9/11 occurred 13 years ago, with the former World Trade Center being destroyed and 3,000 people tragically losing their lives in one unprecedented fell swoop. 13 years later, the follow up has occurred, with a bold new tower in its place, the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere. Time advances, and the narrative must keep up. Now that the new One WTC has been topped out, I believe it is fundamentally important to display the sequel to the initial event. There's an image of the original shown, and I think it would really be constructive to juxtapose the image of the new tower with the image of the previous towers at the site. What do people think, and what might be the best way to accomplish this? Castncoot (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-26T19:37:00.000Z","author":"Castncoot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Castncoot-2014-03-26T19:37:00.000Z-Contemporary_history_issues","replies":["c-Cadiomals-2014-03-26T23:17:00.000Z-Castncoot-2014-03-26T19:37:00.000Z"]}}-->
It's interesting that you say we should mention storms that cost "100 billion dollars in damages" because the 1900 Galveston hurricane not only caused thousands more deaths than Hurricane Katrina but, adjusted for inflation, cost almost the same amount of property damage as Katrina; and the 1926 Miami hurricane, which actually cost more in today's dollars. Why don't we mention those? Meanwhile, superstorm Sandy only cost $68 billion in today's dollars and killed 159 which is significantly lower than all these storms that are not mentioned ("adjusted for wealth normalization", based on the tables in the wikilinks here). The 1988–89 North American drought cost $80-120 billion in losses and killed 7,500. I still insist that because these events happened relatively recently you are biased towards believing they are more important than they actually are in the grand scheme of US history, pummeled by natural disasters decade after decade. Even if it's only one sentence, we have to set limits somewhere lest the door is opened for further justifications of adding more "necessary" information until the History section gradually creeps back to its former size. Cadiomals (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-27T17:28:00.000Z","author":"Cadiomals","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cadiomals-2014-03-27T17:28:00.000Z-Contemporary_history_issues","replies":[]}}-->
Castncoot, please understand that it is not helpful when you make an edit, that edit is challenged, and then you make it again before obtaining consensus. The cycle here is Bold, Revert, Discuss. So when you revert simply saying "See talk", that doesn't help. No consensus has been gained. There's no one that's going to be shot if you have to wait a few days to put your passage back. --Golbez (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-27T17:11:00.000Z","author":"Golbez","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Golbez-2014-03-27T17:11:00.000Z-Contemporary_history_issues","replies":[]}}-->
I appreciate your sentiment regarding the pictures, Castncoot, but we barely have space for one picture there (which I support keeping). Regarding natural disasters, I agree with Cadiomals. Neither Sandy or Katrina are the worst natural disasters in US history, and at this detail level we don't have room to go back and add enough of them to avoid legitimate accusations of recentism. VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-27T18:54:00.000Z","author":"VictorD7","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-VictorD7-2014-03-27T18:54:00.000Z-Contemporary_history_issues","replies":[]}}-->
I just saw your new picture proposal and reverted it, accidentally hitting save before I typed the edit summary. I meant to say: Restoring picture. Not sure if I oppose this new one or not, but at the very least the size would probably need adjusting, so let's discuss this significant change on the Talk Page first. This new one has the benefit of being smaller overall but it may be too small, especially the more important 9/11 picture. I'm not sure how well people across the various types of machines can see it. It's in the history now, so people can check it out. Let's get additional input before making such a change permanent. VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-27T19:13:00.000Z","author":"VictorD7","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-VictorD7-2014-03-27T19:13:00.000Z-Contemporary_history_issues","replies":["c-Castncoot-2014-03-28T02:27:00.000Z-VictorD7-2014-03-27T19:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
There's a horizontal triplex image below this in the Government and Politics section of the article, so I don't see why this duplex image would present a problem; it's constructive; and I believe it addresses people's concerns reasonably well. Castncoot (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-28T03:40:00.000Z","author":"Castncoot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Castncoot-2014-03-28T03:40:00.000Z-Contemporary_history_issues","replies":["c-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-03-28T10:43:00.000Z-Castncoot-2014-03-28T03:40:00.000Z","c-VictorD7-2014-03-28T20:22:00.000Z-Castncoot-2014-03-28T03:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
I disagree with the addition of the image of the new building. The 9/11 image is relevant to U.S. history overall as the events of that day instigated the War on Terror, undoubtedly an important aspect of U.S. and world history. By contrast, the image of the reconstructed building at the site, while perhaps visually appealing, is not appropriate to be included in this article, as the reconstructed buildings are simply not notable in the overall narrative of U.S. history. It is not "terrorist POV" to only show images truly relevant to U.S. history in the History section of the U.S. article. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-30T00:23:00.000Z","author":"Philpill691","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Philpill691-2014-03-30T00:23:00.000Z-Contemporary_history_issues","replies":["c-Castncoot-2014-04-01T01:13:00.000Z-Philpill691-2014-03-30T00:23:00.000Z","c-Castncoot-2014-04-01T16:10:00.000Z-Philpill691-2014-03-30T00:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Castncoot (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-01T23:30:00.000Z","author":"Castncoot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Castncoot-2014-04-01T23:30:00.000Z-Contemporary_history_issues","replies":["c-Victor_falk-2014-04-02T14:53:00.000Z-Castncoot-2014-04-01T23:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[[:File:South San Jose (crop).jpg|thumb|A tract housing development in San Jose, California]] [[:File:Us housing.png|thumb|Clockwise from top left: The Breakers, a mansion of the Vanderbilts (Newport, RI). Public housing (Bushwick, Brooklyn, NY). Trailer park (West Miami, FL). Tract housing development (San Jose, CA)]] The montage is more representative of different types of housing in the US, and links to them in the legend. The old picture is by definition biased by showing only a single type of habitation, and as a thumbnail must anyway be clicked to be clear. walk victor falk talk 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-02T02:15:00.000Z","author":"Victor falk","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Victor_falk-2014-04-02T02:15:00.000Z-Illustrations_for_the_economy_section","replies":[]}}-->
The USA is now sometimes referred to as the Occupied States of America, because what was once a united group of states regulated by a federal government has become a subservient group of states occupied by the federal government. I think we should reference that it is now sometimes referred to by its citizens as the Occupied States of America. FYI, it is not an opinion that its citizens refer to the country as the Occupied States of America. That is a fact. Whether they are correct or not is opinion, but that they do say it is a fact. Pittpnthr (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)pittpnthr__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-09T09:45:00.000Z","author":"Pittpnthr","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pittpnthr-2014-04-09T09:45:00.000Z-Name_of_USA","replies":["c-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-09T14:25:00.000Z-Pittpnthr-2014-04-09T09:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
@Mark Miller: You seem to be making a lot of the image changes on the basis of them having "no context" to the section. While I may end up agreeing with a few image changes, if you can be patient I can add "context" (such as mention of significance within the body) in order to keep some of those images, many long standing. In addition, not all images need to have a direct mention within the body of the section in order for them to be completely relevant to the section. For example, images of the university, health center, and stock exchange remain totally relevant even if they aren't fully elaborated on, but I can still make some additions to the body. I think we should take it slow, so I just made a sweeping revert because I feel you made too many changes too quickly. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-08T21:28:00.000Z","author":"Cadiomals","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cadiomals-2014-04-08T21:28:00.000Z-image_changes","replies":["c-Mark_Miller-2014-04-08T21:31:00.000Z-Cadiomals-2014-04-08T21:28:00.000Z","c-VictorD7-2014-04-08T22:55:00.000Z-Cadiomals-2014-04-08T21:28:00.000Z"]}}-->
OK, lets look at your claim on the DRN filing, that you didn't cross the 3 revert rule:
There is no doubt that you crossed 3RR and without an exemption for policy reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-09T05:30:00.000Z","author":"Mark Miller","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mark_Miller-2014-04-09T05:30:00.000Z-image_changes","replies":["c-Mark_Miller-2014-04-09T05:59:00.000Z-Mark_Miller-2014-04-09T05:30:00.000Z","c-Cadiomals-2014-04-08T23:00:00.000Z-Mark_Miller-2014-04-09T05:30:00.000Z","c-Victor_falk-2014-04-09T00:21:00.000Z-Mark_Miller-2014-04-09T05:30:00.000Z","c-Victor_falk-2014-04-09T02:49:00.000Z-Mark_Miller-2014-04-09T05:30:00.000Z","c-Bluerasberry-2014-04-09T11:32:00.000Z-Mark_Miller-2014-04-09T05:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
The first sentence:
"The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), the States or simply "America"
Has been edited in a manner that does not flow well. The meaning of US is "United States", so the logical flow of the text should be "(U.S.), the States" and then a singular word would truly be "or simply "America".
Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC):__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-10T05:32:00.000Z","author":"Mark Miller","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mark_Miller-2014-04-10T05:32:00.000Z-First_sentence_text_flow","replies":["c-AbelM7-2014-04-10T05:47:00.000Z-Mark_Miller-2014-04-10T05:32:00.000Z"]}}-->
I know this subsection is already short compared to the other ones, but we should still keep to the formula of "Big Picture" details only and avoid WP:RECENTISM, so a few detail removals are in order. This may involve the removal of the 9/11 image as it will become too big for the section and we can't shrink it down too much. But as it is the section is cluttered with images. I would like to point out that I removed mention of the assassination of Bin Laden as his death did not mean the end of Al-Qaeda or terrorism, so I wouldn't consider it "Big Picture". Revised version below:
After the Cold War, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001.[141] The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists under the leadership of Osama bin Laden struck the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people.[142] In response the U.S. government launched the global War on Terror, invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps.[143] In 2003 the United States and several allied forces launched an invasion of Iraq to engineer regime change there, beginning the Iraq War. American combat troops fought in the country for eight years.[145][146][147] In 2008, amid a global economic recession and two wars, the first African-American president, Barack Obama, was elected.[148] Cadiomals (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-18T20:34:00.000Z","author":"Cadiomals","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cadiomals-2014-03-18T20:34:00.000Z-Contemporary_history","replies":["c-Philpill691-2014-03-19T01:50:00.000Z-Cadiomals-2014-03-18T20:34:00.000Z","c-VictorD7-2014-03-21T22:15:00.000Z-Cadiomals-2014-03-18T20:34:00.000Z"]}}-->
Propose changing "The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world" to "The Internet became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world". This is much more concise. Also, it seems out of place to mention ARPANET; the Internet itself certainly is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article, but its origins are not. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-21T20:39:00.000Z","author":"Philpill691","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Philpill691-2014-03-21T20:39:00.000Z-Contemporary_history","replies":["c-Cadiomals-2014-03-21T23:08:00.000Z-Philpill691-2014-03-21T20:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
I feel as though the above changes, though quite helpful, did not go quite far enough in removing extraneous details. I have removed a few more details in the draft I have placed below. I think this draft makes this subsection's detail level more appropriate relative to the other parts of the History section.
After the Cold War, the 1990s saw the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history, ending in 2001.[131] The Internet, which largely grew out of the U.S. Defense Department's ARPANET project, became widely available in the 1990s and soon spread around the world.[132] On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people.[133] In response the United States launched the global War on Terror, which includes the ongoing War in Afghanistan and the 2003–11 Iraq War.[134][135][136][137] In 2008, amid a global economic recession, the first African-American president, Barack Obama, was elected.[138]
Specifically, this draft removes:
I thought it would be best to check in with others before I make these changes. Please tell me what you think. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-01T01:07:00.000Z","author":"Philpill691","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Philpill691-2014-04-01T01:07:00.000Z-A_few_further_changes","replies":["c-VictorD7-2014-04-02T00:11:00.000Z-Philpill691-2014-04-01T01:07:00.000Z","c-Cadiomals-2014-04-02T00:31:00.000Z-Philpill691-2014-04-01T01:07:00.000Z"]}}-->
I have implemented the summarizing changes. I have not added the population mention as a clear consensus for that has not yet emerged. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-03T21:23:00.000Z","author":"Philpill691","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Philpill691-2014-04-03T21:23:00.000Z-A_few_further_changes","replies":[]}}-->
The old sentence:
As Philpill691 says above, it's overly specific. I propose the following same-sized sentence instead of the current one, to better explain the impact of the internet on society, culture and the economy in a sentence of the same length and including linking to relevant articles:
The Internet, originating in academic and US defense networks, spread to the public through the World Wide Web in the 1990s, impacting greatly the global economy, society, and culture.
Before getting too deep into this, I would suggest going down and doing some supporting work in History of the United States (1980–91) and/or History of the United States (1991–present). At present there is no material in these supporting articles that you can summarize. ~KvnG 14:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-12T14:22:00.000Z","author":"Kvng","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kvng-2014-04-12T14:22:00.000Z-Internet","replies":[]}}-->
I have been informed that some editors are against the inclusion of the historical recession is wp:recentism. I would like to clarify if references to it belong in the section or if it should be removed. walk victor falk talk 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-09T03:15:00.000Z","author":"Victor falk","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Victor_falk-2014-04-09T03:15:00.000Z-Great_Recession_of_2008","replies":["c-Victor_falk-2014-04-09T03:15:00.000Z-Victor_falk-2014-04-09T03:15:00.000Z","c-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-16T14:15:00.000Z-Victor_falk-2014-04-09T03:15:00.000Z"]}}-->
It's not a superpower, take that part out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanxBorealis (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-10T21:08:00.000Z","author":"LanxBorealis","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LanxBorealis-2014-04-10T21:08:00.000Z-The_USA_is_not_a_superpower","replies":["c-Victor_falk-2014-04-10T21:41:00.000Z-LanxBorealis-2014-04-10T21:08:00.000Z","c-Jayron32-2014-04-17T18:35:00.000Z-LanxBorealis-2014-04-10T21:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
Under the "Government and Politics" section, the last sentence of the second paragraph says that there is no proportional representation at the federal level. This is wrong, and I want to edit it for a class I am taking as homework assignment. The problem is that I am not confirmed and this page is semi-protected. Check my source. <http://www.house.gov/content/learn/>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickipedia (talk • contribs)
In addition to whatever adjustments and sourcing/wording cleanups we do, I'll note that we still need to figure where and how to reinsert the Washington and Lincoln mentions, as well the population updates. The Lincoln mention should probably include his party, since we established but never updated the earlier party system with this segment: From 1820 to 1850, Jacksonian democracy began a set of reforms which included wider male suffrage, and it led to the rise of the Second Party System of Democrats and Whigs as the dominant parties from 1828 to 1854. VictorD7 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-21T22:37:00.000Z","author":"VictorD7","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-VictorD7-2014-03-21T22:37:00.000Z-Still_work_to_do","replies":[]}}-->
Until and unless we can come up with further changes, I figure we should adopt an approach of minimal change to get Lincoln in. I'm close to implementing this:
Following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the largely anti-slavery Republican Party, conventions in thirteen states ultimately declared secession, forming the Confederate States of America, while the U.S. federal government maintained secession was illegal. The ensuing war was at first for Union, then after 1863 as casualties mounted and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, a second war aim became abolition of slavery. The war remains the deadliest military conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of approximately 620,000 soldiers as well as many civilians.
It mostly keeps what's already in place. Does anyone have any objection? VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-27T19:20:00.000Z","author":"VictorD7","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-VictorD7-2014-03-27T19:20:00.000Z-Lincoln","replies":["c-VictorD7-2014-03-28T20:46:00.000Z-VictorD7-2014-03-27T19:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
I figure it might be easiest to tack the Washington sentence to the end of the Constitution paragraph, following the Bill of Rights sentence. I think it's important to identify him as the revolutionary army leader and first president. I also think we should mention his precedent setting voluntary relinquishment of power, since that was such a departure from how things were usually done in the world at the time, and highlights one of America's major contributions to global political development. Here's a two sentence proposal:
George Washington, who had led the revolutionary army to victory, was the first president elected under the new constitution. He set numerous precedents that shaped the country's future, including voluntarily relinquishing power after serving two terms, a rarity in the world at the time.
Thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-25T21:29:00.000Z","author":"VictorD7","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-VictorD7-2014-03-25T21:29:00.000Z-Washington","replies":["c-Golbez-2014-03-25T21:38:00.000Z-VictorD7-2014-03-25T21:29:00.000Z","c-VictorD7-2014-04-23T00:13:00.000Z-VictorD7-2014-03-25T21:29:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hello, there is this study that was posted on reddit that says the US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, I would like to know if this should be included in the article and within what context, keep in mind the study is not subjective, is scientific.
link-pdf
Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-15T21:12:00.000Z","author":"Camilo Sanchez","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Camilo_Sanchez-2014-04-15T21:12:00.000Z-Scientific_Study_that_has_determined_the_US_is_an_oligarchy","replies":["c-VictorD7-2014-04-16T02:24:00.000Z-Camilo_Sanchez-2014-04-15T21:12:00.000Z","c-The_Four_Deuces-2014-04-16T05:22:00.000Z-Camilo_Sanchez-2014-04-15T21:12:00.000Z","c-Cadiomals-2014-04-16T06:06:00.000Z-Camilo_Sanchez-2014-04-15T21:12:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Camilo S\u00e1nchez"}}-->
Weinstein's use of "oligarchy" is far broader than most people understand the meaning. Here it is used to state that organized groups of people (corporations, special interests, unions etc.) wield more power than individuals - which is true in a d'oh way to just about every nation on earth. Normally, "oligarchy" implies power held by a small number of individuals, ho do not generally represent groups (here I note that corporations are "groups" as representing millions of shareholders as are special interest "groups.") Weinstein does not use the term in the traditional sense here, but notes something which is pretty obvious - groups wield more power than individuals, but using the term as a normal English word in Wikipedia's voice is simply misleading to readers. ( Most recently, Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of “Oligarchy,” in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection from Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizen) Some of that paper, in fact, appears to be opinion, such as its statement that pro-life and pro-gun groups favour policies opposed by average Americans, and that labour unions and the AARP favour policies favoured by average Americans, which would seem debatable.) All in all, I suggest we not use "oligarchy" as a term here as it appears to be used in a specific non-standard context. [7] makes a leap asserting an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious “electoral” “democratic” countries which is a strong redefinition of a term which is not the meaning assigned in the actual source. I suggest globalresearch.ca is likely not a reliable source as it makes claims which are not found in the source. Collect (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-18T12:56:00.000Z","author":"Collect","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Collect-2014-04-18T12:56:00.000Z-Scientific_Study_that_has_determined_the_US_is_an_oligarchy","replies":[]}}-->
New edit uses sources and states what they say without using the term of art "oligarchy" and also note that we do not use Wikilinks within quotations. Collect (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-18T13:30:00.000Z","author":"Collect","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Collect-2014-04-18T13:30:00.000Z-Scientific_Study_that_has_determined_the_US_is_an_oligarchy","replies":["c-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-18T13:59:00.000Z-Collect-2014-04-18T13:30:00.000Z","c-VictorD7-2014-04-18T22:07:00.000Z-Collect-2014-04-18T13:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
This has been added back into the article apparently against the consensus[9]--71.170.100.11 (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-23T10:12:00.000Z","author":"71.170.100.11","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-71.170.100.11-2014-04-23T10:12:00.000Z-Scientific_Study_that_has_determined_the_US_is_an_oligarchy","replies":["c-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-23T11:47:00.000Z-71.170.100.11-2014-04-23T10:12:00.000Z","c-Calidum-2014-04-24T02:10:00.000Z-71.170.100.11-2014-04-23T10:12:00.000Z","c-Capitalismojo-2014-04-24T03:20:00.000Z-71.170.100.11-2014-04-23T10:12:00.000Z"]}}-->
I object to this deletion because the facts are corroborated and it is in VictorD7's interest to suppress them in order to add a false veneer of respectability to his pattern trying to suppress the topic. EllenCT (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-22T01:41:00.000Z","author":"EllenCT","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EllenCT-2014-04-22T01:41:00.000Z-Governance","replies":["c-Morphh-2014-04-22T01:44:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-22T01:41:00.000Z","c-VictorD7-2014-04-23T00:05:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-22T01:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
How do people feel about these charts? EllenCT (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-24T20:51:00.000Z","author":"EllenCT","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EllenCT-2014-04-24T20:51:00.000Z-Charts","replies":[]}}-->
How do these charts relate to the first theme of this thread? (E.g., "Scientific Study that has determined the US is an oligarchy".) With WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in mind, how might they be used? – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-25T05:39:00.000Z","author":"Srich32977","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Srich32977-2014-04-25T05:39:00.000Z-Charts","replies":["c-EllenCT-2014-04-25T06:47:00.000Z-Srich32977-2014-04-25T05:39:00.000Z","c-173.76.108.247-2014-04-25T23:51:00.000Z-Srich32977-2014-04-25T05:39:00.000Z"],"displayName":"S. Rich"}}-->
What EllenCT did not mention is that I had removed these charts from Income in Equality in the United States for the various reasons people have opposed them here, which she then reinserted with large expansion relating to the recent Princeton paper. I imagine she was trying to create an informal RFC to justify her edits on other articles. Since this is topical, I encourage other editors to take a look at these other recent edits by EllenCT in Oligarchy, Plutocracy, and Politics of the United StatesMattnad (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-26T12:05:00.000Z","author":"Mattnad","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mattnad-2014-04-26T12:05:00.000Z-Charts","replies":["c-Collect-2014-04-26T12:44:00.000Z-Mattnad-2014-04-26T12:05:00.000Z"]}}-->
This is in desperate need of incorporation in to the article:
86.180.45.65 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-23T21:56:00.000Z","author":"86.180.45.65","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-86.180.45.65-2014-04-23T21:56:00.000Z-US_\u2013_in_decline","replies":["c-Jayron32-2014-04-23T22:36:00.000Z-86.180.45.65-2014-04-23T21:56:00.000Z","c-Cadiomals-2014-04-24T00:20:00.000Z-86.180.45.65-2014-04-23T21:56:00.000Z","c-VictorD7-2014-04-25T19:28:00.000Z-86.180.45.65-2014-04-23T21:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
Including a "US is in decline" subsection, even as a small part of the broad description of the US economy, is fraught with problems. Mainly, we'd get POV pushing, soapboxing, and UNDUE, as editors fought over "is/isn't" & "why/why-not" issues. Moreover, such sub-sections do no fit in with suggested article layout guidelines found here. IMO no consensus is possible. Accordingly, arguing about sources, etc., is a waste of time. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-26T21:54:00.000Z","author":"Srich32977","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Srich32977-2014-04-26T21:54:00.000Z-US_\u2013_in_decline","replies":["c-EllenCT-2014-04-27T11:24:00.000Z-Srich32977-2014-04-26T21:54:00.000Z"],"displayName":"S. Rich"}}-->
Exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. Both in 'Oligarchy' and 'Decline' above, there is a reliance on single, recent, primary research or news sources.
I propose an editorial bias here towards books of WP:scholarship as a standard for high-quality sources. a) secondary sources rather than primary research b) vetted by the scholarly community rather than news organizations. c) multiple scholarly citations in citation indexes rather than newly published papers. d) multiple high-quality sources for exceptional claims.
For a summary, country article, at the minimum, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, not merely the most recent news cycle media frenzy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-26T09:23:00.000Z","author":"TheVirginiaHistorian","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-26T09:23:00.000Z-Sources_for_the_exceptional","replies":[]}}-->
Support. The article and Talk are disrupted by various forms of recentism. Too many short-term or incidental aspects of United States social, economic and political life are promoted in the country-summary level article. Without some sort of procedural guideline agreed to by community consensus they will continue to have the effect of disruption. Recent development updates of a characteristic which is substantiated in the literature is appropriate, such as GDP, but an innovative index without any scholarly citations is not appropriate, however promising it may be. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-26T09:23:00.000Z","author":"TheVirginiaHistorian","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-26T09:23:00.000Z-Sources_for_the_exceptional-1","replies":["c-EllenCT-2014-04-26T18:00:00.000Z-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-26T09:23:00.000Z","c-The_Four_Deuces-2014-04-26T18:03:00.000Z-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-26T09:23:00.000Z","c-EllenCT-2014-04-27T12:47:00.000Z-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-26T09:23:00.000Z","c-Srich32977-2014-04-29T00:47:00.000Z-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-26T09:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Good mawnin all. On my last with @EllenCT:, (we have two strands going now in this one, harder to follow). So, relative to the New Yorker piece brought forward by the IP, it was pointing out two reasons for not using the unpublished "oligarchy" study: a) it's provocative and its sampling old and truncated, and b) it's statistically weak, even for political science. I'm with Ellen and TFD that something on non-majoritarian influence, including finance, regulated corporations, unions, ought to mentioned, --- but with reliable scholarly sources, not so much media echo chamber.
Economic inequality and the middle class: Googling books, ‘decline of the middle class' brings at the bottom of the first screen, “Income inequality in the United States, 1947-1985”, asking the question, is the middle class declining, (it is declining as of 1990) because of a) transitory aging of the baby boom or b) permanent changes in industrial-occupational employment? Nan Maxwell answered both economic and demographic factors play a part. Is that 1990 volume substantial, and is there anything else later over the last twenty years of comparable scope and multidisciplinary study? and do the two books align in their conclusions? Inquiring minds want to know. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-30T08:43:00.000Z","author":"TheVirginiaHistorian","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-30T08:43:00.000Z-Sources_for_the_exceptional","replies":["c-EllenCT-2014-05-01T04:13:00.000Z-TheVirginiaHistorian-2014-04-30T08:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
Within the observed error of measurement, it's already inaccurate to say that the US economy is the world's largest.[11] EllenCT (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-30T08:51:00.000Z","author":"EllenCT","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EllenCT-2014-04-30T08:51:00.000Z-World's_largest_economy","replies":["c-Mattnad-2014-04-30T12:58:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-30T08:51:00.000Z","c-VictorD7-2014-04-30T19:21:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-30T08:51:00.000Z","c-Collect-2014-05-02T14:52:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-30T08:51:00.000Z","c-Mattnad-2014-05-02T17:43:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-30T08:51:00.000Z","c-Cadiomals-2014-05-02T20:51:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-30T08:51:00.000Z"]}}-->
The United States wiki page is the only country profile to show before taxes and transfers gini figures. All other countries show post-tax figures. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/19/global-inequality-how-the-u-s-compares/
You can compare them to the above data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-05-04T16:20:00.000Z","author":"Dylancatlow","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dylancatlow-2014-05-04T16:20:00.000Z-Misleading_Gini_figures","replies":[]}}-->
I have updated the United States' gini figures to keep in line with how other countries' gini figures are reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-05-04T16:33:00.000Z","author":"Dylancatlow","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dylancatlow-2014-05-04T16:33:00.000Z-Misleading_Gini_figures","replies":["c-Srich32977-2014-05-04T16:54:00.000Z-Dylancatlow-2014-05-04T16:33:00.000Z"]}}-->
Is there any good historical data that can be added for this section ? Can we find anything about average family size,relations, etc. I find it ridiculous that 90% of the info in the section is about gay marriage and abortion. What are they trying to say ? Scatach (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-05-07T03:13:00.000Z","author":"Scatach","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Scatach-2014-05-07T03:13:00.000Z-Family_Structures","replies":[]}}-->
Are the graphics at [15] correct representations of [16]? EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-01T02:21:00.000Z","author":"EllenCT","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EllenCT-2014-04-01T02:21:00.000Z-Health_by_political_preference","replies":["c-VictorD7-2014-04-02T01:01:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-01T02:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
The treatise states that it is preliminary only and that its limitations mean that it is not definitive in any way at this point. By the time we add all the "limitations" specified, I suspect it is of exceedingly limited utility here. The next part is that the MotherJones graphics elide the other likely bases for people's view of their own health -- such as climate, unemployment etc. NM and AZ are quite different politically, similar climatologically, and similar in view of health (in fact AZ outranks NM on that basis). On a statistically significant basis for assertion of any single reason for views of health, it fails. It is of anecdotal value only, and epidemiologists tend not to try making "correlation equals causation" arguments in any event. Were I to hazard a guess, the healthiest states all have relatively high hospital availability density (and doctor availability density) (that is percentage of population within 15 minutes of a hospital, and 15 minutes of a doctor). CDC has lots of stats onthat sort of stuff. Collect (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-02T16:28:00.000Z","author":"Collect","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Collect-2014-04-02T16:28:00.000Z-Health_by_political_preference","replies":["c-EllenCT-2014-04-04T01:06:00.000Z-Collect-2014-04-02T16:28:00.000Z"]}}-->
I copied this to Talk:Politics_of_the_United_States#Health_by_political_preference for discussion of corresponding improvements there. EllenCT (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-05T00:11:00.000Z","author":"EllenCT","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EllenCT-2014-04-05T00:11:00.000Z-Health_by_political_preference","replies":["c-Capitalismojo-2014-04-05T16:49:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-05T00:11:00.000Z"]}}-->
I am also interested in opinions which address the central point of the demography with specific reasons. EllenCT (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-05T23:50:00.000Z","author":"EllenCT","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EllenCT-2014-04-05T23:50:00.000Z-Health_by_political_preference","replies":[]}}-->
I do not agree with the opinions expressed above, more than one of which does not characterize the findings or their significance correctly. But some of them do have merit. Therefore I am going to try another RFC. Maybe it will work better this time than it has at Talk:Progressive tax.
How should [17] and/or [18] be summarized? EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z","author":"EllenCT","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EllenCT-2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z-Health_by_political_preference","replies":["c-Collect-2014-04-20T20:16:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z","c-Homunq-2014-04-20T20:30:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z","c-Srich32977-2014-04-20T20:38:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z","c-Capitalismojo-2014-04-20T20:46:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z","c-Aircorn-2014-04-21T09:24:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z","c-Malke_2010-2014-04-25T00:33:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z","c-Useitorloseit-2014-04-25T21:34:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-20T17:17:00.000Z"]}}-->
NOTE: As this thread opened on 1 April, we are approaching the 30 day default closure time. So far little/no support has been generated for using the material. Oftentimes the WP:SNOWBALL clause will allow for early closures, but this may not be a good thread for such a closure. With these factors in mind, EllenCT (as the original poster) may want to publicize this RFC on some WikiProject talk pages & generate more commentary. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy is one such project page where a notice might be helpful.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: I have removed the rfc template – overall the discussion is now 30 days old; there is no support to use (other than from OP). Nor was there any effort to publicize this discussion/rfc as I had suggested. 17:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-25T01:45:00.000Z","author":"Srich32977","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Srich32977-2014-04-25T01:45:00.000Z-Health_by_political_preference","replies":["c-EllenCT-2014-04-27T11:17:00.000Z-Srich32977-2014-04-25T01:45:00.000Z"],"displayName":"S. Rich"}}-->
I find it appalling that this article has not reached the GA status on the English WP. May be a collaboration problem between editors? I am ready to contribute to the economy and technology sections but someone new should take the lead and make an updated "do-list" to get the USA article featured. See WP:FA for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-05T08:32:00.000Z","author":"67.87.50.54","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-67.87.50.54-2014-04-05T08:32:00.000Z-GA_status_removed","replies":["c-Cadiomals-2014-04-05T17:17:00.000Z-67.87.50.54-2014-04-05T08:32:00.000Z"]}}-->
It would help if editors would stop trying to push pseudo-centrist points of view between two manufactured positions, 1+1=3 and 1+1=4, when the reliable sources support 1+1=2. In such cases, WP:NPOV does not mandate 1+1=3, it mandates 1+1=2 featured prominently as a controversy, including citing the reliable sources and citing the organizations paying for the views opposed to the reliable sources as such. EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-05T23:48:00.000Z","author":"EllenCT","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EllenCT-2014-04-05T23:48:00.000Z-GA_status_removed","replies":["c-Mark_Miller-2014-04-08T21:30:00.000Z-EllenCT-2014-04-05T23:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
May I suggest to list below some sentences that are controversial according to editors:
If not I will nominate this article for GA review in a month. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-05-10T08:08:00.000Z","author":"67.87.50.54","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-67.87.50.54-2014-05-10T08:08:00.000Z-GA_status_removed","replies":["c-Cadiomals-2014-05-10T17:44:00.000Z-67.87.50.54-2014-05-10T08:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
Cleared area for parking vehicles For other uses, see Parking lot (disambiguation). For parking areas along highways, see Rest area. Diagram of example parking lot layout with angle parking as seen from above A parking lot in Manhattan, New York City, in 2010, with its capacity increased through multiple level stacked parking using mechanical lifts A subterranean parking lot of a Brazilian shopping mall taken in 2016 A sign at the entrance to an underground parking garage in March 2007, warning …
В Википедии есть статьи о других людях с такой фамилией, см. Лебедев; Лебедев, Павел. Павел Павлович Лебедев Дата рождения 21 апреля (3 мая) 1872(1872-05-03) Место рождения Чебоксары, Казанская губерния, Российская империя Дата смерти 2 июля 1933(1933-07-02) (61 год) Место смерти Харьков,
Felicia HwangLahirFelicia Hwang Yi Xin18 April 1992 (umur 31)Bandar Lampung, Lampung, IndonesiaNama lainFelicia HwangPendidikanUniversitas BradfordPekerjaanModelratu kecantikanpengusahaTinggi173 cm (5 ft 8 in)Suami/istriGarry Jordan (m. 2019)AnakTimothy Duncan JordanPemenang kontes kecantikanGelar Puteri Indonesia Lampung 2016 Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan 2016 Miss International Indonesia 2016 Warna rambutHitamWarna mataCokelat gelapKompetis…
Радянський Союз мав найбільшу, найтривалішу, найрозвиненішу програму з дослідження, розробки, та виготовлення біологічної зброї в порушення взятих на себе в 1972 році зобов'язань в рамках Конвенції про біологічну зброю[1]. Програма зі створення біологічної зброї була ро…
Карл Август Вальдек-Пирмонтскийнем. Karl August Friedrich zu Waldeck-Pyrmont Князь Вальдек-Пирмонтский 1 января 1728 — 29 августа 1763 Предшественник Фридрих Антон Ульрих Вальдек-Пирмонтский Преемник Фридрих Карл Август Вальдек-Пирмонтский Рождение 24 сентября 1704(1704-09-24)[1] или 1704[…
غسل القصبات والأسناخ Bronchoalveolar lavage فحص مجهري لعينة تم الحصول عليها بواسطة غسيل القصبات والأسناخ معلومات عامة من أنواع إرواء علاجي تعديل مصدري - تعديل غسل القصبات والأسناخ (بالإنجليزية: Bronchoalveolar lavage) يرمز له اختصاراً بـ (BAL) هو إجراء طبي يتم بواسطة جهاز تنظير القصبات ال
Фур'є-спектроскопія — метод вимірювання спектрів, в якому інформація про когерентність сигналу (наприклад електромагнітної хвилі) накопичується у вигляді часової або просторової розгортки, до якої застосовується перетворення Фур'є. Метод застосовується в широкому ко…
Максим СтупінMaxim StupinЗагальна інформаціяГромадянство РосіяНародження 2000Москва, РосіяСпортВид спорту спортивне плавання[1]Команда Energy Standardd Участь і здобутки Максим Ступін (1 січня 2000) — російський плавець. Учасник Олімпійських Ігор 2020 року, де в попередніх запли…
此條目需要擴充。 (2009年10月16日)请協助改善这篇條目,更進一步的信息可能會在討論頁或扩充请求中找到。请在擴充條目後將此模板移除。 巴·布林贝赫ᠪ ᠪᠦᠷᠢᠨᠪᠡᠬᠢ性别男出生1928年2月26日内蒙古昭乌达盟巴林右旗逝世2009年10月11日内蒙古呼和浩特国籍中华人民共和国政党 中国共产党 学历 冀察热辽联合大学鲁迅文学艺术院[1] 内蒙古大学文艺研究班 经历 1…
Ehemaliger Kanton Marseille-Saint-Marcel Region Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur Département Bouches-du-Rhône Arrondissement Marseille Auflösungsdatum 29. März 2015 Einwohner 31.649 (1. Jan. 2012) Bevölkerungsdichte 1.698 Einw./km² Fläche 18.64 km² Gemeinden 1 INSEE-Code 1342 Der Kanton Marseille-Saint-Marcel war bis 2015 ein französischer Wahlkreis im Arrondissement Marseille, im Département Bouches-du-Rhône und in der Region Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur. Die landes…
Men's road time trialat the Games of the XXXI OlympiadGrumari Circuit - PontalVenuePontal, Rio de Janeiro54.5 km (33.9 mi)Date10 August 2016Competitors40 from 30 nationsWinning time1:12:15.42Medalists Fabian Cancellara Switzerland Tom Dumoulin Netherlands Chris Froome Great Britain← 20122020 → Cycling at the2016 Summer OlympicsList of cyclistsQualificationRoad cyclingRoad racemenwomenTime trialmenwomenTrack cyclingSprintmenwomenTeam spr…
Men's World Team 201926th WSF World Men's Team ChampionshipLocation Washington, D.C., United StatesVenueSquash On FireDate(s)15 – 21 DecemberWebsiteworldteamsquashdc.comResults Champions Egypt Runners-up England Third place Wales, France (shared) ← 2017 2023 → The 2019 Men's World Team Squash Championships was the 26th edition of world men's team championship for squash players. The event was held at Squash On Fire in Washington, D.C., United States, …
DorohoiKota Lambang kebesaranNegara RumaniaProvinsiBotoşaniStatusMunisipalitasPemerintahan • Wali kotaDorin AlexandrescuLuas • Total60,39 km2 (2,332 sq mi)Populasi (2002) • Total31.073Zona waktuUTC+2 (EET) • Musim panas (DST)UTC+3 (EEST)Situs webhttp://www.primariadorohoi.ro Dorohoi adalah kota yang terletak di provinsi Botoşani, Rumania. Pada tahun 2002, Dorohoi memiliki jumlah penduduk sebanyak 31.073 jiwa. Dorohoi memi…
هذه القائمة غير مكتملة. فضلاً ساهم في تطويرها بإضافة مزيد من المعلومات ولا تنسَ الاستشهاد بمصادر موثوق بها. لا يزال النص الموجود في هذه الصفحة في مرحلة الترجمة إلى العربية. إذا كنت تعرف اللغة المستعملة، لا تتردد في الترجمة. (فبراير 2017) قبلت اليابان اتفاقية اليونسكو الخاصة بمو…
Indian municipal elections 2015 Kerala Local Elections ← 2010 2, 5 November 2015 2020 → 1199 of 1200 local bodies in Kerala [a]Turnout77.7% (%) Alliance LDF UDF NDA Percentage 37.4% 37.2% 13.3% Grama Panchayat 549 365 14 Block Panchayat 90 61 0 District Panchayat 7 7 0 Municipality 44 41 1 Corporation 4 2 0 Elections to local bodies (Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations) in Kerala were held in two phrases, on 2 and 5 Novemb…
Ini adalah nama Jepang, nama keluarganya adalah Higashifushimi. Pangeran Higashifushimi YorihitoPangeran Higashifushimi YorihitoLahir19 September 1867Kyoto, JepangMeninggal27 Juni 1922(1922-06-27) (umur 54)[1]Tokyo, JepangPengabdianKekaisaran JepangDinas/cabang Angkatan Laut Kekaisaran JepangLama dinas1891–1922PangkatMarsekal-LaksamanaKomandanArmada ke-2 IJNPerang/pertempuranPerang Tiongkok-Jepang KeduaPerang Rusia-JepangPenghargaanOrdo Layangan Emas (Kelas ke-3) Marseka…
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: Ulat Bayan – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Filipino TV series or program Ulat BayanTitle card since 2020GenreNewscast Live televisionCreated byPTV NewsDirected byJohn Cruz Boy…
United States Army general Patrick John HessianMajor General Patrick John Hessian16th Chief of Chaplains of the United States ArmyBorn(1928-05-20)May 20, 1928Belle Plaine, MinnesotaDiedSeptember 8, 2007(2007-09-08) (aged 79)Belle Plaine, MinnesotaResting PlaceSacred Heart Catholic Cemetery, Belle Plaine, MinnesotaAllegianceUnited States of AmericaService/branch United States ArmyYears of service1958–1986Rank Major GeneralCommands heldU.S. Army Chaplain CorpsBattles/warsVietnam WarAwa…
Símbolo del Papado. La frase latina Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus significa: “Fuera de la Iglesia no hay salvación”. Proviene de los escritos de san Cipriano de Cartago, obispo del siglo III, y su comprensión requiere del conocimiento del contexto en que fue presentada.[1] Es un dogma de la Iglesia católica, definido en la forma «es absolutamente necesario para la salvación de toda criatura humana que esté sujeta al Romano Pontífice» (bula Unam Sanctam del Papa Bonifacio V…
Запрос «Цейлон» перенаправляется сюда; см. также другие значения. Эта статья — о государстве. Об острове см. Шри-Ланка (остров). Демократическая Социалистическая Республика Шри-Ланкасинг. ශ්රී ලංකා ප්රජාතාන්ත්රික සමාජවාදී ජනරජය(Srī Lankā p…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.137.162.164