Talk:United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Good article United States has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Republicans should not be described as center-right[edit]

Hello. Last fall and winter, I argued on this talk page that we should change the sentence "Within American political culture, the center-right Republican Party is considered 'conservative' and the center-left Democratic Party is considered 'liberal'." (Under "Parties and elections" under "Government and politics".) I argued that we should change "center-right" to "right-wing." The sentence was never changed, and now, I am going to argue the same thing: we should change it to "right-wing."

My biggest reason for this is global warming, which is a well-established scientific fact; in spite of this, nearly all Republican politicians dispute that man-made global warming is real. They are denying the validity of science, and that's a really extreme thing to do. A center-right political party would never dispute well-established science, the Republicans are therefore an extremist party, not a center-right party.

You can also look at lots of other issues, for example, health care has been all over the news recently. The Republicans in Congress came pretty close (they were just a couple of votes shy) to taking away the health insurance of some 22 million people, all while giving tax cuts to the richest Americans. That's pretty extreme. A center-right party would not do such a thing. Or you can look at their tax and regulation policies in general: they have fought to remove many regulations on guns, pollution, banking, etc. even when these regulations are common in most industrialized countries. Again, that's not center-right.

Finally, look at our president, who is a Republican and was nominated by the Republican Party, he behaves like a child. He doesn't know what he's talking about, he lies constantly. His election was aided by the Russians, he is a disgrace to our country. But the Republicans let him take the nomination, and they endorsed him and supported him (some criticized him a little bit, but they still endorsed him and voted for him). If the Republicans were a center-right party, then last summer, they all would have said, "This man is unfit to be president, and we refuse to support him." But they didn't. And that goes to show that they are not a center-right party.

Anyway, I think we should change that sentence by replacing "center-right" with "right-wing." Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate my support for this if the description for the Democratic Party is also changed to centrist or center-right. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No guess work pls.....just REGURGITATE the sources... Fred M. Shelley (2015). Governments around the World: From Democracies to Theocracies:. ABC-CLIO, University of Oklahoma. p. 113. ISBN 978-1-4408-3813-2. --Moxy (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Subjective evaluations have no influence here. --Joobo (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's the previous discussion for those who weren't around or who might want to refresh their memories. You still haven't done much in the way of quoting sources to support your position, which you were asked to do previously, as well as here. There's also the matter of being consistent within the encyclopedia, such as the article Republican Party (United States), where I don't see the party being labeled as you would have it be. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would take a long time to find authoritative sources that would tell us that the Republicans are not center-right, and it would take even longer to argue the point well enough to get it passed into this article. I'm a graduate student, and I'm really busy all the time, and I just don't have time. So I nominate someone else to do this research and arguing for me.
Having said that, I think it would be easier to find sources that say that the Republicans were once a center-right party but that they have moved sharply to the right since 1980 than it would be to find unbiased sources that tell us that today's Republicans are "right-wing" (even though they are). So we should go that route. We should state in the article that the Republicans were at one time a center-right party but that they have moved considerably farther to the right in recent decades. (Just that one sentence is enough.)
One source for this is a book called "Restless Giant" by James T. Patterson. (I proposed the same book several months ago.) I would say it's an unbiased book, and it includes criticisms of both parties. He explains how the Republicans operated as a center-right party in the 1970s, but he goes on to discuss how the right wing of the Republican Party rose to national power under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and how the Republicans continued to move to the right under the Congressional Republicans of the 1990s, who resisted the agenda of Bill Clinton, and the election of George W. Bush in 2000. The only problem is: the book ends at 2000. So we would need another source to tell us how the Republicans have moved even further to the right since then. I have too much work to be doing these days, and I'm not going to try to find such a source, but I hope someone else does.
Also, Golbez, I think the Democrats are best described as center-left, because they are internally divided between centrists like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama and liberals like Bernie Sanders. So as an average between the two, I would call them a center-left party.Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
As they are the only parties of any real power in the U.S., is it even worth bothering to distinguish between "left" and "center-left" and "right" and "center-right"? --Khajidha (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Khajidha makes a valid observation. As there are only 2 parties, what do we gain with a difference between left and center-left. Especiall since these labels are subjective and depending on context anyway (e.g. in the European context Democrats would already be labelled center-right (or even right wing)). Arnoutf (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
That's another good point. If this is a "world-wide" spectrum, what's the point? All politics is local. "Left" and "right" are completely dependent on location. --Khajidha (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Over-emphasis of communal living failure[edit]

I have edited thusly [1]. Yes, the statement is true, but it is also tautology. Something doesn't fail because it is succeeded by something else! The main problem is its placing gives too much emphasis to this. Yes, a very few communal experiments failed, but this doesn't mean they were doomed to fail. A better understanding of crops soon to be learnt from the indigenous pop'n was going to make a difference. Less emphasis on the company's insistence the men look for gold, to the detriment of their own welfare, would have helped make the settlements sustainable, that the communal flavour of the settlement was imposed by the company on its indentured servants, not one voluntarily entered into, must be a factor. A reading of the 3 pages cited includes a conventional and correct economic explanation of the benefits of private property over communal ownership, but the settlements failed for multiple reasons, not this one alone. The same referenced book tells in the surrounding pages how the abolishment of the private company running the Virginia settlements in favour of a formal colony is what allowed the company imposed system to be replaced by private settlers. So the economic point being made in the sentence I have removed, although it is one with which we should have much sympathy, hides the fact that it was the abolishment of +private+ company property rights in favour of the establishment of a +state+ colony which allowed for the private settlements! Also, this claim in the History section of this main page is not mentioned in the detailed article History_of_the_United_States. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary History[edit]

The third paragraph of this section claims "Due to the dot-com boom, stable monetary policy under Alan Greenspan, and reduced social welfare spending, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001." There is an embedded link in the phrase "reduced social welfare spending" leading to the page "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act." The implication is "Due to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history."

First of all, no sneaky links for the purpose of political argument. Remove the link or edit the sentence so this politically-motivated claim is out in the open for readers. Any mention of this act in this context must explain how and/or why it had a positive impact on the US economy.

Second, the cited works do not support or even mention this point. One of the cited works is a newspaper opinion article and not a peer-reviewed academic source, therefore it is a claim, not a fact. Furthermore neither source mentions the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" or the effects of any reduction in welfare spending during the 1990s, therefore this statement is unsourced and must be removed.

Please leave the political arguments out of this article and stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement "The withdrawal caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the successor of al-Qaeda in the region." referring to the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq during 2009-2010, has no source. The cited article "The JRTN Movement and Iraq’s Next Insurgency" does not support this statement, therefore the statement is unsourced and must be removed.

The cited article from 2011 actually claims "(The Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshabandi Sunni insurgency movement) emerged as the only Iraqi insurgent group to have grown stronger during and since the U.S.-led “surge.” Indeed, U.S. statements on JRTN have arguably added to its credibility and potential for recruiting and fundraising." Further the 2011 article predicts "The withdrawal of most or all U.S. forces could be another stressful transition for JRTN. The movement’s current raison d’être—expelling U.S. forces—could dry up in the coming six months. JRTN is already struggling to maintain the flow of new attack videos due to reduced availability of U.S. targets as bases shut down and convoy traffic declines, and this could stem the movement’s external fundraising."

The article does not support the intended politically-motivated bias of the aforementioned erroneous claim in the United States wikipedia article, the intent of which is to assert that "President Obama's defense policy caused an escalation of sectarian insurgency in Iraq, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." This is an unsupported and unsourced political attack that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Therefore it must be properly sourced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.61.211 (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please use the {{edit semi-protected}} template in the same section as your request. This helps us editors know what the request is without blindly removing the template and considering it a test edit, for this reason, I am adding the template into the section for you and leaving it open for any other editor to look into. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2017 (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, for me, this is WP:TLDR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"America was left the world's only super power after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991." I don't know why that was removed from the article. Because China and Russia are not super powers. Russia is a world power and China is a regional power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lj996 (talkcontribs) 06:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)