→Other possible options: Reply Tag: Reply |
→Other possible options: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
::::::: Usually it's considered rude to delete comments. That's why I didn't want to remove what I already posted.[[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 20:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
::::::: Usually it's considered rude to delete comments. That's why I didn't want to remove what I already posted.[[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 20:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::::No, I think that it is better to include the [[Great Depression]] picture so that we get some pre-WWII coverage. I feel like it is more illustrative than the Iwo Jima picture. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Freoh|Freoh]]</span> 02:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
::::::::No, I think that it is better to include the [[Great Depression]] picture so that we get some pre-WWII coverage. I feel like it is more illustrative than the Iwo Jima picture. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Freoh|Freoh]]</span> 02:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::::@[[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]], I didn’t say anything about deleting. Just move them so they are chronological and aren’t disrupting the conversation, interjecting to make it look like the consensus that had formed was in agreement with you. And for future reference please don’t use headings or sub-headings in your talk page comments because it’s disruptive. Now, for example, we aren’t replying to E-960’s original topic /* Raising the American flag during the Battle of Iwo Jima vs. nuclear mushroom cloud (Trinity nuclear test) /* but rather to your /* Other possible options /*. |
|||
::::::::And I share E-960’s skepticism with regard to the conference images and agree with Freoh that Iwo Jima image doesn’t contribute anything to the article at this point. [[User:إيان|إيان]] ([[User talk:إيان|talk]]) 02:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== The US Gini coefficient uses pre-tax income, whereas other country's use post-tax income == |
== The US Gini coefficient uses pre-tax income, whereas other country's use post-tax income == |
Revision as of 02:51, 15 March 2023
Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
Other talk page banners | |
Frequently asked questions
Archives: | |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
- This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States".
- If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.
- Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States":
- "United States" is in compliance with the Wikipedia "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
- Exceptions to guidelines are allowed.
- "United States" is in compliance with the Wikipedia "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
- If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
- Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other.
- This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country.
- If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
- Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Wikipedia an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do.
- The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title.
- Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Wikipedia an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do.
- With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
- Wikipedia is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia.
- With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
- Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America":
- It is the country's official name.
- The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name.
- The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America."
- The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America."
- The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Wikipedia articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Wikipedia is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States.
- It is the country's official name.
- Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution.
2. How about Switzerland?
- Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848.
Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Wikipedia articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democractic system and subsequent influence.
- The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut.
"Universal healthcare" in lead
Does anyone object to "universal healthcare" being removed from the lead? Multiple editors have expressed concerns about the wording and the statement itself has multiple problems.
Firstly, there's a multitude of countries in the world without universal healthcare. That doesn't make it a good thing. But it's the present state of the world. I've seen some editors state it should be mentioned because it's supposedly to only narrowly contrast to wealthy, developed liberal democracies. But it's unclear why that should be the inclusion of criteria instead of, say, "wealthy countries" (many of which that lack universal healthcare) or liberal democracies (many of which that lack universal healthcare). As Wikipedia takes a global perspective: essentially every article on polities compares globally to other countries. Singling it out only makes sense if we're narrowly subdividing the United States and contrasting it specifically with wealthy, developed countries. No similar comparison exists on any other present Wikipedia page. (Per the criteria being inherently subjective and encouraging WP: Undue distortions in the lead. A principle that seems uniquely absent (in contrast to other world polities) on this page.
Secondly, like many other countries articles on here, it confuses de jure claims of (quality) insurance with de facto (quality) health insurance.
In terms of effective coverage, healthcare access, and quality — per a 2018 The Lancet study — the United States ranks similar and/or higher on most metrics of effective coverage than Greenland, Costa Rica, Israel, New Zealand, and Portugal, all of which are wealthy Western liberal democracies. The country also rates "high" on the 2019 Universal Healthcare Index and other metrics measuring egalitarian access to high-quality healthcare services. (And others, that don't account for egalitarian distrbution of healthcare resources, it generally ranks among the highest in the world.) But since we're primary talking about egalitarian healthcare access, I thought it would be fair to include.)
As an advocate of social democracy with a lot of axes to grind against present American healthcare policy: it's shameful and WP: Undue for the present North Korean article to have a more positive portrayal of the country's healthcare system than the United States article presently does. (A previous version of the North Korean article went so far as to state that the citizens of North Korea "enjoy universal healthcare". Then, positively contrasting it with the U.S., which is of course utterly absurd.). This of course doesn't mean that there isn't deep flaws in the way that the United States handles healthcare policy. Yet I can't see how this warrants an American exceptionalist text in the lead. I think it should definitely be mentioned in the body. But the present wording comes across as an advocation of policy rather giving a reader's a fair, NPOV, adequate understanding of the country's healthcare system. It's also unclear why claims of universal healthcare should be given more WP: DUE weight than the actual reality.
There's also other WP: Undue aspects of this page that stuck out — compare the present articles on Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and, of course, Singapore, et al. with that of the United States, all of which have far more illiberal polities — that editors have mostly cut out negative information about. (Almost completely in their leads.) Yet, similar problems (even of a lesser scale) in the United States are consistently and prominently highlighted on this page. Obviously, I think that the vast majority of editors who are doing this are doing it in good faith. But it's leading to a gradual and growing distortion of the actual reality.
Interested in everyone's thoughts. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I object. There has already been an RfC on this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Universal healthcare was never directly addressed in that RFC. KlayCax (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Since I prefer to discuss with other editors rather than going straight to RFC. Why do you disagree? KlayCax (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Look again, it says at the top: "The consensus here is option C + healthcare." I don't feel like reading that wall of text above at the moment, but the lack of universal healthcare is a significant issue, obviously. The US has some of the most expensive healthcare and some of the worst health outcomes, including tens of thousands who die each year for lack of coverage, compared to peer countries that have some form of universal healthcare. Like one editor mentioned in the RfC, another option could be "failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Right after that quote, it directly states that
"there is no clear consensus on how to mention healthcare"
. An agreement on how the article should tackle the country's healthcare policy was not reached. The only thing that was agreed upon was that healthcare policy should be discussed somewhere in the article. I (and likely pretty much anyone here) agrees with that statement. - The question is whether the present wording in the lead is misleading/undue. Since it absurdly takes polity's de jure claims of universal quality healthcare with the de jure reality of having universal quality healthcare. That's one of the reasons that the present wording within the article is problematic. Particularly when it relates to things such as quality of service. (Western liberal democracies such as Greenland, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic all rank lower or similar to the U.S. on this metric.)
- Additionally, there has also been a strong previous understanding that countries shouldn't be subjectively compared at a subglobal scale in their leads. Since the factors that would be chosen between the two (or more) polities being compared with — whether the country's have a similar culture, politics, wealth/income, et al. — are all highly subjective for each individual editors.
- There's tons of ways that we could compare and contrast countries. (Anglosphere? Western World? How is there a NPOV-free to determine?) For instance, the articles on Singapore, Hungary, Israel, or Poland don't mention their relationship to other liberal democracy(s) (or wealthy countries in general) for instance, despite structural problems that could likely be called much more extensive than the U.S. We don't "compare" the strength of their democracies to other "wealthy liberal democracies". In fact, no other polity's lead "compares" it on a subglobal level. The fact that this article is the only one that does this — without telling readers that this is occurring — is utterly unique, misleading, and found nowhere else on any article on Wikipedia.
- Unless at least (among other problems) these criteria are met:
- #1.) Why the United States should uniquely be compared with subglobal criteria in its lead. (And without mentioning that this is being done!) Despite a general agreement among editors on other country's talk pages that this should inherently be rejected and essentially never done in any case. (Wikipedia takes a global perspective.)
- #2.) If #1 is affirmed (and we're going to uniquely compare the U.S. with subglobal criteria). Why should the comparison be based upon the fact that it's a "wealthy, liberal Western democracy" and not some other criteria? Such as simply being a "liberal democracy" or "Western" or "wealthy"? (All of which have multiple countries without universal healthcare. The fact that they lack some form of universal healthcare is almost always lacking from their leads.) How do we chose how to base #1 on neutrally?
- #3.) Why, if #1 and #2 are affirmed, should polities de jure claims of universal healthcare should be taken over the de facto reality of the matter.
- I can't see the mention being anything else beyond WP: Undue and/or outright misleading to the average viewer. Yes. I agree that it's a shame that the country doesn't provide some form of universal coverage for its citizens. But even good-faith bias is still bias. We're not here to recommend corrections for the country's politics. We're here to describe it in an encyclopedic manner.
- None of this was discussed in the original RFC on the subject — which is why I think a discussion on the matter is necessary. KlayCax (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Right after that quote, it directly states that
- Look again, it says at the top: "The consensus here is option C + healthcare." I don't feel like reading that wall of text above at the moment, but the lack of universal healthcare is a significant issue, obviously. The US has some of the most expensive healthcare and some of the worst health outcomes, including tens of thousands who die each year for lack of coverage, compared to peer countries that have some form of universal healthcare. Like one editor mentioned in the RfC, another option could be "failure to provide basic needs for millions of its people".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- (ecx4) - Should be there.....Major!!! racial[1] and political issues for many decades.[2] ONLY industrialized country without universal healthcare.[3] Spends more per person on health care then ANY other country.[4] Ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes and mortality rates of most developed countries.[5] Needles to say......oddest healthcare system in the developed world.[6]Moxy- 06:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- As stated above: I'm not arguing that the American system of healthcare is the greatest in the world. However, Greenland, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic are all wealthy liberal democracies that rank worse/same in de facto universal coverage than the U.S. in terms of % with quality coverage. (Per The Lancet and other major metrics) Beyond that, using subglobal metrics to compare countries is a highly subjective affair and have been essentially universally rejected as the basis of country's leads. I get that people want to critique it. There's undeniably a lot of room for improvement. But Wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs. It's covering the country in an encyclopedic context. KlayCax (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- All listed above have universal systems.....not the USA. The costs is the number one political issue in the USA.[7] Health care is a basic human right in developed/developing countries[8]....not in the USA.[9] To the developed world.....its crazy Americans have to pay out of pocket to live.[10] As for ""essentially universally rejected as the basis of country's leads"...any proof of this? Has never come up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Moxy- 07:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Moxy. The US is an outlier on the issue of healthcare, which is why it is worth mentioning in the lead. And the text doesn't compare the US to other countries, it just states that it doesn't have universal healthcare as a matter of fact, just as the article on North Korea (mentioned above) says of its system "Most services – such as healthcare, education, housing, and food production – are subsidized or state-funded." No comparisons or moral judgements in either case. Now, if the US lead said something like "It has high levels of incarceration and inequality and lacks universal health care, which could save 68,000 lives annually"[11] that would be a very different statement.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- All listed above have universal systems.....not the USA. The costs is the number one political issue in the USA.[7] Health care is a basic human right in developed/developing countries[8]....not in the USA.[9] To the developed world.....its crazy Americans have to pay out of pocket to live.[10] As for ""essentially universally rejected as the basis of country's leads"...any proof of this? Has never come up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Moxy- 07:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- As stated above: I'm not arguing that the American system of healthcare is the greatest in the world. However, Greenland, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic are all wealthy liberal democracies that rank worse/same in de facto universal coverage than the U.S. in terms of % with quality coverage. (Per The Lancet and other major metrics) Beyond that, using subglobal metrics to compare countries is a highly subjective affair and have been essentially universally rejected as the basis of country's leads. I get that people want to critique it. There's undeniably a lot of room for improvement. But Wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs. It's covering the country in an encyclopedic context. KlayCax (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I somewhat support this, although I think rewording is preferable to removal. Unlike other pieces of information in the lead ("ranks very high in international measures of quality of life, income and wealth, economic competitiveness, human rights, innovation, and education", "highest median income per person of any polity in the world", "high levels of incarceration and inequality") this isn't really a self-explanatory statement in terms of notability. To be clear, there is no question that this is a notable piece of information, but it doesn't explain why this is more noteworthy than Somalia's similar healthcare situation. As a compromise, it could at least be changed to something like "its healthcare system has been criticized for..." An anonymous username, not my real name 22:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that it's notable, but I don't know if it belongs in the lead, necessarily. However, I don't think it's a big deal either way, and not having universal healthcare (something every developed country has) is more notable than the fact that the US retains the death penalty (which several other liberal democracies also retain). --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good to compare these two items .......as they are the 2 human rights violations the developed world is concerned about and affects the world view of the USA. Moxy- 17:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- No doubt that the death penalty as practiced in the US today is a human right's violation, but the US is not the only liberal democracy that retains it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- they are compared to Iran, North Korea, Somalia ect..... not contemporary Nations. Moxy- 01:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Japan and Taiwan are both liberal democracies that retain the death penalty. They're listed in your source. India is also a liberal democracy that retains it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 07:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Source is clear...". The U.S. remains an outlier among its close allies and other democracies in its continued application of the death penalty" Along with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, the United States is one of five advanced democracies and the 'only Western nation that applies the death . That said womens rights have vastly delclined and is now #3 on the list of human rights violations....but health and death still one and 2. Moxy- 15:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Moxy: A lot of countries are shameful outliners on various issues. For example, just take the issue of LGBT rights: We don't mention in Ghana's article that it's the only liberal democracy that penalizes consensual, adult homosexual conduct. Or that Japan is the only member of the G7 to not recognize same-sex marriage.
- Compare how the GA/FA's articles for Japan, Canada, Singapore, and India are. That's the model.
- While I agree with you, we're not here to critique country's "wrong" policy — however bad it is. KlayCax (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would argue that this logic is also a valid argument to remove mention of universal healthcare from the lead. Regarding both capital punishment and the lack of universal healthcare, they should be present in the article body, as they are important to discuss, but I think they are inappropriate in the lead, just as mentioning that Japan does not recognize same sex marriage would be. Inequality and incarceration should stay (at least for now; the US' incarceration rate continues to decline, so it's possible that in the not too distant future, it will no longer merit inclusion in lead). --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Source is clear...". The U.S. remains an outlier among its close allies and other democracies in its continued application of the death penalty" Along with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, the United States is one of five advanced democracies and the 'only Western nation that applies the death . That said womens rights have vastly delclined and is now #3 on the list of human rights violations....but health and death still one and 2. Moxy- 15:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Japan and Taiwan are both liberal democracies that retain the death penalty. They're listed in your source. India is also a liberal democracy that retains it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 07:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- they are compared to Iran, North Korea, Somalia ect..... not contemporary Nations. Moxy- 01:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- No doubt that the death penalty as practiced in the US today is a human right's violation, but the US is not the only liberal democracy that retains it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good to compare these two items .......as they are the 2 human rights violations the developed world is concerned about and affects the world view of the USA. Moxy- 17:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that it's notable, but I don't know if it belongs in the lead, necessarily. However, I don't think it's a big deal either way, and not having universal healthcare (something every developed country has) is more notable than the fact that the US retains the death penalty (which several other liberal democracies also retain). --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Yearby, Ruqaiijah; Clark, Brietta; Figueroa, José F. (Feb 1, 2022). "Structural Racism In Historical And Modern US Health Care Policy". Health Affairs. 41 (2). Health Affairs (Project Hope): 187–194. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01466. ISSN 0278-2715.
- ^ Wolf, Amy (Apr 10, 2012). "Political divide: Why health care is the issue on which Americans may never agree". Vanderbilt University. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ "America is a health-care outlier in the developed world". The Economist. Apr 26, 2018. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ "How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?". Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. Feb 9, 2023. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ "Mirror, Mirror 2021: Reflecting Poorly". Commonwealth Fund. Aug 4, 2021. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ Shmerling, Robert H. (Jul 13, 2021). "Is our healthcare system broken?". Harvard Health. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ Nadeem, Reem (Apr 15, 2021). "3. Americans' views of the problems facing the nation". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ "Human rights". who.int. Dec 10, 2022. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ The Regulatory Review (Jul 2, 2019). "Should the United States Create a Human Right to Health Care?". The Regulatory Review. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ Winters, Mike (Mar 11, 2022). "Over half of Americans have medical debt, even those with health insurance—here's why". CNBC. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023.
- ^ Galvani, Alison P; Parpia, Alyssa S; Foster, Eric M; Singer, Burton H; Fitzpatrick, Meagan C (February 13, 2020). "Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA". The Lancet. 395 (10223): 524–533. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33019-3. PMC 8572548. PMID 32061298. S2CID 211105345.
Second paragraph
Re new edit: "Colonisation by Europeans began in the 16th century. Great Britain's Thirteen Colonies, in what is now the eastern U.S." Could some nice person Americanize this to "colonization" (per the U.S.-related link anyway) and change the very vague and overstated "eastern U.S." to "East Coast of the United States"? There's even a WP link for it. Thank you. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Partly done – I've changed the spelling to "colonization" as you suggested, but I'm not sure that "East Coast" is preferable, as British claims led up to the Mississippi River in colonial times, I believe. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Thirteen Colonies were coastal settlements. Their interior land claims, highly disputed, were unexplored territories occupied by Natives. "Along the eastern seaboard of the U.S." is much better than "now the eastern U.S.," which is simply inaccurate. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Raising the American flag during the Battle of Iwo Jima vs. nuclear mushroom cloud (Trinity nuclear test)
I would argue for the inclusion of the American flag photo instead of the nuclear mushroom cloud in The rise to world power, the New Deal, and World War II section. As I noted before, the previous image has too many connotations that are difficult to frame. It's one of those images that has a lot of different meanings and without further context within the text itself it might just conjure up images of nuclear armageddon and America (though this would also apply to other nuclear powers as well). Thus, I think the American flag image is a more neutral choice which clearly relates to the idea of America's rise following the end of WWII. E-960 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not clear why you seem to think using Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima to represent the US in World War II doesn't have its own connotations and is somehow neutral. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unprecedented in human history, had a massive human impact, bore heavily on the outcome of the war, and ushered in the Nuclear arms race aspect of the Cold War. Between the battle of Iwo Jima and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the latter is objectively the more consequential of the two and the NPOV choice. إيان (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, especially given that § 21st century has a picture of the September 11 attacks. Every country raises flags, but the United states is unique in its use of nuclear weapons for state terrorism. — Freoh 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Unit 731 took more lives than the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don't have that on the FA-featured Japan page, either. Whatever one's opinions on that decision was: Unit 731 was far less morally ambiguous. Heck, the Bombing of Tokyo took more lives than the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. KlayCax (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Stara Marusya (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Bombing of Tokyo took more lives than the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. KlayCax (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, especially given that § 21st century has a picture of the September 11 attacks. Every country raises flags, but the United states is unique in its use of nuclear weapons for state terrorism. — Freoh 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Shoreranger (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The aerial bombings of Tokyo likely had more casualities. KlayCax (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- This almost certainly needs to go to a RFC - I agree. @E-960:. Editors are letting their personal opinions get in the way.
- We don't have an Unit 731 or Rape of Nanjing picture on the Japan page. KlayCax (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Other possible options
-
Yalta Conference picture
-
Cairo Conference picture
-
Potsdam Conference picture
-
Tehran Conference picture
These would also be good, potential options to work with if a consensus can't be reached. KlayCax (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- The use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations is unique to the United States and was extremely consequential for world politics ever since. KlayCax, why do you oppose this picture? — Freoh 14:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax, can you please clean up your comments and put them in sequential order? The way you inserted your comment makes it seem like the previous comments agree with what you said. إيان (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not sure these other images are better. They are even more loaded with various connotations than the original picture. --E-960 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions? @E-960:. KlayCax (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax, still waiting for you to reorganize your comments so that they don't distort the conversation and mislead readers from seeing the clear consensus that had formed. إيان (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's also unnecessary to label the pictures you like with a sub-heading. إيان (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't a RFC. I just made a subheading to showcase other possible alternatives. Does using both (Iwo Jima and that) pictures work?
- Usually it's considered rude to delete comments. That's why I didn't want to remove what I already posted.KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, I think that it is better to include the Great Depression picture so that we get some pre-WWII coverage. I feel like it is more illustrative than the Iwo Jima picture. — Freoh 02:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax, I didn’t say anything about deleting. Just move them so they are chronological and aren’t disrupting the conversation, interjecting to make it look like the consensus that had formed was in agreement with you. And for future reference please don’t use headings or sub-headings in your talk page comments because it’s disruptive. Now, for example, we aren’t replying to E-960’s original topic /* Raising the American flag during the Battle of Iwo Jima vs. nuclear mushroom cloud (Trinity nuclear test) /* but rather to your /* Other possible options /*.
- And I share E-960’s skepticism with regard to the conference images and agree with Freoh that Iwo Jima image doesn’t contribute anything to the article at this point. إيان (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's also unnecessary to label the pictures you like with a sub-heading. إيان (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax, still waiting for you to reorganize your comments so that they don't distort the conversation and mislead readers from seeing the clear consensus that had formed. إيان (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions? @E-960:. KlayCax (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not sure these other images are better. They are even more loaded with various connotations than the original picture. --E-960 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax, can you please clean up your comments and put them in sequential order? The way you inserted your comment makes it seem like the previous comments agree with what you said. إيان (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The US Gini coefficient uses pre-tax income, whereas other country's use post-tax income
The US's Gini coefficient of 46.9 accurately reflects the 2020 census data, but is not comparable to that listed on any other country's page, which all adjust for taxes and transfers. The US Census Bureau released adjusted figures along with their pre-tax estimates, so there's no reason to be comparing apples and oranges.
"Comparing inequality measures using pretax and post-tax income in 2021 illustrates how the tax system can reduce inequality. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was 12.9% lower when calculated using post-tax income compared to pretax income." https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/09/income-inequality-increased.html
The table on page 48 shows that after adjusting for taxes and transfers, the US Gini coefficient drops to .394. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.pdf Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Does the United States usage of the death penalty independently notable?
Should the United States article continue to mention the country's practice of the death penalty vs. countries such as Japan and Taiwan?
This has been a simmering topic over the past year. Arguments and discussion surrounding it can be seen here.
As a quick synopsis of the pro-"removal" view:
- Other countries with similar/higher per capita execution rates — including Japan and Taiwan — have articles that intentionally exclude mention. Per me:
If we're going to apply this standard to the United States, we're going to have to imply it to other developed nations such as Japan, Singapore, or Taiwan. This "standard" is utterly inconsistent and contradictory otherwise.
- Editors personal dislike of the continued usage of the death penalty doesn't mean that it's notable enough to mention in the article. A majority of the world's population lives in a polity that retains it. Per me:
Draws WP: Undue attention to the issue. Even within the developed world: Israel, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, amid others, routinely (frequently greater than the current per capita incidence in the United States) apply the death penalty for various routine crimes; additionally, Peru, Brazil, Chile, and a few other developed countries at least partially retain it in exceptional circumstances. (Albeit far less frequently) Taking an even broader perspective, 60% of the global population lives in a country in which the death penalty is applied. I'm failing to see (even within the Western-aligned world) how this is nothing more than WP: Undue. The only reason it seems to be mentioned in the lead is because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and to give the article a sense of "pro" and "con" balance.
As a quick synopsis of the anti-"removal" view:
- Per Moxy:
United States remains the only advanced democracy that fails to recognize capital punishment as a profound human rights violation and as a frightening abuse of government power....things like this are beyond the pale.
- Per Moxy:
In the eyes of the Western World this is a human rights violation beyond measure and is lead worthy without a doubt. This is the main human rights situation in the USA. Crazy they have legal killing in this day and age....view of the world. .... UN request. ....that happens for ever president.
- Per Mason Jones:
[It] note[s] that the U.S. holds itself out to the world as a model of liberty and human rights; its government freely criticizes other nations. The current text simply says that the U.S. fails to reach its potential for such a wealthy (and critical) democracy.
A detailed examination of the arguments for and against - which I suggest editors read - can be found here and here. KlayCax (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Map of company being kept. Moxy- 23:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Size again
I know last year many worked hard to bring this down to 11000 words...just over the suggested limit. But I see the articles back over 13000 words. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS
HTML document size: 1429 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 212 kB References (including all HTML code): 718 kB Wiki text: 330 kB Prose size (text only): 83 kB (13158 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 89 kB. Moxy- 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)