| Revision as of 03:01, 11 June 2007 editDCGeist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,204 edits Crime and punishment← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:12, 11 June 2007 edit undoCorticopia (talk | contribs)5,613 edits →Cite question: reply to ... whateverNext edit → | ||
| Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
| With the exception of the first, every one of these miscues, blunders, and outright errors was in the article when you dropped in for a little edit on March 3 (). And, again with the exception of the first, every one of those miscues, blunders, and outright errors was still there on June 1, at the point when MrZaius stepped in and intensified his editing of the article (). | With the exception of the first, every one of these miscues, blunders, and outright errors was in the article when you dropped in for a little edit on March 3 (). And, again with the exception of the first, every one of those miscues, blunders, and outright errors was still there on June 1, at the point when MrZaius stepped in and intensified his editing of the article (). | ||
| I could cite a dozen more such cases, I believe, but there's no need now, is there? I look forward to your specific explanation in each case why you chose to allow things to remain as they were for such a long time. And I also look forward to your explanation of your philosophy: all those botches were in the article for ''such'' a terribly long while--therefore, you believe they should be restored, right? Your answers, I'm sure, will shed much light on your devotion to your little pet cite.—] 07:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | I could cite a dozen more such cases, I believe, but there's no need now, is there? I look forward to your specific explanation in each case why you chose to allow things to remain as they were for such a long time. And I also look forward to your explanation of your philosophy: all those botches were in the article for ''such'' a terribly long while--therefore, you believe they should be restored, right? Your answers, I'm sure, will shed much light on your devotion to your little pet cite.—] 07:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I really can't and won't respond to your diatribe above, which seems to not only be rather verbose, ], off-topic, and a ], but I will be back later to ] ] seem to content to remove in direct contravention of policy, and other edits I choose to make. ] 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Geography section/climate map location == | == Geography section/climate map location == | ||
Revision as of 03:12, 11 June 2007
{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page
| Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page. |
| Current population (est.): 339,054,000 as of January 11, 2025 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 | United States has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on . |
Article growth rate
Over the last twenty four hours, no less than 9K was added to the article, and only 3k removed. A good number of the edits were positive growth, including the citation of previously unverifiable paragraphs. However, do try to stay as close as you can to a 1:1 addition:deletion ratio, to at least maintain the current size. A lot of the main articles linked to from here could use expansion and attention as well, if you feel the need to add something to an already lengthy topic. That said, I think we're still doing reasonably okay. Will try to recalculate the prose length this morning. MrZaius 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Though I have to say somethings such as gender roles and the changing face of the American family were completely missing from the article and it was quite difficult to add a mention of these subjects w/o inflating the article. As far as I know, however, these edits only contributed about 2k in length. I think a lot of the growth comes from additional cites - afterall refs constitute quite a large share of this article's length. Anyways, I agree the remove/add ration stay below 1:1. I look forward to seeing the latest length calculations. Regards, Signature 05:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've added essential, fundamental information to "Independence and expansion" as efficiently as possible. If necessary, the last two sentences of the first graf--on Crown loyalists and split Native American sympathies--which have been there in some form for a while can be cut, but I think they help to complete (summarily, of course) the picture of the revolutionary period.—DCGeist 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah - Definitely ought to stay, since that's pretty much all the coverage we have of Canada and makes up a large portion of the Native American coverage. Hard to work that in without having editors throwing NPOV flags one way or the other - Working it into history seems to have worked well. Think we're running out of things to cut, although I do look forward to getting a chance to read through the new culture section. Might be a sentence or three uncovered in the main that can be moved, but I haven't really looked yet. MrZaius 05:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Cite question
Why is the simplistic, common sense description of the location of the US in the LEAD cited? Doesn't matter all that much - Only removed the cite this morning because it had been done once before and didn't see anything in WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources that seemed relevant, but I'm curious: Is the section directly paraphrasing Bartleby's? If so, is it safe to assume that that could be fixed with relative ease? MrZaius 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm unsure what the challenge is. While the description may be common sense, it has required collaboration from numerous editors over time to achieve it. I find it ironic that you remove relevant citations -- specifically, not just Bartleby's but its mirroring of an electronic version of the two-volume Columbia Gazetteer of North America -- based on vague (and somewhat disagreeable) FAC comments while, for example, glazing over the third paragraph which (save the last sentence) is completely unsourced and, thus, contestable. This article will not become an FAC candidate by removing citations when it's already
thricealmost four times the length it should be. Corticopia 14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)- Actually, I was requesting a clearer definition of contestable - Again, I didn't do the initial delete, just restored it when it was reverted with a less clear explanation than the deleter. Don't care all that much - trying to get a decent notion of how the guideline works. Also, please note that the article length is actually only twice the normal guideline, when measuring only the prose, stripped of templates, references, and wikisyntax, as called for in WP:LENGTH. MrZaius 14:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Who did the initial delete, then? I apologise for pointing the finger. As for what may be contestable: the basic constituents of the U.S. (50 states (48+1+1), federal district, insular territories) and their locations; whether or not the last is part of the U.S. proper; its overall location in the Western hemisphere (discussed above). When all fails, citations are preferable to none. And, even at 60K, counting only the prose in an article's length is like reckoning a human to comprise only its skeleton. ;) In any event, it remains too long ... which is probably one of the major hurdles to it being an FAC. Corticopia 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there were a fair number of calls for condensing things a touch, but I haven't seem many calls for large cuts, 'cept for one calling for axing a large portion of the Demographics section. MrZaius 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- All of the material described above is (a) easily verifiable via consultation of any standard reference book and (b) covered in the main text of the article. The words "relevant" and "bona fide" have been used to characterize the specific citation in question. No convincing argument has yet been made that it is "relevant"; as for "bona fide," the content of the citation certainly is, but its application absolutely is not. Suggestions that any matter of fact, no matter the ease of its verifiability and the fact that it has provoked no challenge, must be cited at each and every appearance of it in Misplaced Pages are obviously baseless. The statement made above that the third paragraph in the lead is "completely unsourced" is confounding--the paragraph is a summary of material covered in the main text. In standard lead format, it requires no citation at all. The citation in question and demands for more in the lead are clearly out of order, per WP:CITE.—DCGeist 15:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- DCG, au contraire -- WP:CITE specifically indicates to source information that may be challenged. The breadth and diversity of U.S. constituents would seem to justify sourcing and, this content was discussed at length. You also seem to be insistent on removing citations from the lead, really with no or conflated basis in policy, while supporting a verbose synthesis with little sourcing in the form of the third paragraph. Also, given the fact that these citations were in place for some months before you alone decided to remove them -- i.e., with no modicum of consensus -- is no cause to part with them now. Anyhow, despite sophistry, no convincing argument has been put forth to justify the removal of citations either. Until then, I will continue to restore. Prune elsewhere. Corticopia 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- You 've just made your third revert of the day. I'm making my second now. Want to keep going, or do you want to find support from other engaged editors for your unique postion? P.S. Is the reference to "sophistry" a compliment or an attack?—DCGeist 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Take your pick, but considering you've no consensus to support removal of citations that have been in place for months, I am not the one who will be yielding. Corticopia 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it appears I do. All recently engaged editors have either explicitly supported the cite's removal or accepted the removal without qualification. At the moment you stand alone and on the verge of violating the three-revert rule.—DCGeist 19:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry: the only other editor who appears to have even hinted at that explicitly is Mr. Zaius; others have made vague comments which are just that which I can't qualify. A consensus that definitely does not make. Your continued removals may evn be considered to be a Foundation issue. Anyhow, rest assured I will be back in a day and will continue to re-add citations that you alone have removed after months. And that's all. Corticopia 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it appears I do. All recently engaged editors have either explicitly supported the cite's removal or accepted the removal without qualification. At the moment you stand alone and on the verge of violating the three-revert rule.—DCGeist 19:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Take your pick, but considering you've no consensus to support removal of citations that have been in place for months, I am not the one who will be yielding. Corticopia 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- You 've just made your third revert of the day. I'm making my second now. Want to keep going, or do you want to find support from other engaged editors for your unique postion? P.S. Is the reference to "sophistry" a compliment or an attack?—DCGeist 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- DCG, au contraire -- WP:CITE specifically indicates to source information that may be challenged. The breadth and diversity of U.S. constituents would seem to justify sourcing and, this content was discussed at length. You also seem to be insistent on removing citations from the lead, really with no or conflated basis in policy, while supporting a verbose synthesis with little sourcing in the form of the third paragraph. Also, given the fact that these citations were in place for some months before you alone decided to remove them -- i.e., with no modicum of consensus -- is no cause to part with them now. Anyhow, despite sophistry, no convincing argument has been put forth to justify the removal of citations either. Until then, I will continue to restore. Prune elsewhere. Corticopia 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- All of the material described above is (a) easily verifiable via consultation of any standard reference book and (b) covered in the main text of the article. The words "relevant" and "bona fide" have been used to characterize the specific citation in question. No convincing argument has yet been made that it is "relevant"; as for "bona fide," the content of the citation certainly is, but its application absolutely is not. Suggestions that any matter of fact, no matter the ease of its verifiability and the fact that it has provoked no challenge, must be cited at each and every appearance of it in Misplaced Pages are obviously baseless. The statement made above that the third paragraph in the lead is "completely unsourced" is confounding--the paragraph is a summary of material covered in the main text. In standard lead format, it requires no citation at all. The citation in question and demands for more in the lead are clearly out of order, per WP:CITE.—DCGeist 15:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there were a fair number of calls for condensing things a touch, but I haven't seem many calls for large cuts, 'cept for one calling for axing a large portion of the Demographics section. MrZaius 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Who did the initial delete, then? I apologise for pointing the finger. As for what may be contestable: the basic constituents of the U.S. (50 states (48+1+1), federal district, insular territories) and their locations; whether or not the last is part of the U.S. proper; its overall location in the Western hemisphere (discussed above). When all fails, citations are preferable to none. And, even at 60K, counting only the prose in an article's length is like reckoning a human to comprise only its skeleton. ;) In any event, it remains too long ... which is probably one of the major hurdles to it being an FAC. Corticopia 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was requesting a clearer definition of contestable - Again, I didn't do the initial delete, just restored it when it was reverted with a less clear explanation than the deleter. Don't care all that much - trying to get a decent notion of how the guideline works. Also, please note that the article length is actually only twice the normal guideline, when measuring only the prose, stripped of templates, references, and wikisyntax, as called for in WP:LENGTH. MrZaius 14:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argument that things should remain in the article because they've been there a long time is a striking one, and deeply intriguing philosophically. Why don't we take a closer look at a few things you allowed to remain in the article for a long time...in some cases a very long time. You withdrew from regularly editing the article after May 18. Let's examine some elements of the version of the article you left behind in apparent contentment (Corticopia's Happy Version of May 18):
- That presumably non-"verbose" historical summary in the lead you are presumably so proud of instructs us that the colonies "declared their independence by issuing a Declaration of Independence." Why did you choose to let such laughably clumsy English remain in the article? And, having so chosen, how exactly did you summon up the chutzpah to criticize another version of the summary, one composed by editors fluent in the English language?
- That lead summary you presumably favor over the current "verbose" version also tells us that the U.S. "exert...dominant influence." Why did you choose to let such painfully awkward (yet easily correctable) phrasing remain in the article's lead for the long time that you did?
- You left behind an article that mentions the War of 1812 but doesn't say who it was fought against. Why did you choose to let such a glaring, rather ridiculous, omission remain in the article for the long time that you did?
- You left behind an article from which a schoolchild would conclude that all animal names--Buffalo, Bison, Bald Eagle--are capitalized. Why did you choose to let such egregious and plainly improper style remain in the article for the long time that you did?
- You left behind an article that for any non-Wikilink-savvy reader does not give the slightest hint how Florida, and Texas, and Alaska, and Hawaii and, well, most of the United States came to be part of the United States. (Guess they were just sittin' there empty and unloved waitin' for us!) Why did you choose to allow such remarkable omissions from the article for the long time that you did?
- You left behind an article that claims twelve U.S. citizens have won the Nobel Prize in Literature. The correct and easily determinable figure is eleven. (T.S. Eliot, of course, was born in the U.S. but had been a British citizen for over two decades when he won the prize. You want to count him, you better explain your ennumeration method, 'cause it's not simply American "citizens.") Why did you choose to let this error remain in the article for the long time that you did?
- You left behind an article that describes the "Great American Novel," the "comic book," and "Disney's animated films" all as "genres." Why did you choose to let such obvious mangling of the English language persist in the article for as long as you did?
With the exception of the first, every one of these miscues, blunders, and outright errors was in the article when you dropped in for a little edit on March 3 (). And, again with the exception of the first, every one of those miscues, blunders, and outright errors was still there on June 1, at the point when MrZaius stepped in and intensified his editing of the article (). I could cite a dozen more such cases, I believe, but there's no need now, is there? I look forward to your specific explanation in each case why you chose to allow things to remain as they were for such a long time. And I also look forward to your explanation of your philosophy: all those botches were in the article for such a terribly long while--therefore, you believe they should be restored, right? Your answers, I'm sure, will shed much light on your devotion to your little pet cite.—DCGeist 07:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I really can't and won't respond to your diatribe above, which seems to not only be rather verbose, fallacious, off-topic, and a failed or obscure attempt to make a point, but I will be back later to re-add citations you and few others seem to content to remove in direct contravention of policy, and other edits I choose to make. Corticopia 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Geography section/climate map location
I'm working on a 12" iBook, running Safari full-frame. Putting the climate map back where it was, it (a) lines up with the second, nonclimatological graf in the section, and (b) squeezes (I almost wrote violently squeezes) that graf from the right, with the Mt. Hood photo on the left. In short, it looks much worse, given my particular setup. You've checked it multiple ways and it does look better in most/all of them?—DCGeist 06:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- My main concern was that when the graphic is dropped down to avoid the squeeze mentioned above, it bleeds into /* Environment */ at a high resolution. Might want to just consider cutting one of the three images, as there doesn't appear to be a clean way to make it readable at both high WS resolutions and lower ones. Which should we axe? MrZaius 07:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I miss ol' Hoody, but you made the right choice.—DCGeist 10:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This resemble a sentence? (not to mention Easter eggs)
The Abraham Lincoln assassination after war radicalized Republican Reconstruction policies, which ended in the Compromise of 1877 over the disputed 1876 election, leading to Jim Crow laws which disenfranchised the newly freed slaves— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs)
- Fixed the grammatical issues. As far as describing Reconstruction goes, I've posted: "These policies, aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves" but we should continue to mention "Reconstruction" in the preceding sentence, given the importance of the term. MrZaius 09:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Tables
The most recent comment on the FAC discussion called for the Largest Cities, Economics, and Demographics tables to be removed, as distractions. Personally, I'm not sure whether I consider them more of a distraction or a benefit, so I just removed the wholly redundant sections of the demographics table that were dealing with stats mentioned in Education, the lead infobox, and the demo section proper. Still:
- List of United States metropolitan areas and List of United States cities by population are both linked to in the last sentence of the demo section - Was the commenter correct that those links are adequate in and of themselves, and the shrunk-down largest cities table should be axed?
- Econ & Demo - Should what remains of both be moved to the main articles, if not already present?
Again, note that I'm really asking here - I'm neither in favor of or against moving or removing the remaining tables. MrZaius 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing debate over tables & over cities. Some people think tables interrupt the flow. The wiki style gods may disagree but I find paragraphs that could easily be put into tables interrupt the flow much more & it's much harder to know how far ahead to skip if one chooses to do so. Some people also seem to think who made what movie in 1915 is far more important in a country article than anything about cities - in which 79% (?) of the people live--JimWae 09:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- And this from a Cultural Creative...for shame.—DCGeist 10:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- tables interrupt an article less than many of the images do - especially those left side images--JimWae 09:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- The images are another style issue that depends to a great extent on the reader. I personally find a lengthy article intimidating and dull without the color and interruption of periodic graphics, including the tables. MrZaius 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd rather see tables than paragraphs that are just boring, disguised lists - such as in the religion section - especially when I want to go back to find a detail - and it's buried in there somewhere --JimWae 09:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's exactely the point behind them. There are certain key figures that need to be mention in this and not the sub-articles, that can either be placed in a "disguised list" paragraph or an easy-to-read infobox. Signature 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's why you would check The economy of the US, for example. These tables don't belong into the main article, but definitely belong into specific sub-articles is my point.--Svetovid 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Economy section table provides very, very basic facts about the US economy that would read like a random accumulation of facts if they were put into text. (unless more text to explain them was added w/ the economy balooning in size) It is the most direct and easiest way to convey essential pieces of information to the reader in as few words as possible. BTW: I have left a comment explainig the need for these infoboxes on the FAC page. Signature 16:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Tensions increased with increasing debate?
Tensions increased, not over who would win a debate over states rights, but because of stakes involved, including:
- territory - and wars fought to keep expanding it
- political power - South losing it as North grew & gained majorities
- economic - southern fears that slavery would be made illegal in states too
- moral - objections to Fugitive Slave Laws & being forced to enforce them
--JimWae 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the Civil War section, keep in mind that we have lengthy American Civil War and Origins of the American Civil War articles for a reason. Try to maintain a minimal summary here, without increasing length. The topics you mention are dealt with at length in the linked articles. MrZaius 09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Reference
Because the list is so long, I changed it to
{{scroll box|text={{reflist|2}}|height=200px}}
But I thought perhaps the usage above may justify a template on its own. If you're interested, please discuss at Template talk:Reflist#Contained in a box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Crime and punishment
I believe we need to add a subsesction under Demographics titled "Crime and punishment" or something similar. I gather there's been some pressure to restrict the TOC, but given the enormity of our topic, I believe the TOC at this point is remarkably concise and can well bear this addition.
I've recently added information on America's exceptional incarceration statistics--building on the little bit that was in the Demographics lead text--but there are a number of other important areas in which the country stands out in the Western world and globally that really need to be covered: our high homicide rate, our liberal gun laws (whose constitutional basis a U.S. Court of Appeals just reaffirmed by overturning a restrictive local law for the first time in decades--see, e.g., ), and particularly our unusual devotion to the practice of capital punishment. I see the subsection as two grafs long--(1) a new one covering the crime and gun law topics just mentioned, as well as a brief outline of America's law enforcement system and (2) the current incarceration graf with death penalty coverage added to it. We have excellent articles on Crime in the United States and Capital punishment in the United States that should make summary style and good sourcing very easy. Thoughts?—DCGeist 03:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories: