Talk:United States

Template:VA

Health – Proposed Innovation addition

The Health section consists of two paragraphs, the first describing how unhealthy Americans are and the second, larger one about how the US spends more on healthcare than anyone else and doesn’t have everyone insured, unlike “all other developed countries.” The section implicitly conflates population health with healthcare, two very distinct issues, and nowhere is there any mention of actual medical care quality or even any potential benefits from this extra cost.

To start redressing this, I propose the following paragraph be placed between or after the existing ones:

"The US leads the world in medical innovation. America solely developed or contributed significantly to 9 of the top 10 most important medical innovations since 1975 as ranked by a 2001 poll of physicians, while the EU and Switzerland together contributed to 5. Since 1966 Americans have received more Nobel Prizes in Medicine than the rest of the world combined. From 1989 to 2002 four times more money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe."

Sources/links

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/bending-productivity-curve-why-america-leads-world-medical-innovation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine

That the US shoulders most of the burden for global medical advancement is a salient fact this article omits to its detriment. Adding this paragraph or one like it would provide needed enlightenment, making the article read more like an encyclopedia and less like a one sided polemic. In fact it's astonishing that the only mention of "Nobel Prize" on the current page regards Literature, a category where awards are obviously far more subjective and where the US track record is nowhere near as notable as its dominance of the hard science awards has been. This must be corrected. VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

- Think. Think. Think. Who was it who said that every PhD diploma should have a green card stapled to it? My Germans can beat your Germans, like in the space race, my Chinese can beat your Chinese, like in ceramic super-conductors, etc. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? Are you trying to argue that it's somehow not notable that American society is responsible for the lion's share of hard science innovation over the past half century, including in medicine, because some scientists were born overseas (most weren't, btw, and most of the immigrants in question became naturalized US citizens, not that any of that would have supported such an argument), or are you agreeing that it's absurd that the current article's only mention of the term "Nobel Prize" is in regards to literature? Hopefully you don't think it's appropriate for the US page to have a "Health Section" entirely devoted to attacking alleged deficiencies. That's hardly standard. Many nations' pages, including Canada's, don't even have a "Health" section. Most I sampled a while back didn't even mention the terms "infant mortality" or "life expectancy" anywhere on the page. If you oppose adding this true and clearly notable paragraph, or at least an alternative one like it, then I suggest just deleting the "Health" section and adding a line about the semi-private nature of the US system to the body elsewhere, possibly under Economy. That would save space. VictorD7 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

- (a) My point is to support your edit and your sense of the topic's importance. (b) PhDs do become naturalized, and although Bill Gates has complained about loosing some recruits who were unwillingly repatriated to their native country, I believe the most recent figures show that annually, the U.S. has more LEGAL immigration than all other nations combined. This the one reason why the U.S. civilization does not mimic other Toynbee-like historical arcs. The Roman republic granted honorary citizenship to aliens who did the state great service, but the citizenship did not pass to their children. The Greek democracies held citizenship came from the SOIL. That is the U.S. model. But I digress. (c) The American goal of individual self-sufficiency and independence includes expectations of health, education, employment and career choice, home ownership, retirement, and enlarged opportunity for one's children. I like the separate section for health. (d) I like the emphasis on outcomes reflected in infant mortality and life expectancy. It bypasses unquantifiable effects of policy, never mind partisan hobbyhorses. (e) There are many paths to a goal.The semi-private nature of the US system is useful to point out -- as I understand it, the U.S. system is related to that used in Switzerland and the Netherlands, NOT that found in Britain, France or Germany. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and your points on the value of extending citizenship to useful immigrants are well taken. If no one provides any rational objections I'll probably add the edit soon.VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Health section could be expanded, yes. The only issue I'm not sure about is whether that information is more relevant to the 'Health' section or the 'Science & Technology' section. I would think Nobel prize information says more about the scientific/research resources of America than about the health of Americans. I'm also not sure about saying "leads the world in medical innovation" at the beginning because I think the reader should be allowed to come to that conclusion themselves by reading the information. But overall I do think that information is interesting and worth mentioning. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think medical innovation is at least as important to "Health" as extensive discussion of insurance coverage is. There has to be something worthwhile for insurance to buy or "coverage" does little good. Someone skipping down to the "Health" section would get one and not the other if the innovation segment was tucked somewhere else. "Leads the world in medical innovation" is a general statement with an element of judgement, but this article and frankly encyclopedias in general are full of such lines. I think it's only a problem if there isn't an overwhelming supporting basis for it. Some examples in the current article include calling the US "a leading economic, political, and cultural force in the world", saying "Personal transportation is dominated by automobiles", claiming "The United States has a very diverse population", etc. That said, I'm willing to consider changing it to "The US is a global leader in medical innovation".VictorD7 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Captions with historic context

- ‘Mayflower’ caption now refers to the historical significance found in the Mayflower Compact versus provenance of the objet d’art.

- Committee presenting Declaration of Independence caption now refers to the rationale found in the document itself. I left the link to the objet d’art article as written by the previous editor, where there is a link to the document article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Except as written, it reads like "this is a photo of the Mayflower taken in 1620". --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

- The caption intro reads, “The Mayflower transported Pilgrims, 1620.” Clicking on the image brings the image description: "Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor," by William Halsall, 1882 at Pilgrim Hall Museum, Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA. Descriptive information of an image is not required in article captions.

- Rather a good caption at WP: CAPTION says, “A good caption (1) “clearly IDENTIFIES the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious” [the 19th C. oil painting of a 17th C. event is not a 21st C. photo], (2) “is SUCCINCT”, [which precludes imaging on this article page, the image description found on the image source page],

- (3) “establishes the picture's RELEVANCE to the article”, [which is apart from the painter or the date, likewise photos are not all captioned with the photographer and the later date after the event on which the film was processed], (4) “provides CONTEXT for the picture”, [which requires linking the image to events of the time portrayed in the image, not the time of the image creation].

- In the Credits section, we are directed, “Unless relevant to the subject, DO NOT CREDIT THE IMAGE AUTHOR or copyright holder in the article.” In the 'Mayflower transports' instance, the reader is not in danger of believing Wikipedia is passing off the image of a nineteenth century oil canvass depicting a seventeenth century event as a twenty-first century photograph. In my opinion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Mayflower transported Pilgrims, 1620" is not a sentence, it is at best a sentence with a fragment added. If that weren't in a caption it would be reverted instantly, and I see no reason for captions to not follow the general rules of English. --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

- At WP:CAPTION.1.1.6 Wording we see "Most captions are NOT grammatically complete sentences, but extended noun phrases". and I see no reason for WP articles not to follow WP style.

--and, I still think your animated map sequencing the states -- with secession resolves, membership into C.S. Congress, and in and out and in U.S. Congress, U.S. military-district governance and delegations permanently restored to the U.S. Congress -- all of which is dated by reliable sources without original research -- is the best idea ever, we worked together on it for over a month -- for use at either 'American Civil War' or 'Confederate States of America' or both -- whenever you say it is ready. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

- @ Golbez. fixing what the author stubbornly won't admit is broken misses the point of collaborative writing. Nothing has to be broken for you to amend -- improve -- another editor's earlier draft.

- the general reader knows Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, turkey, cranberries, New England. The caption-link Pilgrims establishes the place as New England, as does the accompanying text. One of the competing elements of a "good caption" is conciseness.

- A four-line caption of complete sentences is not concise per WP:CAPTION 1.1.6 Wording. Generally, extended lines of caption can impact the view in a large-frame browser.

- BUT (a) increasing the pixel size allows for your amendment without sacrificing image compactness, (b) it does not exceed the general guideline of 300 px, SO that is what I'd like to try collaborating with you for draft #4 of the 'Mayflower' caption.

- However, the Infobox notes do bleed considerably down into the opening section, and are uncharacteristically long, better suited to the Notes section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit suggested

In the second paragraph in the intro, "Indian allies" should be changed to "Native American allies," both for clarity and because it is read by people who are not familiar with the term Indian being used for NAs. France should be linked to France in the American Revolutionary War.

Unlike industrial or commercial development, military development of the US was not significant, especially to something that can be called globally powerful, before the mobilization of entire societies for the war effort which was a new phenomenon in WWI. The US also had not significantly engaged in any global conflicts, participation limited to suppression of the Boxar Uprising along with many European nations, the Barbary Wars, and the War of 1812. The Barbary Wars gave the US legitimacy as a military power but not a global military power. It wasn't a global military power comparable to the United Kingdom or France. So "The Spanish–American War and World War I confirmed the country's status as a global military power." should be changed to "established the country's..."

Qmuhgit47583 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually prefer "Amerindian" for clarity over "Native American", since a native American can be anyone born in America, but both "Native American" and "Indian" already appear in the article. The latter makes sense in the context of the recently finished French and Indian War, but the former is used more often on the current page, so there probably wouldn't be a problem if you changed it. On your second point I lean toward "confirmed" since it's not clear cut precisely when the US achieved this "status". The power to flex geopolitical muscle predates actually doing it. There was a sense around the world that America was a rising major power long before the Spanish-American War, and indeed the US GDP had grown into the world's largest decades earlier. Your points are well taken though, and frankly I think either is fine.VictorD7 (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of question is in the interpretation of the term "global military power." One interpretation is that in order to be a global military power, a country must have a global military presence or engagements, regardless of how powerful its military is. So with these criteria, Britain and France will be global military powers in the 19th century, and to a lesser extent, Spain, Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands, and the Russian and Ottoman empires for their sizes, navies, and control of waterways, but not Austria and the subsequent Austria-Hungary. By all consensus, Austria and subsequent Austria-Hungary was a major European industrial and military powers. But the Austrian Empire and subsequent Austria-Hungary had no global military or colonial presence at all. I think that the reason why it is not considered to have been a global military power is because it had no global military presence or engagements.

Another interpretation of global military power of a nation will be the power of its standing army and navy, regardless of whether they had engaged in any global engagements or any engagements at all. The capability to engage globally will depend heavily on the strength of the navy and global military presence which is made possible by extensive colonies. In this interpretation, although Prussia and the subsequent German Empire were more powerful militarily in Europe after Prussia's victory in the Franco-Prussian War, France was a more powerful global military power because it had greater capability to act globally because of a larger navy and a greater global military presence because of its more extensive colonies. I actually don't know whether the United States can be called a global military power in the 19th century under this interpretation because I don't know how large or powerful the American navy was in the century.

It will be great to have the thoughts of others on whether the Spanish-American War "confirmed" or "established" the US's position as a "global military power." After the war, the US engaged on its own overseas, in Philippine–American War, which it had not done since the Barbary Wars. Because of this, and because I interpret "global military power" of a country as having global military presence or engagements, not capability of it, or military power with limited global capability, I support the Spanish-American War and WWI "established" the US's position as a global military power.

On the point of whether "Amerindian," "Native American," or "Indian" allies of Great Britain in the American Revolution should be used in the intro, I support "Native American" for reason of clarity because its expected that this article intro has a largely international readership. The English article on the United States was the 10th most visited Wikipedia page in 2010, and mostly an international audience has interest in reading the article on the United States. So many readers will not be familiar with the term "Indian" being used for Native Americans and will be confused, even if the French and Indian War is mentioned, making clarity very important in the intro to this article, so region-specific or possibly confusing terms should be avoided. As for "Amerindian," its a good but mostly an academic term, and it's very awkward to say "Amerindian allies of Great Britain."

By the way, I'm not an autoconfirmed user, so I can't make any edits to this article myself. So if any consensus in support of an edit is reached, please just make the edit for me. Thanks :)

Qmuhgit47583 (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't oppose your changes, and "established" might even sound better, but because I find this discussion interesting I'll cite one counterpoint to the "global power" argument being the gradual nature of America's rise. It's not like it happened overnight. Commodore Perry sailed a fleet to Japan in the 1850s with armaments that impressed and intimidated the previously almost entirely closed off country into signing treaties and opening up trade with the west, particularly the US. Decades earlier the Monroe Doctrine forbidding European intervention in the Americas implied at least hemispheric power, even if the doctrine's success owed more to quiet British endorsement in the early years. US forces did intimidate the French into abandoning their attempt to rule Mexico once the distracting American Civil War ended.VictorD7 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial" label bias; some policies but not others.

The qualifier "controversial" is attached to the initiation of the Iraq war, but the sentence on Obamacare, the most controversial issue raging in the US over the past few years, simply states with matter of fact certainty what the law allegedly "will" do without any mention or hint of this swirling controversy. That's despite the Iraq war initially having significant bipartisan support and majority American support in polls for the first few years, while Obamacare was passed along party lines, has been consistently unpopular in the polls (most still favor repeal), has been the subject of numerous court challenges (including a 5-4 SCOTUS decision that reportedly saw the swing vote change his mind at one point and that struck part of the law down), has had enormous electoral impact, and is arguably the most important issue in the current election cycle. If anything Obamacare has been more controversial than the launch of the Iraq war was, at least in the US context, but it's fair to apply the qualifier to both. Or neither. I'm fine either way, but we shouldn't tolerate double standards.

When I added the edit acknowledging the ongoing controversy over Obamacare it was reverted by an Australian editor whose own user page boasts about his anti-American/anti-Christian agenda and marks him as a troll, and who characterized most Americans as "nuts" in this exchange, supposedly because it represented "pov". Alright. So I shifted to the Iraq sentence, and replaced "the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on controversial grounds" with "the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on a wide array of grounds", preserving the same embedded link to the page titled "Rationale for Iraq War", which, indeed, lays out a wide array of grounds. Less pov that way. That was reverted by the same editor, and his move was supported by Golbez, who simply stated that it's a "fact" that the Iraq war's initiation was "controversial".

I'd like to change this sentence...

"Federal legislation passed in early 2010 will create a near-universal health insurance system around the country by 2014."

...to this (or one like it)...

"Federal legislation passed in early 2010 would ostensibly create a near-universal health insurance system around the country by 2014, though the bill and its ultimate impact are issues of controversy." Sources (if necessary):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/debate-on-obamacare-to-intensify-in-wake-landmark-supreme-court-ruling/

Or, if that's deemed unacceptable, make the aforementioned change to the Iraq phrase. Either way I'd love for someone to explain why attaching the word "controversial" to one policy is supposedly unacceptable "pov", but attaching it to another is "fact". The only significant discernible difference seems to be that the editors in question personally favor one policy while opposing the other. That's the type of bias Wikipedia needs to clean up if it wants people to stop seeing this site as a joke.VictorD7 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to change it, I suggest we remove the rationale part - just say "began to press for regime change in Iraq." You changed a valid sentence to something that was less valid in wording. And yes, it is a fact that the Iraq War and its rationale are controversial. It's also a fact that PPACA is controversial. It's also a fact that most laws passed are controversial; shall we list all of them? Every single gun bill is controversial, for example. The purchase of Alaska was controversial. In some circles, the license plates the District of Columbia uses are controversial. However, in this case, it's noted as controversial because it led to the deaths or murders of well over a hundred thousand people, so maybe some perspective is required here. So maybe we say nothing is controversial or we say everything is, but don't go off on a hissy fit about "If you get yours then I get mine!" No, you discuss when making an edit that people disagree with. You don't go and revert it, or make a counter edit without discussion. The consensus is with the original version, it is required upon you to justify your changes if they are reverted rather than continue an edit war. --Golbez (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This argument from Golbez is different from his earlier failure to understand VictorD7's edit summary. However, the human cost of the Iraq war has to be weighed against the potential human cost of leaving Saddam Hussein and his sons in power indefinitely, and the potential human cost that would have followed the inevitable (if prolonged) collapse of their totalitarian regime. (This is before we consider the fact that insurgents were responsible for 80% of the civilian casualties, in both Iraq and Afghanistan). The suggestion that the PPACA has no human cost, further, is by no means certain. I've followed this entire debate since Yesterday, and it seems that VictorD7 has been called a liar for his edit summaries and personally attacked by HiLo on his user page, but even Golbez now agrees that some changes may be in order.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad someone was paying attention. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

First, why was the change any "less valid" than the previous version? There was a wide array of reasons for regime change given. You don't have to agree with the policy to acknowledge that. Second, I agree that many things are "controversial", and indeed wars are inherently controversial. Leaving aside for now your characterization of losses without mention of potential gains or lives saved in the long run by ousting Hussein's regime, why single out one recent war with a far lower body count than some others listed in this article? Should we attach the word "controversy" to WW1, the Philippines insurrection, WW2, the dropping of the atomic bombs, etc? And some on both sides of the healthcare debate would argue that far more than 100k lives are at stake. Certainly millions more people are directly impacted. Do you see how your own subjective views are influencing your judgment and "perspective" here? Third, it's better to leave the link to the rationale for regime change in than exclude it, as deleting any mention of reason would create a bizarre, stunted sentence without explanation, but you've failed to explain your objection to the more neutral, and frankly slightly more informative version in my proposed change. Fourth, does your acknowledgement that Obamacare is controversial mean you'd support the change to that sentence? If so, the Iraq debate becomes moot as I'm not the one pushing for a double standard. The bill is more controversial than any other legislation passed over the past four years, and would fundamentally transform the type of nation America is, so don't try to diminish the level of controversy surrounding it. Fifth, you again falsely accused me of misrepresenting my edit summary, when I just explained to you that I wasn't referring to an "original version", but just the earlier issue (healthcare instead of Iraq). That said, the only changes I made to my earlier attempt was to add sources and streamline the edit. I'm sure you just misunderstood me, but don't persist in what started as a misunderstanding. Sixth, don't cry about hissy fits when you went out of your way to intervene in a phantom "edit war" that seemed to be already over. Many changes occur on this page without being submitted to the Talk Page first and other reverts are undone without you jumping in (the "two party system" thing is a recent example off the top of my head, being reversed and put back in multiple times), so clearly you had strong feelings on this issue. I'd ask that you also have an open mind. VictorD7 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"First, why was the change any "less valid" than the previous version?" Because it was poor English, shoehorned to fit the previous format. Arguing policy ITT. also lol intervene in an edit war that was "nearly over", which is of course why you reverted me. Shrug, fine, play with the article, I'm just here to keep people like you from trying to rename it. Noted on my misinterpretation of your summary though, sorry about that one. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Striking comments written in poor taste due to being in a bad mood. Wikipedia does that to me lately. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your aesthetic judgment, but am always open to alternative wording suggestions. I reverted you so I could respond to your charge that I had misrepresented something, and did so explicitly acknowledging that you'd revert me and that I was moving to the Talk Page to hash this out. I do think page consistency is a legitimate issue, especially when it comes to standards for what's considered unacceptable "pov". VictorD7 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with the OP's description of me. Rather than being anti-American and anti-Christian, I like to think my perspective is global, rather than just an American or Christian one. (This IS a global encyclopaedia, not just an American one.) This dispute was about describing items in terms of internal American perspectives, rather than how the other 95% of the world's population see them. The Iraq war WAS controversial around most of the world. Universal health care isn't. The opposition to it within the US is what everyone else sees as weird. THAT was the point I tried to make right from the start, but I just got howled down, bullied and abused. HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Anti" means against or opposed to, and you're anti-American enough that you went of your way to feature opposition to American editors as your mission statement on your user page, complaining about US spelling style and claiming, among other things, that the country's reputation had allegedly been damaged by its interpretation of the Bible. You also dismissed most Americans as "nuts" in the edit summary exchange, and went to my personal talk page to claim that I'm the kind of person responsible for the rest of the world seeing Americans as "ignorant, arrogant, US-centric pricks". After I calmly punched holes in your argument (such as it was), you complained that I was "bullying" you. Okaaaaay. Your perspective isn't any more "global" than mine is. The typical non-American knows nothing about Obamacare beyond maybe a sound bite or two, and is more consumed with problems closer to home. Those few who do follow it closely know it's the most controversial issue raging in the country, which clearly deserves a mention on the United States page. Regardless, scale wouldn't magically transform the word "controversial" from unacceptable "pov" to required "fact". VictorD7 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

^^^ Complete misrepresentation ^^^ HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

False. There's no point in being dishonest. Anyone can see your quotes.VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree; HiLo, there are many hills to fight for, trying to say you haven't had something against America all over this site isn't one of them. Yield it and move on. --Golbez (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Silly, shallow comments. Anyone who has total love for everything about any country is a very sick puppy indeed. Of course I have found fault with some aspects of the USA. I often find fault with aspects of my own country. Neither position is a sin. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because the two options are "total love for your country" and your obvious distaste for America and Americans. There's no middle ground, no sirree. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's meant to be some form of sarcasm, but it's lost me. Words are all we have here. If you cannot be concise and clear, you have no case. Probably better that you stop being so worried about the fact that the whole world doesn't love all that your country does. You don't need to worry about it, you know. Believing in what you beleive shouldn't depend on beating everyone else around the head until they believe it too. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop being deliberately obtuse. You were criticized because you obvious have a problem with America[ns] and your edits and interactions belie this. Then you said, and I quote, "Anyone who has total love for everything about any country is a very sick puppy indeed.". So you were saying, if someone points out how bad your statements are, they're some freak who loves everything about America. Or is there some other meaning for your otherwise meaningless edit summary? --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You say "you obvious have a problem with America[ns]" (sic). I have a problem with anyone who says and does dumb or arrogant things when they should know better, Americans included. I also have the courage to point out such things. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? His response was lost on you? Golbez concisely said the same thing I would have. We aren't talking about someone having "total love for everything" about a country (which no one does), but rather your obsessive opposition to another country. You're Australian, but almost your entire user page is dedicated to critiquing the US, lol. Frankly I've seen no evidence that you're qualified to comment with authority on what's allegedly "dumb" or "arrogant".VictorD7 (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There some blatant personal attacks being delivered here. I won't play that game. I also hate reporting anyone for anything, very rarely do, and won't here. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Good. Hopefully you retire from that game. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Important military section addition

The military(probably or other) section should get the following(or something similar to achieve): "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution gives the right for every USA citizen to keep and bear weapons to defend themselves and country. Also United States is one of the countries with highest gun possesion rate."

Reason for include:

• Last years Court decisions.
• Not changing this article from beginning of the state.
• Similar info about gun law in other article - for e.g. Andora article have that there is not only the right, but a "must have" of one rifle at every home.
• Importance for USA culture, and seeing of this country abroad.
• Other countries(like Pakistan, or Czech Republic) introduced similar laws, basing on USA experience.

 Not done. This article is not the place for that. That should go in something concerning laws of the US or constitution, etc. Not here. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Should have be done. Why? Reasons not only above - nearly every part of this article include link to some amendment. For e.g. religion section have link to First amendment. If You don't want to do this, all links to amendments should be also deleted - e.g. that first, religion amendment.

 Done Next time reopen the above edit request. I am not opposed to adding only a link to the second ammendment. Therefore, I will go look if one's there, and if not I will add it. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Addition to the Law enforcement

Should be changed to something similar: "There were 5.0 murders per 100,000 persons in 2009, 10.4% fewer than in 2000. (In 2000 Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in force, after expiring crime ratio gone down).

Secondly if somebody known other statistics than official FBI it should be also included to achieve NPOV(For e.g. in UK the sites like: http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html include both ways of counting deaths).

I don't known if and how to include there or in other article, but to achieve full neutrality examples of UK maybe good or not(generally UK is the island, and small country today, and laws vary esp. from "most open" Northern Ireland to "arrest for bread knife" in England).

Depending on above - the good example after writing like in article "high levels of gun violence and homicide." should be added that for e.g. in UK "sharp blades" are one of the biggest reason of murder. Why this example is important? Just because current weapon law in this example (UK mainland) prohibits from 1990s possession of ANY sharp blade on street(also peppers spray, electric paralyzers etc.). People are arrested for just using butter knife on the street, before/after/during work, in order to make a bread with butter and ham.

This is just not talking - it's to show the differences between gun definition-> statistics(which should be strictly written on encyclopedia articles) and related with this gun debate. And also it's strange but in this article lacks other examples of violence. For e.g. imagine something like central London robberies last year in central Houston/Dallas.

 Not done. What should be changed to what? Please format edit requests as "please change 'x' to 'y' because (reason)", that way I can make the corect change the first time. You will also need to provide reliable, valid sources to substantiate any edit request you make. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

DINNER!

=)184.98.112.167 (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)