Talk:United States

Older comments

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

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

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

Politics change

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

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?

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

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)

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 (talk • contribs)

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

Money

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

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

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

Simplifying (2022)

I think the reading level of this article is generally too difficult. [1] Which sections would be good targets to simplify without losing important information? Lights and freedom (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the majority of difficult text is in the history section. Even though some of it should stay as detail, there are plenty of complex words + sentences that could be broken up and simplified. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Unwilling to participate in European affairs, the Senate did not approve the Treaty of Versailles (1919), which established the League of Nations, applying a policy of unilateralism, which bordered on isolationism." Best example I could find of how difficult history is. A lot of sections might need to just be completely rewritten. 🤘🤘DovahFRD (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So many issues. This is ridiculously complex.

• Shouldn't there be a table of contents / outline box at the top? That helps with readability.
• Geography: Use a map. Much of the text can be removed then.
• Imbalance: Foreign policy and military vs economy or culture sections
• Native Americans and European settlers (two separate sections)
• Education section is lacking or just incorrect

--Gotanda (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that the bulk of the complexity comes from one user, johano changes talk, who had been previously blocked for sock-puppetry. They've gone on to complicate sea and Nauru as well. Given this ongoing discussion Are we doing a good job?, maybe unblocking known bad actors and letting them over-run articles is something to be avoided? --Gotanda (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Got done with rewriting a section of the page right here. Tried to keep important details in while making the whole thing simpler. Just wanted to let others check over it to see if it is good to move into the mainspace (with references). 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@DovahFRD It looks quite good, you lowered the grade level from 10th to 7th! I think the rapid economic growth after the Cold War, and how the US made up a huge fraction of the world economy should be mentioned. I think it's mentioned in all overviews of this era and without it, the stagflation lacks context. However, I'm not sure what to say or where to put it. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom I think the 1990s boom is covered in the 'Modern Era' section, but I added a small paragraph about the post-World War II boom and things related to that. Also put a bit about the U.S. being a superpower at the end- can't believe I forgot that! 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@DovahFRD Oops, I meant to say after World War II, not after the Cold War. I added something to that section. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying Americans in general were the richest people in the world seems a bit extreme, but as long as there's a source for it everything looks great. Thanks for the help and feedback, really appreciate it.🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@DovahFRD: What about Americans, on average, had the highest income in the world? Lights and freedom (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom I think that sounds better (+clearer)! 🤘🤘DovahFRD (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)