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.

Rosicrucian Fellowship temple in California: does not have national importance (?)[edit]

there is no evidence of any national significance in terms of religion or architecture. there are no RS and none at the Wiki article at Mount Ecclesia. The nomination for National Register --commissioned by the Rosicrucians--leaves "national" importance unchecked and checks "state" importance instead, so it does not belong here. see Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Mount Ecclesia's significance is beyond national limitations, that is, truly international -- Worldwide soon after its inception (1911): "The year 1921 has drawn to a close and the secretary's and treasurer's reports have been handed in, showing that the Rosicrucian Fellowship has great reason for rejoicing. (...) The past year has been one of the most active and successful since the beginning of the work. During that period [1920] the Temple was finished, and all the bills paid. The third edition of the Tables of Houses and a great number of the Ephemerides have had to be reprinted, amounting in all to fifteen thousand copies. These books have been welcomed by all astrological students for their clearness and simplicity, and have aided in spreading the Rosicrucian philosophy. (...) Our patients in the healing department are numbering close to one thousand. The contributions have made it possible even under the strained finances in the world for us to meet our bills and [international] Headquarters is at present out of debt. This is a very favorable indication considering the heavy strain under which we have been working. The students in South America, Australia, Holland, and other countries are very active, and the following books are now in print in foreign language:" ~ Rays from the Rose Cross, March 1922, p. 478-479
Also forget it not that "During the First World War (1914-1918) , Mount Ecclesia offered no summer school, and discontinued the usual programming activities. The soldiers from Camp Kearney, about twenty miles from Headquarters, were given classes and lectures, however, and a number of them became members. During these years, Headquarters had serious financial struggles. Many students in Europe were forced to stop their contributions, book-sales dropped off, and the prices of everything climbed higher." ~ Ger Westenberg. Max Heindel en The Rosicrucian Fellowship (Chapter 10). 2009 STICHTING ZEVEN, The Hague, The Netherlands. (Translation into English language by Elizabeth C. Ray)
Btw, unveiling a bit on "national significance"... "Another month has gone by and still the European war is raging in all its intensity. Thousands and thousands have passed over the border into the invisible realm, and the distress there as well as here is unprecedented in the history of the world. (...) President Wilson of the United States has appointed October 4th as a day of prayer for peace. It is well always to unite with such movements because our trained thoughts will have a considerable effect and strengthen wonderfully the general appeal. This day should be spent by every earnest student in prayer for the deliverance of the world from this awful slaughter. Their thoughts should be particularly directed towards soothing those who are in this world, and in the invisible world also who are distressed at the severance of family ties." ~ Letters to Students, October 1914
FROM THE ROSICRUCIAN VIEWPOINT, CAN WAR BE SAID TO BE RIGHT? WHAT SHOULD BE THE STAND OF THE ROSICRUCIAN STUDENT IN THE PRESENT CONFLICT? (World War I) ANSWER: In the great crises of life we are brought face to face with certain issues and called upon to make decisions of such importance that they often require reversion of ideas and ideals, even of our most cherished principles as hitherto conceived. (...) In the beginning of the conflict France and England, who were the immediate neighbors of the outraged Belgians, made her cause their own and acted in that respect as their brother's keeper. However, being unprepared, they have been unable to bring the struggle to a decisive termination. Therefore it became necessary for America to enter the conflict and turn the balance, so that peace may be restored and safety secured to those who are too weak to protect themselves. (...) seeing that the present struggle which is waged for the purpose of crushing the militarism of Central Europe has taken such a terrible toll of human life with the strength of the allied defenders nearly spent, it is the sacred duty of everyone to aid to the very limit according to his spiritual, mental, moral, or physical capacity, either at the front or behind the lines wherever the judgment of those in charge may require his or her service. Therefore we would urge each and every one of the students of the Rosicrucian Fellowship, of whatever country now defending the cause of humanity against the militarist party of the Central Powers, to support his or her government to the very best of his ability that we may soon see "Peace on earth and among men good will."
But let us realize that there can be no peace worth having until militarism has received such a blow that it will not raise its head again for a long time. Many people hope that this will be the last war, and we ardently wish that we could believe it. People thought the same when Napoleon and his hordes overran Europe a hundred years ago, but time has proved that such hopes were vain. Peace is a matter of education, and impossible of achievement until we have learned to deal charitably, justly, and openly with one another, as nations as well as individuals. As long as we manufacture arms, peace will not become established. It should become our aim and object to do all we can toward the abolition of militarism in all countries and the establishment of the principle of arbitration of difficulties." ~ Letters to Students (worldwide), July, 1918
Still barely scratching the first page of its history... “I saw our headquarters and a procession of people coming from all parts of the world to receive the teaching. I saw them issuing thence to carry balm to afflicted ones near and far. (...) for the world in which we live is based upon the principle of time, but in the high realm of the archetypes all is an eternal NOW.” (Max Heindel, 'Our Work in the World', 1912) :s Thx. Regards ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The official proposal to make it a historical place explicitly stated it has a California but not a national role. No reliable secondary source says it's important in US history--and that is a requirement for Wikipedia. Actually it's the main shrine of a small religious group--one of hundreds that overate in the US. As for "international" -- the quotes are all from Rosicrucian activists and do not claim much of any role for the building. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, no special remark/comment, but only to note that a few 3rd party sources may already be found after some diligent on-line digging:
as an example of international (students): "In June 1948 Klein and Claude Pascal (but not Arman) joined the Rosicrucian Society and worked on bi-weekly lessons sent from California. These were based in the profilic writings of Max Heindel (1865-1919), specifically his Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception: or Mystic Christianity (Ocean Park, CA: Rosicrucian Fellowship, 1911), which Klein read in French translation. (...) Heindel provided the foundation for Klein's aesthetic philosophy through his vision of a psychological alchemy that would free the spirit from its material shell. (...)" ~ Szulakowska, Urszula (2011). Alchemy in Contemporary Art. Ashgate Publishing Limited, England, USA, ISBN 9780754667360
as an example of national/U.S.: "Spec. Coll. copy is from the Henry Miller papers (Collection 110). Ownership note handwritten on free endleaf: "Sacred property of Henry Miller ... who has just discovered that he has been a Rosicrucian all his life ... Paris 3/5/39". Green cloth over boards, with decorations stamped in gilt, black and red. Publishers advertisements: [6] p. at end. Notes and marginalia by Henry Miller" in the/his third edition of the Cosmo, 1911, digitized by MSN at the Internet Archive
Yet, none providing as deep insight when compared to what one earnest to attain to the understanding and knowledge of philosophy may directly acquire, that is, through first-hand knowledge, imho. ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to assume bad faith but it really seems you are pushing POV and not living in reality. LordAtlas (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Out of consideration for your comment, for (I) do understand your reasoning, This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be absurdly WP:UNDUE weight to give this much focus to a religious denomination with so few members, and so little impact on the United States compared to dozens of larger and more representative religious groups, in a broad summary article like this one. Rwenonah (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If the Rosicrucians were so important, then surely a non-Rosicrucian would add them. Your edit history betrays a certain single purpose to your work here. --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Which, please don't take me wrong, does not mean you can't have a singular focus. Far from it - we welcome expertise and information from people who have specific knowledge on things. But when it comes to edit warring and arguing to have a particular mention of your chosen topic put in, that's where things get iffy. --Golbez (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
😌 ~ CIMIC7 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Supreme court no longer has vacancy[edit]

In the fifth paragraph in the "Government and politics" section, it says, "However, the court currently has one vacant seat after the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia."

This is no longer true. (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Since Supreme Court of the United States is updated, I have updated this article also. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Last polity admitted?[edit]

Should the last polity admitted be 2012, considering this? – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 03:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No. LordAtlas (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Reasons why? – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 12:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a state. Have you even read about it? They left something out but it had no impact on anything. LordAtlas (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You would need a reliable source saying that the omission meant N.D. had never become a state. as Illegitimate Barrister shows, other interpretations are more likely and anyway the territory held by N.D. was already part of the U.S. before it attained statehood. TFD (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not it was proper, it was admitted in 1889. --Golbez (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Image in section Culture[edit]

Is the current image of the native American used in the section Culture fitting? The US has plenty of "culture", imho the current image, puts a distorted view on it.--Joobo (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Native Alaskan dancer" image is what you must mean. That was put up without discussion, replacing a photo of some boy scouts carrying flags of different countries that symbolized the international settlement of this country, and before that, IIRC, a picture of a building that symbolized architecture, but not in a particularly American style. IOW, it's been hard to put an image in that section that's been satisfactory for very long, and there's been no recent discussion on what belongs there. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I am taking the current image out. At the moment I cannot imagine one picture that in any way would fit in there without distorting the view. --Joobo (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it okay..[edit]

...if I tag this with {{fanpov}}, {{advert}}, and/or {{peacock}}? It's really promotional. KMF (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (a Canadian)

Nope. Hope this helps! --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
This article is really promotional. Have you actually read the non-infobox part? KMF (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The article is rated a good article. Would you be more specific about what you think is promotional? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have! Thanks for asking. --Golbez (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Please point out SPECIFIC places where you feel it is being promotional. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You look like you're responding to Golbez, who is only affirming that he's read more than the infobox. He's not saying that he or the OP has already been more specific about what's promotional. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, finger twitched one too many times and I didn't catch it. I was intending to reply to the original poster. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)