Talk:United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older comments[change source]

I understand that this is the wikipedia for simple people, but the emancipation proclamation in no way freed the slaves. — This unsigned comment was added by 216.185.11.254 (talk • changes).

Please do not refer to people with a limited vocabulary as "simple people" they may be learning English as a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th language. — This unsigned comment was added by 68.198.239.234 (talk • changes).


"Only Indians lived there before it was discovered by Europeans." Please don't write something like this. It's not very polite to say "only" those guys. — This unsigned comment was added by 210.10.32.12 (talk • changes).


"this usage is often offensive", "on the assumption", "utterly genocidal", "superior economic and political system", "constantly interfered" - this is simple English? Also this article is heavily anti-American. User:Adam Carr

No it's not simple, and yes it is biased. Please please edit this page!. Angela 14:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I did a little bit of improvement here, mostly in grammar, but I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. I would have assumed that Simple English should try to simplify language. Instead, it seems to me that people have tried to simplify history and ideas.

I don't usually work in the Simple English Wikipedia, so please reply to me on my English-language talk page, Jmabel 1 Jan 2004


What's this obsession with simple English? If the people can't read well they should learn not have people cater to their limited vocabularies. — This unsigned comment was added by 24.186.144.226 (talk • changes).

Look at the front page Aims section

Aims
  • To make pages easy to read by people who speak English poorly
  • To make pages that are easy to translate, first the simplest sections, but which are still complete encyclopedia articles.

I guess most of the users speak other languages. The simple Wikipedia is so that all users can understand the many articles which can't be written in other languages.

I also guess there are some people who can not use good English because they just aren't good at it. I hope they will use this site and maybe it will help them slowly learn harder words.

SimonMayer 01:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that was me who said that (but my IP address changed since then). In the past year, I learned the purpose of the Simple English Wikipedia through Meta-Wikimedia pages. --Wikiacc 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact Checking[change source]

In 2009 there were 435 representatives? The English colonized America in 1500? Someone needs to go over this. 67.163.245.35 16:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Numbers[change source]

I am deleting some of the numbers, because some of them are contradictory. Maurreen 16:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Politics change[change source]

A change was made in the politics section about the 2006 midterm elections stating that the democrats had enough votes to decide policy. This is not true. Prior to the mid terms, Republicans controlled both Congress and the presidency so they did have the means to dictate policy. With a split (Congress:Dem, President:Rep) neither side can totally control unless the democrats have enough votes to override a presidential veto which with only 51% of the senate and 54% of the house they do not have enough.

As this is the case, I changed it to "neither party has enough votes" -- Creol 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality[change source]

I just reverted (again) to undo edits made by Chosungul. The citations came from either biased sources (Amnesty International) and a neutrality disputed article on English wikipedia. I don't want to get into an edit war, but the language doesn't sit well with me. Please feel free to respond on this page or my talk page if you disagree. Thanks. Browne34 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ummm change?[change source]

this article is so anti-american it makes my brain cells wither — This unsigned comment was added by 67.187.35.166 (talk • changes).

No it isn't. It is quite the opposite. And it really shouldn't be either. It should be Neutral. — This unsigned comment was added by Liam.gloucester (talk • changes).

i agree, this article is very anti american. must be changed. — This unsigned comment was added by 79.75.229.51 (talk • changes).

Doesn't look simple[change source]

This article doesn't look 'simple'. Or maybe it's just me. Or maybe it's just those words like 'Legislative', where you can't change the words.

Just saying. 121.216.239.84 10:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Federal holidays (For 2008)[change source]

What does that mean? Is this something that needs to be updated? I'm just curious what the purpose of it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.38.225 (talkcontribs)

What are you referring to? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Money[change source]

This chunk is...well weird. What is an example of what and what id furthermore to what seems, to say the least, complex. "The social structure of the United States has a big range, meaning some Americans are much, much richer than others. For example, 51% of all households have access to a computer and 41% had access to the Internet in 2000, a figure which had grown to 75% in 2004. Globally, less than one percent of people own a computer. Furthermore, 67.9% of Americans owned their homes in 2002. The average income for an American was $37,000 a year in 2002." Rich Farmbrough (talk)

Superpowerstatus[change source]

The part in the introduction explaining how the US attained superpower status has several issues.

  1. Many countries "won both world wars". I fixed the wording, so it is clear that the US was part of the winning side.
  2. The importance of WW1 compared to WW2 is arguable in that list. You might as well put geography up there, since the relative geographical isolation has been key in ensuring safety - and instrumental in leaving the US economy intact post-WW2. I know this is the simple wikipedia, but I assume we are still striving for accuracy...
  3. It is of course true that "winning the cold war" is part of what made the US the worlds only superpower. But for the last 65 years, only 20 of them have been with the US as sole superpower. The bulk of US superpower history has been with the USSR as 'competitor'.

In short, the introduction leaves readers with little knowledge of history since WW1 more confused (or falsely enlightened) than they came. I don't know how to improve it without extensive rewriting, but if the existing factoids/points must be kept, at least the following should be clear:

  • The US was not a superpower before WW2.
  • The US was one of two superpowers between WW2 and the end of the cold war.
  • The US has been the sole superpower since the end of the cold war. 82.180.28.162 (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

to put simple[change source]

was "all right" is "all rigged" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2016‎ (UTC)