Talk:United States/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

Real Private Investment and Corporate Profits After Tax

Post-World War II Real Gross Private Domestic Investment and Real Corporate Profits After Tax

I propose the inclusion of this graph because it presents an accurate, informative, useful, and actionable summary representation of the economic history of the United States. EllenCT (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that you've already added it to the article. It doesn't seem relevant to what's in the text. I also see that you just added it at Economy of the United States, where it doesn't seem to relate to anything in the text. This looks like a graph that might belong in the "Historical statistics" section of Economic history of the United States. It seems too specialized, and lacking explanation as to its relevance, to be in this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I put it next to the paragraph starting with the proportion of GDP due to consumer spending, in part because both of the data shown are also graphed as proportions of GDP, but also because private investment is a source of consumer spending, and consumer spending is a source of corporate profits. The graph is not suitable for a history article because it doesn't depict anything earlier than the late 1940s. EllenCT (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

History of US covers 1940s-1980s. Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Productivity and real median family income growth, 1947–2009. There has been a widening gap between productivity and median incomes since the 1970s. Mishel, Lawrence (April 26, 2012). The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved November 11, 2013.

Why? You can see how different each graph would look if they started at 1980. To the right is another graph, which used to be part of this article, which would look very different and tell a very different story if it started in 1980, too. EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

With your explanation of the previous graph you make assertions about how investment leads to consumption which leads to profit. The current graph makes the point that wages are stagnant compared to productivity (worker productivity, as opposed to capital expenditures, and compared to worker productivity in other countries?). These are somewhat questionable assertions and need to be explained better. This isn't the place to do it. BTW, the graph is now much larger (too large) and the legends are still un- to barely readable. That's another reason why it's not a particularly useful graph. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain the assertions, but since you say this is not the place to do so, why don't you research them and let us know what you find? The legibility is similar to other graphs in the article at similar sizes. EllenCT (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant that the article isn't the place, not the talk page. What is the graph telling us and why? I see an intimation that corporations are taking profits without giving back, but I didn't see that addressed at the Economy and Economic history articles, which I only cursorily scanned. Is it addressed there? That level of economic explanation doesn't fit this article, though. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Private investment is one of the largest determinants of economic growth, which is a mainstream indication of the relative economic success of nations. Profits are indications of the economic success of corporations. They are related because the former is a cause of consumer spending and the latter are an effect of it. "Taking profits without giving back," is a correct deduction from the information provided, and as such it is well sourced. I agree that it should be discussed in the Economy of the United States article. EllenCT (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Life expectancy compared to healthcare spending from 1970 to 2008, in the US and the next 19 most wealthy countries by total GDP. Kenworthy, Lane (July 10, 2011). "America's inefficient health-care system: another look". Consider the Evidence (blog). Retrieved September 11, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

That productivity graph has been discredited before on this talk page. It if a favorite left-wing distortion whose errors have been pointed out by numerous organizations ranging from the St. Louis Federal Reserve to mainstream financial publications. It ignores non-wage and salary compensation. It also ignores the affect of taxation, which further narrows the gap.Phmoreno (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Most increases in "non-wage and salary compensation" have been in the overhead of employer-furnished health care, which have increased health insurance company profits without providing relative increases in benefit service levels. EllenCT (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ummm... no. Most of the insurance cost increases can be attributed to healthcare providers and related industries, not the insurer overhead or profits. While private insurance companies do make money, most of the premium dollars that they get are used to pay for care. Furthermore they represent the minority of insurance coverage - most is Federal and State. See these easy to understand pair of charts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. You just make this stuff up.Mattnad (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mattnad: where is insurance company administration listed in those pie charts? EllenCT (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Government Administration and Net cost of Health Insurance, 8%" on the first pie chart. Most of the overhead is government which is a function of most insurance being public, but it includes private insurance. It's not rocket science. Are you sure you understand the industry?Mattnad (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mattnad: yes. What proportion of the primary pie chart is comprised of organizations which have exceeded US corporate pay inequality trends? EllenCT (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that a significant share of U.S. corporate profits are derived from outside the United States and that this share has increased over the years. So companies are helping offset the trade deficit. Also note that foreign profit are typically taxed in the country where they are earned and to bring them back to the U.S. would result in double taxation, so these profits are kept offshore.Phmoreno (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC on graph inclusion

The consensus is against including the graph. Cunard (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Post-World War II private domestic investment and corporate profits after tax, both per Gross Domestic Product. Private investment is a source of consumer spending which is in turn a source of corporate profits.

Should the graph with the more explanatory caption shown at right be included adjacent to the passage on the size of the consumer spending proportion of the economy, as per [1]? 22:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, for the reasons in the section above. EllenCT (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - unclear, unsupported, and overweight for this high-level article. Also, not clear from proposal statement which graph/caption is suggested. You have to uses the link to know what's being discussed.Mattnad (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mattnad: therefore Gross private domestic investment should be wikilinked. Do you have any further objections? EllenCT (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - undue weight, and unsupported by text explaining issues raised by graph, either here or in subordinate articles on US economy. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: on what basis are you claiming WP:UNDUE? Do you have any evidence that there can be a more pertinent summary of postwar US economic conditions? EllenCT (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- the qualifying details are too complex to include in this article.Phmoreno (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: to which specific details do you refer? What is your understanding of the extent to which GPDI is correlated with subsequent growth? EllenCT (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You are asking economic questions and making economic statements about something you are proposing for an article on the United States, so my questions are: 1) Is this supposed to be some kind of random fact or are you trying to say something relative the the Unites States with this graph, such as there are fewer investment opportunities or that corporate profitability is higher or lower than other countries, or that corporate taxes and their double taxation are a significant source of tax revenue? 2) Why don't you take this to a more appropriate article?Phmoreno (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: I am trying to summarize the most salient features of U.S. post-WWII economic history. Do you have actual evidence that the number of investment opportunities has declined or that the effective corporate tax rate is above the OECD average? This is a summary graph, appropriate for a top-level summary article. The numbers plotted are not controversial or otherwise in question. Can you suggest a different graph of uncorrelated time series that would better summarize recent US economic history? EllenCT (talk)

That U.S. corporate taxes are among the highest of OEDC nations is frequently mentioned on business television, along with double taxation of dividends. [2][3] As for a graphical representation of the most important trends in post WWII economic history there are several factors. The most important is the decline in the rate of productivity growth, best shown with a bar chart by decade. Sectors with high productivity growth, such as manufacturing, steadily declined while low productivity growth service and government sectors increased. Another drag on growth is aging of the population. Older people both earn and spend less.Phmoreno (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If there is ever demand for an encyclopedia based on what corporations say about themselves, you will clearly be a superior editor. Until then reliable sources say the effective corporate tax rate is about 14%, much lower than the OECD average. Do you support replacing the productivity comparison with per capita income graph? EllenCT (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose compressing a chapter of a university economics textbook into a caption of a graph is too misleading. [Who says "consumer spending which is in turn a source of corporate profits" ???] Rjensen (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: why do you suggest that such a summary is inappropriate for a tertiary source? I agree that corporate secondary economy self-dealing, as often occurs in the finance industry, is a false source of corporate profits. Do you have evidence that consumer spending is not the primary source of corporate profits in the US? EllenCT (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

corporate profits are a combination of many direct & indirect factors. Coal companies are very unprofitable in 2016 but they don't sell coal to consumers. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that consumer spending is not the primary source of corporate profits in the US? EllenCT (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see the relevance of the chart. What I get from it is the value of investments increases when corporations are profitable, and both go down during recessions. Also I do not understand how the chart shows that investment is a source of consumer spending. Surely money invested is money that is not spent on consumer goods. TFD (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the correlation between the two data series is exactly 0.0. Download the data series from FRED and see for yourself if you don't believe me. Do you think the fact that they are uncorrelated implies that showing both provides more information than if there was a correlation? EllenCT (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at the chart, which is what you suggest adding. If you look at the 2008 recession, the red line (profits) drops before the blue line (value of investments). If the data say something else, that is a reason not to use the chart. Regardless, even if there is an exact correlation, I fail to see why it is significant. Obviously when investment returns increase, so does the value of investments. It is not something unique to the U.S. TFD (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That the variables are clearly correlated around short term major events means that the fact that they are over the longer term completely uncorrelated implies an even greater amount of information is being conveyed than if they were correlated over the long term. It is even possible to state what that additional information is, theoretically, but that is easier said than done and my attempts to do so have yielded units that I do not yet understand, or even feel entirely sure are meaningful in some substantive sense. Do you think the political views of most of those who oppose inclusion might hint at the implication to which the graph points? EllenCT (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I am somewhat baffled by the caption. GDP as far as I know measures production not investment or consumer spending. Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Both of the plotted variables are denominated by GDP, to account for growth of population, production, and adjust for inflation, so the y-axis is the proportion of GDP. Consumer spending has very slowly and gently increased from around 60% to 70% of GDP over the same period, so it's not entirely useful to include. EllenCT (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternatives

Are there objections to the inclusion of any or all of these three images? EllenCT (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Any substantive objections? EllenCT (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright. Lack of relevance in an overview article. Copyright. Did I mention copyright? Also, lack of relevance in an overview article. I feel like these are two extremely important and substantive objections to the inclusion of any or all of those three images. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you understood that I am proposing redrawn, copyright-free versions. Could you please describe why you think they are not relevant to a top level article, relative to the content used by, for example, describing the U.S. as the birthplace of the Internet, hiding the history of Telex from the readership? EllenCT (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Overweight for high level article, one sided etc. Mattnad (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

How do you see them as one sided? To which sides are you referring, and which side do you think they are on? EllenCT (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

These new alternatives seem objectionable in the same way that the first was, and there has been no attempt to point to any other article where the importance of these economic indicators is established, and where such charts really belong, in a sub-article on the U.S. economy or a general economics article linked to from there. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why have you not responded to my question for specific reasons about your objection above? EllenCT (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional alternative

I propose inclusion of [4]. Please share your opinions. EllenCT (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really appropriate for what is an overview article, may be better in Economic history of the United States or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not appropriate here, not just because there's no underlying explanation at this article, nor room for one, but because this graph's time frame is very narrow (showing a sharp increase of median net worth from about $80,000 in 1992 to a peak of $132,000 in 2007, and then a sharp decline to $81,000 today, giving the impression that the boom of the 1990s was an unsustainable bubble, and not necessarily the result of responsible fiscal policies as we're supposed to believe). This material might find a proper home in an economics article. Why are we continuing to waste time, with so little support, arguing about placing such images here, when there's been so little adding of such material even at the linked, top-level US economics articles? Warning: the Imgur-hosted image took a long time to load for me, so that my computer froze for about a minute. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: would inclusion of the table at [5] instead satisfy your objections? EllenCT (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Are there any photographs in the article which help the reader more than the proposed graphs?

Are there any actual reasons that any of the photographs in the article can help the reader understand the United States more than any of the graphs proposed above? I note that it is extraordinarily easy to find representative images of the US online, but that informative graphs illustrating specific conditions of US residents are much more difficult to identify among the sea of data graphs available. EllenCT (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of information about the Princeton Study "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens"

I am curious as to why there is no inclusion of the information in the now well-known Princeton Study on "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". This is the study that became famous for being the "America is an Oligarchy" study. The findings are pretty glaring and interesting, and I'm genuinely surprised that there is no mention of this at all in the United States section, as I believe it to be pertinent to information about this country and the way it is governed.

Among the statements made in this study are this one: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

Shouldn't this play in some way into this article that is ostensibly about how the US is a "federal republic" where it may additionally be described as an oligarchic government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuggyBrodleteen (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This article covers a vast topic and not everything can be mentioned. And there is no contradiction between being a republic and being an oligarchy. TFD (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

this article does not & should not mention all the multiple models of American politics--it's too general for that. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a single study, and a study can't singlehandedly alter the definition of a country. --Golbez (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support an inclusion of a summary of the findings, which are very well cited (over 300 academic citations since publication) and fully confirmed in the literature at present. Secondary sources abound covering the study and several others. [6] is the beginnings of a quantitative meta-analysis, [7] is a WP:MEDRS-grade review on the topic, and [8] is some interesting current primary research. EllenCT (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed in the past here and here. Morphh ^(talk) 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wealth changes table and life expectancy inclusions

I propose including the following table from Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances data published in [9]:

Median net worth in 2013 dollars	1998	2013	Change
All families	$102,500	$81,200	-20.8%
Bottom 20% of incomes	$8,300	$6,100	-26.5%
2nd lowest 20% of incomes	$47,400	$22,400	-52.7%
Middle 20% of incomes	$76,300	$61,700	-19.1%
Top 10%	$646,600	$1,130,700	+74.9%

I also propose including, "In the United States between 2001 and 2014, higher income was associated with greater longevity, and differences in life expectancy across income groups increased over time."[10] EllenCT (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2016

Please insert a piece in the United States article that discusses ambiguity of its governmental process. Specifically, that the country is officially known as a federal republic, but that certain evidence points to it being a functional capitalist oligarchy. Evidence in link below:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Poverty graph proposal

The number of Americans in poverty and poverty rate: 1959 to 2011. United States.

I proposed including [11] from [12] with the graph at right, and there were no objections before the talk section was archived. I would like to obtain further discussion about such changes, please. EllenCT (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a democracy

The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".[267]

The placement of the reference suggests the entire paragraph is supports by the reference. However, page 6 of the reference: Scheb, John M.; Scheb, John M. II (2002). An Introduction to the American Legal System. Florence, KY: Delmar, p. 6. ISBN 0-7668-2759-3 is available on google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=MaBY0tsz5WwC&lpg=PP1&dq=Introduction%20to%20the%20American%20Legal%20System&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=true and states:

The United States relies on representative democracy, but our system of government is much more complex than that. We are not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law [...]

See https://imgur.com/download/Y2nS1wo/

In other words, the entire point of the paragraph is that the United States is NOT a representative democracy. Additionally, I could not find the word "federation" (using Google Books' search) in this book, and I'm pretty sure the Greek federation is one of many older federations.

Barry.carter (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the entire point of the paragraph is that the representative democracy used in the American federal republic to choose representatives is not the sole characteristic of its constitution, in that there is a constitutional rule of law above the day to day votes of the people or their representatives to preserve minority rights, etc. --- The ancient Greek federations of various descriptions did not survive into modern times, the Swiss fundamentally altered their constitutions in the nineteenth century, I believe. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with TVH. Also, although the constitution limits what Congress can do, the constitution itself can be changed through a democratic process. TFD (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've now edited the page to reflect what Scheb actually says. The oldest federation thing may be true, but it's not in Scheb. The Constitution is not changed through a democratic process: it theoretically requires a super majority (75% of the states) to pass an amendment, not a simple majority. Conversely, it only requires 11% of the total population: http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2988/can-an-11-minority-actually-pass-a-constitutional-amendment Barry.carter (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No would say that requiring over 50% is undemocratic. It is required for example to override a presidential veto. And a democratic process in each state has agreed the amending process. Modern Greece btw dates to the early 19th and is therefore not older than the U.S. Ancient Greece was not a federation. But Switzerland is probably the oldest surviving federation. TFD (talk)

The process for the Constitution amendment is democratic, it is grounded in the people. A majority of the people in each state must ratify the amendment, or a majority of the people’s representatives elected by a majority or plurality in single member districts within each state must ratify. Then, based on the people’s express will on the subject, three-fourths (75%) of the states nationally must ratify to impose fundamental law over the entire nation.

Btw, some object to the Fourteenth Amendment that requires due process and equal protection under the law for every citizen in the states. This applies the Bill of Rights that had only been applied to the federal government before. The Supreme Court when overturning state-based oppressions has not “usurped” states rights. States have no rights to withhold due process or equal protection of the laws to anyone in any state according to the Fourteenth Amendment since 1868. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

some editors seem to argue that a democracy is never allowed to make rules requiring a supermajority. Its a contradiction to insist the people can NOT decide on the rules in a democracy. That's odd and contradictory and has no place in this article. Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

Section "Language", blurp "Source:"

"Most Americans respondents who speak a language other than English at home also report speaking English "well" or "very well." For the language groups listed above, the strongest English-language proficiency is among native speakers of German (96% report..."

• The survey asks a sample of all those present on U.S. territory, regardless of citizenship or affiliation.
• The source lists "Languages spoken at home"; no indication that they are necessarily native.

75.172.217.199 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://courses.ttu.edu/secunnin/40.2.williams.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Link doesn't lead anywhere, but I haven't reverted edit. Text can be accessed via DOI link. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Table of acquisitions

The quick reasons I can think of why this isn't good: The U.S. changed its borders many times other than these; the cost is irrelevant without accounting for inflation; the area doesn't add up to anything else in the article; it likely doesn't take into account losses, like with the Webster-Ashburton Treaty or the Treaty of 1818; it ignores substantial but past holdings like the Philippines; it is way too much detail for too little payoff in an already-overlarge article; it's vastly better handled in other articles; and the sourcing, to a 1972 edition of Rand McNally, is, to put it mildly, curious. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The chart is incomplete, it does not cover all acquisitions and ignores cessions. No reason why the Panama Canal Zone is mentioned, but not Guantanamo Bay, for example, or why the annual amount paid to Panama is excluded or the return of the zone to Panama. A lot of explanation is required but that puts it beyond the scope of this short article. TFD (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have an almost identical table in my 1967 Rand McNally World Atlas, which has notes detailing the Philippines and Panama, but not as part of the table. Leaving aside the question of lifting such contents wholesale, the table is otherwise questionable (its over-referencing; its Hawaiian area, which is slightly at variance with the 6,449 sqmi at Republic of Hawaii, or the 6,424 sqmi in my edition; and the omission of the 133 sqmi area for the Virgin Islands). However, the table is succinct in a way that the most-closely-related Wikipedia articles (Territorial evolution of the United States, linked from the this article's sectional hatnote, and United States territorial acquisitions, linked from "Territorial evolution..."), are not. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a new table: U.S. territorial acquisitions and costs. It would be great to get help... there were slight variations on sq. mileage and dates between sources.

U.S. territorial acquisitions and costs

Accession	Date	Area (sq.mi.)	Cost in Dollars
Original territory of the Thirteen States	1783	892,135	-----
Louisiana Purchase, from France	1803	827,987	$15,000,000
Florida (East and West), purchased from Spain	1819	72,101	$5,000,000
Annexation of Texas	1845	389,166	-----
Oregon Territory, by treaty with Great Britain	1846	286,541	-----
Mexican Cession	1848	529,189	15,000,000
Gadsden Purchase, from Mexico	1854	29,670	10,000,000
Baker Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856	1857	0.5	-----
Howland Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856	1857	0.6	-----
Jarvis Island, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856	1857	1.7	-----
Johnston Atoll, unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856	1857	1.1	-----
Purchase of Alaska, from Russia	1867	591,000	7,200,000
Midway Islands, annexation of unoccupied area	1867	2	-----
Hawaiian Islands annexaction	1898	6,450	-----
Philippine Islands, purchased from Spain (Full independence was granted in July, 1946)	1898	115,800	20,000,000
Puerto Rico, by treaty with Spain	1898	3,508	-----
Guam, by treaty with Spain	1899	209	-----
American Samoa, by treaty with Great Britain and Germany	1899	76	-----
Panama Canal Zone, by treaty with Panama	1903	553	$10,000,000 (plus $250,000 annually)
Guantanamo, by treaty with Cuba	1903	45	$3,386.25 (rent annually)
Virgin Islands, by purchase from Denmark	1917	136	$25,000,000
Kingman Reef, annexed	1922	0.4	-----
Kanton Island and Enderbury Island, joint occupation with Britain (Independent as Kiribati in 1979)	1938	6.5	-----
Mariana Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; self-governing as Northern Mariana Islands	1947	179	-----
Caroline Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; 1986 most islands adopt commonwealth status as Federated States of Micronesia	1947	500	-----
Marshall Islands, United Nations Trust Territory; 1979 self-governing; 1986 independent as Republic of the Marshall Islands	1947	70	-----

KamelTebaast 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I see that you've learned to combine references, at the new article that you've created. I question such a creation, though. If it is appropriate, the table should probably be linked from one of the geography articles mentioned above, and not directly from here. There should also be some attempt to make sure your figures are in accordance with the numbers given on other pages. You might have a reasonable summary table eventually, but it's unnecessarily detailed for this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The purchase amounts are not comparable because some were free market and others were coercive. After the Spanish American war, for example, the U.S. acquired territories and paid nominal amounts as part of a peace settlement. TFD (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

US insular areas SVG.svg

It's Northern Mariana Islands rather than Northern Marina Islands. I just don't know how to change maps.

In this case, it was an SVG, which are text documents that are displayed as images, so it was thankfully just a matter of searching for "Marina" and changing it. I've done so and uploaded it; thanks! --Golbez (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016

Please add a section under the military about terrorism. Since the United States is active in the Middle East, this is important to include. Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light 15:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Unanswered Telex question

Is the US properly the ancestral home of the internet, or does the Telex lay greater claim to that title? Hint: Tickertape. EllenCT (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

In the recent discussion that I remember, we decided that the Internet, as a particular set of methods to network computers, can be fairly said to have originated in the US, even if fundamental concepts, and other implementations accomplishing similar goals, originated elsewhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Update on racial composition

the article shows the data from 2010, as we are in 2016 the article shoulda be updated. the official census shows data from 2015: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00

Race and Hispanic Origin:

White alone, percent, July 1, 2015

77.1%

Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2015 13.3%

American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2015 1.2%

Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2015 5.6%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2015 0,2%

Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2015 2.6%

Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015 17.6%

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015 61,6% — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasFanch (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

HDI, etc

The lead currently says that the US "It leads the world in several measures of socioeconomic performance;" however, none of the lists linked there actually has the US at the top. Surely this wording is a little misleading? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The links in that sentence lead to List of countries by average wage (US, 4th), Human Development Index (8th), List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita (5th), with the CBS citation supporting the US being at the top in "productivity per person". Perhaps the wording should be changed to "a leader in the world" or "ranks highly". The US is the top country at List of countries by GDP (nominal), which was linked in the previous sentence. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a slight tweak is all I'm looking for. It is near the top of all those lists, and that is a fact relevant to the lead; we just need to not imply that it is number 1 in all those lists. I would prefer "ranks highly" for that reason; if we want to avoid weasel words, we can say "Ranks in the top-ten" but that is rather wordy. If no further objections are raised, I will add "ranks highly" in the next couple of days. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016

55 million Hispanics in the US source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2015/cb15-ff18.html

Ayarrow (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ayarrow (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Enough already. Anybody with even a minimal knoweldge of US Military would know the terrorism is notable and encyclopedic. Yeah, it may not be sourced now, but it's never going to get sources if you people keep removing it. USA 21:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finally discussing your proposed edit. Generally, the people making the statements should be the one providing sourcing. For example, the strange bit about how the military's strength is 'heavily disputed.' Apart from not making sense, it also doesn't make sense. Terrorism, and the U.S.'s interaction with it, probably do merit mention - but certainly not in the method you've chosen. --Golbez (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also see WP:RECENTISM. The Syrian War does not merit a mention in this top-level article about the U.S. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

International relations

There should probably be a section on international relations, given the importance this has for the US. Clean Copy^talk 12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

International relations are important to US politics, which is why, aside from its own article, the brunt of it belongs in the Politics of the United States article. However, this article already has a section on "Foreign relations" which gives a broad overview of US foreign/international relations, so if you feel anything is missing, you can try adding it there. Gpapazian (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gpapazian and Clean Copy: Wikipedia already has an article about the foreign relations of the United States, so it could be summarized briefly in this article. Jarble (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

U.S. or United States

Please discuss whether the article should employ "United States" or the abbreviation "U.S." here rather than edit-warring! Thanks. (@Hell Hawk, C.Fred, Mason.Jones, The United States of America is the best, and Thomas.W:) Clean Copy^talk 17:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss really, there's absolutely no reason to abbreviate. Hell Hawk (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason not to abbreviate. The article flows better in most places with the abbreviation, and there's nothing in MOS:U.S. to restrict usage, except for the few circumstances where another country is mentioned in the same sentence. Even then, U.S. and USSR works just as well as United States and Soviet Union. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As there is an edit war going on, there clearly is something to discuss.

I am tempted to suggest that, in the absence of any clear advantage to either course of action, the status quo ante should prevail. Clean Copy^talk 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It is standard to use abbreviations and it is fine here. The abbreviation is explained at the outset and is unlikely to cause confusion. TFD (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The term "U.S." already redirects to this article. Is that good enough? USA 01:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That really has nothing to do with the internal style of the article. Clean Copy^talk 13:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For the last 15 years, "United States" has been spelled out as a noun in this article -- abbreviated only as an adjective, or in footnotes and references. This is the style in every encyclopedia article "United States" I've seen, in four languages. As a former copy editor, I know that style books often recommend this distinction, and I've never seen "U.S." as a noun in a feature article (exceptions: tables, charts, and graphs). Over the last week, two editors have decided to replace this style with the un-encyclopedic noun "U.S.," not once but every time in the key introductory paragraphs. This serves no practical purpose except to clutter up the introduction with abbreviations; it does not help us to economize space or to save on characters. What it does manage to do is make this article look less professional and more amateurish. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Fully concur with Mason Jones and Clean Copy on this one. Unfortunately, we have an ongoing issue with User:Czar and certain other editors taking the position that WP:CIVILITY overrides all WP policies and that original research, unverifiable information, and unusual writing styles (such as using U.S. as a noun) are all okay because it would violate WP:CIVILITY to point out that another editor is violating those policies or the WP MoS. (See discussion at bottom of this talk page as it appeared on 24 July 2016). --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds pretty clear that there are no real policy guidelines that support either position. Does someone want to take on the task of restoring anything that needs to be restored? Clean Copy^talk 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Coolcaesar (talk · contribs), I chimed in about Czar's warning and I think you're misrepresenting what he said. It's perfectly fine to say that something violates MoS, but you shouldn't be describing them as dumb or calling their position or nonsense. Just try not to be mean. As far as this issue, clearly there is some difference in opinion and I don't see anyone citing anything in particular at the MoS. However, given WP:RETAIN, it seems like it's best to just spell it out if that's been the historical norm. II | (t - c) 05:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at Britannica's article on the United States. Mason Jones is correct that U.S. Is used rarely and exclusively as an adjective, normally in conjunction with an official aspect of the government (U.S. Constitution or Congress, for example), whereby the next word is also capitalized. I would propose that, in lieu of WP having its own style guidelines, we adopt this on a provisional basis. Clean Copy^talk 11:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that MOS:ABBREV#Countries and multinational unions explicitly permits "US or U.S". (I express no opinion on whether it's appropriate in this context, merely point out that MOS does cover it.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely -- both versions are allowed, and it remains to determine which should be preferred in the specific contexts being discussed. In the absence of any clear claim, historical priority is normally accepted (mostly to avoid senseless edit wars, I suspect). But if a clear justification can be established, that would be even better. Clean Copy^talk 12:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Just caught up on this discussion. Well, I thought User:Czar's position is clear enough from a simple close reading; I respectfully disagree that I was misrepresenting it.

Getting back to the point, the issue is not whether there should be periods in the abbreviation (which seems to be what User:Mitch Ames is referring to) but whether the abbreviation should be substituted for the noun phrase "United States" in all locations after the lead paragraph. I concur with Clean Copy, Mason Jones, and Hell Hawk's positions as stated above and strongly disagree with the positions of C.Fred and TFD on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll chime in to agree that, for the most part, "United States" should be spelled out (although I'm not of the opinion that "U.S." (or "US") should never be used), as is the general style in the Encyclopedia Britannica (note that the Britannica will use a term such as "federal government", for specificity or variety, I think more often than we do here). The Wikipedia article on the United Kingdom has "UK" in use, but that country doesn't have any problem with confusing their initials with a common pronoun. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is a partial reversion that I made to the article on San Francisco, where I undid part of a blanket conversion of initials to "United States", because the latter reference was too clumsy or long-winded ("United States state", "...city") or virtually never heard ("United States [Route] 101"). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

" ...whether there should be periods in the abbreviation (which seems to be what User:Mitch Ames is referring to) ..."
My point was that MOS explicitly allows the use of the acronym — contrary to earlier assertions that Wikipedia had no style guidelines on the use of an acronym vs writing out "United States" in full. I quoted "US or U.S." (rather than one or the other) because that is what is listed in MOS:ABBREV#Countries and multinational unions. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The use of the abbreviation as a noun seems far too informal to me.--Khajidha (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much focus on Native Americans

History section focuses too much on Native Americans and their relation to the U.S. up until:

Independence and expansion (1776–1865)

Honestly, there were much more people who arrived to America in 1770s onwards than Native Americans, and their history should be covered more as they were the bulk of the population.Ernio48 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a surprising amount about Native Americans except in the first section, entitled "Indigenous and European contact" where it seems appropriate. The following sections seem to have relatively little. What do you think needs to be changed? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There is very little about them. There were significant to post 1776 history however because of their relation to western expansion. TFD (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

The great seal realy should not have the brown circle around it. It should just the plain coat of arms as it is shown on us passports. Like this https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_United_States.svg

Mlesch (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirection from "America"

As all of you may know, one of the main goals of Wikipedia is to be as neutral as possible. Taking this into account, I think it would be best if the redirection from "America" is removed from this page and placed on the "Americas" article. This is a major change, but one that I, and possible many others, feel is necessary.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftyrye27 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There have been a number of discussions on the appropriateness of "America" referring to the United States. Have you consulted the archives and seen if your concerns haven't already been addressed? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality" does not mean pretending that "America" means anything other than the United States of America in usual English language-usage. Quite the contrary, in fact. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Concur with RGloucester and Dhtwiki. Please also read the well-sourced article on American (word), as well as Wikipedia's core policies. As Walt Disney famously said to P. L. Travers about Mary Poppins, "the ship has sailed." Under those core policies, it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to change anyone's mind about what the word "America" should mean; rather, it can only merely reflect what it currently means in the English language. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It has many meanings, as can be seen at America (disambiguation). Georgia guy (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality means that the page "America" should re-direct to the page readers are most likely to be looking for, which is this article. In the English-speaking world, since U.S. independence, America almost always refers to the U.S. TFD (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

English-language Wikipedia is not for citizens of the USA exclusively or even for all native English speakers - it is for all users of the English language for which it should be neutral to all. If you look in the Americas article, the word "America" referring to the whole Americas is the original connotation and also the most widespread outside the USA -- with the word to mean USA considered to be a misappropriation. Either way, if this is a controversial issue then the most neutral choice would not to side with one or the other but to make America redirect to America (disambiguation) -- which already has a link to United States at the top, before any bullets (It is now a link to the "America" redirect but that would be easily changed). Johan Hanson (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Johan Hanson: Have you read the ten years (to make up a time frame) of discussion on this point? Please do. Carptrash (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have read some. I think we should rise above the bickering and do something constructive. Redirecting America to the disambiguation page would not be less correct and I think would cause this discussion to reoccur less often. I also think that United States has too many links to disambiguation pages in its header.Johan Hanson (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

the controversy seems invented. The last references to people complaining about "American" is from the 1940s (Mencken) -- I have not seen any prominent person since then complain. Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: A controversy can be "invented" only when none exists - if nobody is driving the issue. This is an issue. You are misdirecting.Johan Hanson (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As Rjensen notes, this is an issue as described by Mencken in the 1940s before the adoption of American English in business, airlines and computers overtook British English in worldwide usage, hence the note for the usage at the United Nations for “American” to mean U.S. national. If there is a current reference to the update Mencken used at the America article, — then — it would make sense to redirect “America” to redirect to America (disambiguation) as I understand Johan Hanson to propose. Is there such a reference substantiating the controversy in the present day? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I would generally disagree with Johan Hanson. "America" means the United States around the world, with the notable exception of the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking worlds (due to historical usage and cultural resentment). "Amerika" in a headline referring to the United States appears almost every day in any major German publication, just as "Amérique" to mean only the United States will be encountered daily across the French media. The stylebook of the British magazine Economist stipulates "America" as the standard term for the United States in all articles. The terms "America" and "American" aren't going anywhere. That said, this automatic Wiki redirect is just going too far. "America" should go to the disambiguation page, in recognition of the term's triple duty: it means other things to other people, even native English-speakers. Just my take -- and I'm as attached to "America(n)" as anyone. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A news team for the CBC traveled all over Canada trying to determine hat it meant to be a Canadian. At the end of the six weeks (or whatever) that the tour took only one constant emerged. "We are not Americans." I suspect that the same thing would happen in Mexico and pretty much every country in the Western Hemisphere. This issue keeps coming up not (opinion) because it needs to be changed but because there is a small group of people out there who want it changed and won't give it up. Carptrash (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Concur with all of the above who have responded to User:Johan Hanson, particularly User:Carptrash's last sentence. Again, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. The point of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV is that Wikipedia always follows. It never leads. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not that "America" is primary for United States but the other way around: that "America" to mean the continent also still remains valid English. (See Americas (terminology)). The word is technically a homonym in the English language (conceptually as America (Country) and America (Continent)) with the meaning depending on the context. According to WP:NATURALDIS, "America" should therefore redirect to a disambiguation page. In previous discussions, I have seen several references to WP:COMMONNAME for the existing choice -- but that policy is for synonyms: when one thing has many names, not when the same name can apply to different things. My suggestion to link to a disambiguation page does not violate WP:NPOV and does not violate WP:NOR or WP:V because it is based on existing articles. If you are going to reply to this with an opposing view then please for each argument do post a proper link to that policy and/or article section with an explanation of how that link supports your argument. Johan Hanson (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

the basic issue is helping readers of the English Wikipedia, which the status qoes OK. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johan Hanson: I'll ask again, is there a modern reliable source that says there is any controversy in directly linking “America” with the United States in English as it is used today worldwide? Otherwise, the "issue" on this page just appears to be trolling. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

""America" to mean the continent also still remains valid English." Technically, yes. In practice, not really. Aside from references to pre-Revolutionary events ("Columbus discovered America" type usage), usage by multilingual international bodies (Organization of American States), and usage by non-native speakers does anyone actually use it that way in English text? That is, in a monolingual, native language, source about modern events would anyone ever say (for example) that the most recent Olympics were held in America? --Khajidha (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)