim prosecution base on race, of systemic racism. Stop. See WP:RECENTISM. See again NOTSOAPBOX. But please, see BALANCE.
The best way to achieve balance here is not to mention it, and to link it in the see also section of Law enforcement in the United States (or create a section in that article). No need for that controversial subject here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7, we have all heard the echo chamber talking points. The fact is that none of it is supported by reliable sources. The main driving factors of criminal activity are gender, age and economic status, and minorities, including women incidentally, not only in the U.S., tend to receive higher sentences for the same offenses. Once those three factors are accounted for, race has nothing to do with criminality. And yes Mother Jones is a reliable source and so is Fox News, although the commentators and their guests are not. TFD (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable for what? You're the one posting pale echoes, TFD. Unlike you, I posted studies proving my point. To avoid repetition or finding additional, redundant ones I again ask you to visit the high part of this thread and read them. The racial crime rate disparity doesn't vanish when economic status is controlled for. Again, blacks have about twice the poverty rate as whites but commit murder at around seven times the rate of whites. Obviously there is a gender gap in violence but that has nothing to do with this racial discussion. I'm not sure why you even mentioned it. Age? What's the average age difference between blacks and whites? You're grasping at straws. The sentencing disparity is hotly debated and remains unproved (Ellen's own study said 80% of it vanished when severity of offense and criminal past are accounted for; I've seen studies that reduce it further by controlling for more variables), and sentencing doesn't come until after the crimes are committed and there's been a conviction anyway, so it doesn't explain the crime skew based on witness reports. Yet of all these, it's the only one focused on by the article, at least through implication (an interpretation reinforced by poster argument in favor of the segment here). By contrast the racial crime rate disparity is real and concrete, regardless of the underlying explanations.

Rather than cherry-picking one dubious talking point for soapbox emphasis, wouldn't it be better to just delete the racial breakdown entirely and deal with the matter on more narrowly focused, detail oriented subtopic articles instead, where the subject can be fully and neutrally covered? VictorD7 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So Removal?

Is there a consensus for removing the racial incarceration sentence then, or should it remain with me adding racial crime rate breakdowns for neutrality and full coverage of the issue? Several posters strongly supported removal but with some of the potential objectors it wasn't clear how strongly or if they necessarily opposed removal. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best to remove genetic comparisons to crime, and replace it with the top policy proposals to maximize median years of productive life per capita, per WP:WEIGHT. But, failing that, I also think it should be replaced with a discussion of why emotional intelligence is more predictive than Stanford-Binet IQ measures of mathematical, linguistic, and spatial ability in terms of general success including involvement with crime. EllenCT (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removal. The sentence, as evidenced by the extensive dialogue above, is far too controversial to be maintained as a statement of fact in the general overview article of the United States. Regardless of one's opinion on whether the racial incarceration rate is fundamental enough to warrant inclusion with other material like previous wars or major waterways, it unequivocally fails Wikipedia's WP:SOAPBOX criteria. It ought not be included in the this article. Perhaps it would be best moved to a separate article on the matter itself.LT391 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

180.211.189.84 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC) http://worldnewse24.blogspot.com

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I'm assuming you want to add a link to that blog somewhere. Blogs are almost always not WP:RS Cannolis (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions coming

I would like to call the attention of some of the editors to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29. Within a few days, discretionary sanctions will apply to this article (since all of the controversy seems to be about politics and not about history). Be civil. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an Arbitration Committee discussion, where they are considering sanctions against two editors, neither of whom has been involved here recently (i.e. it isn't about the recent kerfuffle here). The sanctions seem to apply to the individuals' ability to edit articles dealing with American politics within a certain time frame. It does not apply to other editors or to the pages themselves, as far as I can tell. Editors are not being asked to comment at that discussion page, and I don't know what purpose it would serve to discuss it here. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No. The Arbitration Committee is considering sanctions against two editors, but is also about to impose Discretionary Sanctions on American politics after 1933. That does apply to all of the kerfuffles here. What discretionary sanctions does is to permit uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions, including topic-bans and blocks, on editors editing in areas that have been known to have battleground editing, personal attacks, or other conduct issues. The way to avoid having sanctions imposed is to be civil and to comment on content, not on contributors. The current controversies on this talk page will fall within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. I am not saying that there have been conduct issues in these specific cases, but I have seen conduct issues interfere with resolution of content disputes here in the past. If you aren't editing disruptively, keep on editing collaboratively. It will just be somewhat easier to check disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for letting us know. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

section "Law enforcement and crime" -on the death penalty, 31 states now

Nebraska has abolished the death penalty.[2] So in the section "Law enforcement and crime" where is says

"Capital punishment is sanctioned in the United States for certain federal and military crimes, and used in 32 states"

you need to change to "and used in 31 states". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:BBF1 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

global mass surveillance and industrial espionage not mentioned

Why isn't it mentioned that the United States are involved in global mass surveillance and industrial espionage on other countries? As confirmed by wikileaks for example they surveil international contracts, that are worth more than 200 million dollar, of French companies. I think these are notable information about the United States. 91.38.139.72 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Article is already bloated and Mass surveillance in the United States already addresses the issue.-- Chamith (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That article is not linked in the "United States" article and there is no word about mass surveillance and industrial espionage practiced by the USA in this article. The article you posted is about mass surveillance in the United States itself, but this article should mention the illegal practices of the United States in other countries. As long this is not mentioned in this article it is whitewashing and the article is not neutral, especially because these things are ongoing. 91.38.143.155 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass surveillance is too small a topic to be added in the overall article. This information would be better added to the specific article noted above by ChamithN. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Here, let me help. This is how you make a request: "Should this article say X?" "I think this article should say X." "I think omitting this is a bad idea." Note how these do not ascribe motives to other editors. What you did: "Why doesn't it have X?" implying there is a motive for omitting it beyond "dunno just haven't done it." Then you continue saying that by continuing to omit your statements, we are actively "whitewashing" the article. That is not true; we could be continuing to omit it out of ignorance, laziness, or because you insulted us. There is likely not an active agenda at play here, despite your subtle accusation thereof. I hope you use these tips wisely in future interactions, so that you do not insult the people whose opinion you are asking as you're asking it. --Golbez (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this -- we mention it on this page once the IP user adds similar sections to every other nation that has engaged in espionage? I won't hold my breath while I wait for it to happen. Calidum T|C 23:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

G7 & G7

US like UK,France,Germany,Italy,Japan and Canada are member also of the most exclusive G7 (finance ministers) and not only of the G7 (forum)or(former G8) .It should be written in USA article like in all the articles of other 7 states to respect their prestige.Thanks.151.40.78.43 (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Which great seal obverse?

There are two versions of the US great seal alternating on the page now.

• 
  No. 1 - Current version
• 
  No. 2 - other version
  which seems official

Number 2, which is not there now, is the one that I prefer. As viewed on the page, its stripes seem more even. Was there ever a decision on which one should be there? What is the consensus now? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

2nd one is a png and under it's summary it states "File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg (1st one) is a vector version of this file. It should be used in place of this raster image when not inferior." Which is what I think we should follow -- Chamith (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Number 1 is definitely artistically inferior, both in the article and in high resolution. What advantage of Number 2 outweighs that? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I know, both of these are considered as official right? -- Chamith (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Inferior" is subjective. Wikipedia prefers to use the vector version of an image whenever it's available. Therefore, use the first. Pretty much every article about a country uses vector images for flags and seals. Illegitimate Barrister 20:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers the vector version, possibly for reasons of better scalability, *if it's not inferior*. The current version's stripes don't show evenly, for one thing, and that shouldn't be too subjective a determination to make. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There is more info at Great Seal of the United States. If I read it properly, It seems that 1 is an 1885 version, while 2 is used today. I think we should always use the most current version, where possible. TFD (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Both versions figure prominently at that article. Number 2 seems to be close to the 1885 version (e.g. it has more old-fashioned detail), and seems to represent how the great seal looks. Number 1, which is simpler, might be a modernized version for informal letterheads, although the article doesn't quite say that. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Widening inequality lies

Lies about rising inequality keep showing up here and elsewhere. Most of the income inequality in the US is due to a one time change in the way private companies are treated. Also, the productivity graph that keeps showing up dose not reflect the change in family composition toward single parent families and it does not show that total compensation as opposed to wages and salaries more closely tracks productivity. St. Louis Fed This has been discussed in numerous articles where one of our problem editors keeps posting this misleading information, along with the citations, so that person dare not come here asking for them or I will expose him/her as a leftist propagandist. Phmoreno (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

About which specific content are you complaining? EllenCT (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"There has been a widening gap between productivity and median incomes since the 1970s." The St. Louis does not agree. Total compensation, which includes benefits, closely follows productivity gains. Adjusted for family size, non cash compensation, etc., family income rose by about one-third over the past 30 years." >Forbes

It's time to remove the disputed sentence and reference.Phmoreno (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, every link in that opinion piece is broken, so it's difficult to vet his sources and see if any spin is being applied (it is an opinion piece, after all). --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A few more sources:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/inequality-myths

http://fortune.com/2015/03/02/economic-inequality-myth-1-percent-wealth/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/05/08/dispelling-myths-about-income-inequality/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101367332

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/24/Incessant-Myth-Growing-Wealth-Gap

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/inequality

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/01/06-income-gains-and-inequality-burtless

The Brookings Institution paper is based on a Congressional Budget Office study. The CBO study is referenced in a couple of these articles.

I just saw a report today on either Fox News or CNBC (not sure which) saying Hillary Clinton was using the productivity graph versus median family income that the network called a favorite narrative of the left. (Link below) That graph is false based on the information in the above links. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png Phmoreno (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Phmoreno, it is not a Communist c0nsp1raz7, the U.S. really does have a growing inequality between Capitalist extremists and U.S. citizens. The one source you point to -- Saint Louis Fed -- is not relevent and does not make the glut of economic research and indicators simply disappear.

If you can find something specific that is not factual or otherwise in error or not properly sourced or referenced in the extant article, please correct the text and submit the proposed changes. Damotclese (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2015

I would like to point out that according to the United States supreme court that their are actually three definitions of the United States which is difficult to discern under regular conversation. Sometimes only the context of by whom you're speaking with subtle changes in definitions can be disambiguated. Please refer to the case of Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) whereas:

By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall's singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.

Therefore it is important to note this most powerful verdict. For example, the Patriot Act is written and enforceable only in certain jurisdictions not including the "several states of the Union." Please not this distinct mention of them at: 16 USC Sec. 2402 - TITLE 16 CHAPTER 44 Sec. 2402. Definitions (15) The term 'United States' means the 'several States of the Union', the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, including the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Almost nowhere else shall you see such a distinction as clear as this by and between the "States of the United States" and "states of the Union." Further to note is when any president has ever addressed the People in the "State of the Union" address is he never making a "State of the United States" address.

I'm sure I could provide many other examples of this, however, I am confident I've made a valid point.

Thank you in advance. MrBattmann (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You did it. You cracked the code. Hey guys, we don't have to pay taxes no more! Of course, that's ignoring the fact that, regardless of whether this reading of the case is remotely accurate or relevant, the case was overturned in 1984, so you missed your chance. Sorry. Blessed freedom only existed in this country from 1945 to 1984. Also, you didn't suggest an edit, merely made a statement. Also, no. --Golbez (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"displacing American Indian tribes"

Why is the genocide of the Native Americans reduced to the euphemism of "displacing American Indian tribes"? Should I go to the Nazi Germany article and write about the "displacement of Eastern European Jews"? Really grotesque. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Here, let me help. This is how you make a request: "Should this article say X?" "I think this article should say X." "I think omitting this is a bad idea." Note how these do not ascribe motives to other editors. What you did: "what is there is grotesque" implying there is a motive for omitting it beyond "dunno just haven't done it," or perhaps "got lost in edit wars" or maybe even "compromise wording". There is likely not an active agenda at play here, despite your accusation thereof. I hope you use these tips wisely in future interactions, so that you do not insult the people whose opinion you are asking as you're asking it.

That said, perhaps you would like to read further in the article, where it mentions that there was a large decline in population caused by disease and violence? And the survivors were displaced (yes, displaced) and removed to reservations? --Golbez (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear. It seems another American nationalist wants to have a cry. Still, thanks for those brilliant tips. Here, I've got one of my own: Wikipedia policy pertaining to euphemisms. I quote:

do not use issue for problem or dispute, nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide…

Indeed, I boldly suggest that this article uses a euphemism for a euphemism! displacement instead of ethnic cleansing!! Really funny stuff.

"a large decline in population caused by disease and violence" So another euphemism for genocide ("a large decline in population") is deployed elsewhere—well, that makes the use of the euphemism "displacement" just fine then! I'm learning so much from you and your tips. According to Hilberg, a quarter of the Jewish death toll was down to disease, and I'm assuming that even you're aware of the violent manner in which the bulk of Jewish victims met their deaths at the hands of the Nazis. Should I go to the Holocaust article and use such language? Perhaps not: aside from anything else, I'd probably be swiftly slapped with some kind of ban (rightly so).

By the way weren't European Jews "displaced (yes, displaced) and removed to reservations"? I think those particular reservations go by the name ghetto, but I might be wrong… --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The tragedy of Native-American loss of life is undeniable over centuries, especially under initial European colonial rule for the first two hundred years. “Genocide" requires a national policy; you will find that the US federal government after 1776 generally allies of Native-American tribes ineffectively trying to enforce treaties of agreed-to detente, and State governments along with land speculators and private contractors sponsoring policies of removal and/or annihilation for gold rushes (Georgia Cherokee), etc. You are no doubt not among the "states rights" apologists on this matter for most of US history. The trans-Mississippi Indian Wars post Civil War are particularly brutal chapters in the 1870-1880s, making Generals Sherman and Sheridan folk heroes among former Confederate Texans, --- is that what you are referring to?

Many Americans not on reservations and not classifying themselves primarily “Native-American" proudly claim Native-American heritage. There has been much assimilation not available to the Jewish populations under the Nazi regime. Virginia for instance has not only two tribal state reservations, but eleven recognized tribes, mostly settled and intermarried among majority populations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Should I go to the Holocaust article and use such language?" Yes, please do. :) --Golbez (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually the text should be corrected to state that violence was not a significant factor in the mentioned depopulation, which the source itself says. This was pointed out on the talk page a long time ago but no one has bothered to fix it yet. Of course sporadic violence occurred, but violence always occurs in human society, and was certainly present among Amerindians long before Columbus showed up. VictorD7 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So the Trail of Tears was, as denoted by its name, a rather fun jaunt, akin to an amusement park ride? The decline in native populations was massive and unprecedented; most of it was through disease but a large portion was also through destruction of culture and habitat, and organized violence. That violence exists doesn't mean it's irrelevant to remark. --Golbez (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Though also now called Trail of Tears, previous removals of Civilized Tribes had not been so disastrous. The first removal of Georgia Cherokee was voluntary and badly botched under the Van Buren administration by the private contractors who were to supply the transient population with provisions. Following the Indian Removal Act of 1830 which provided for relocation to new homelands, President Andrew Jackson violated the Supreme Court holding in favor of the Cherokees in Worcester v. Georgia. The second removal of Cherokees following two year’s notice went worse than the first by contractor corruption, not governmental policy in the administration of Jackson’s (perhaps illegal) act in the name of “states rights”.

In any case, however wrong and horrifically botched with 15-35% estimated losses with a toll of perhaps as many as 6,000 in 1838, the Trail of Tears of the second Georgia Cherokee removal was not the Armenian Genocide marching unfed women, children and aged into a desert and other means to the extinction of a million 1915-1916. The article should not suggest an equivalence using the term “genocide", although repeated encroachments on treaty lands and tribal independence should be noted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, Golbez? Where did I say anything about it being a "fun", "amusement park" style "ride"? Is that the type of reply that's helpful to a rational, productive discussion? No, the Trail of Tears wasn't fun, and neither were the Fort Mims or 1622 Viriginia massacres, the latter seeing a quarter of the colonial population (men, women, and children) exterminated by a surprise attack and entire towns abandoned, but none of those things resulted in the massive, pandemic driven depopulation discussed in the segment I mentioned. VictorD7 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your argument was literally, and I am quoting, "violence... was certainly present among Amerindians long before Columbus showed up", implying that is a reason that violence against them should be omitted. If not, then there was no reason whatsoever to mention it. And if you're saying there wasn't organized violence, again, the Trail of Tears. I admit: I was hyperbolic, and I do apologize. --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I never suggested "violence" shouldn't be mentioned (If I recall I'm the one who added the word to the article), I have no idea why you thought that was my argument for not mentioning violence. I was simply underscoring that the existence of violence doesn't necessarily mean said violence was a significant factor when a large depopulation occurs. VictorD7 (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Then why is it at all relevant that violence existed before Columbus? I simply don't understand why you thought that was something that needed to be pointed out, as if it had any bearing on anything. Again, if I'm misread you then I do actually and legitimately apologize (I'm trying to turn over a new leaf of being less of an asshole) but it just seems like such a plea for a dodge. But I'm pulling us away from the meat of the argument, which is that someone got butthurt because he didn't like us taking his insult poorly, then flounced. So I think we can simply... go about our lives and leave this behind? --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought I just explained that and certainly didn't dodge anything, but maybe the confusion is coming in because my original reply here was somewhat tangential, inspired by the op more than a direct reply to it. I agree with you that it's probably best to leave this behind. VictorD7 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wanted: editors to comment on RfC

The US RfC for Lede sentence and Infobox (above) was initiated on July 8. The RfC is intended to enlist comments from article editors and the wider community on a change to the lede and infobox. You are encouraged to comment. Please note that since the change has been the subject of a lengthy mediation, there is voluminous material and commentary. That may be read, or not, as you wish. The question is fairly straightforward: "Do you agree with the following a) lead sentence and accompanying note for the United States article, and, b) note for the info box area." The RfC will be in place for one month max, though we may close sooner if there are no further comments. Sunray (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Those non mediation participants who are looking at the RfC, might want to bear Good article criteria in mind, particularly the first two: i.e., that the proposed change to the lede and note are: 1) Well-written (clear, concise and in keeping with the Manual of Style) and 2) Verifiable with no original research. Sunray (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: The designation "mediation editor" in the support/oppose section, above, identifies participants in the mediation. Sunray (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)