Talk:Culture of the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Death Penalty

Is America really the only "first world country" to use the death penalty aside from Singapore? I know Japan reinstated the death penalty in the late 90's, and I believe South Korea still conducts death penalties at least in principal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.105.182 (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote this to report what is there. It was reported like it shouldn't be there, a pov observation. Rm essay at the end which was fairly preposterous. It is done to deter capital crimes as is all punishment, sometimes of the perpetrator and sometimes (or partly) as a warning to others. Yes, come people support it for crazy reasons, but your legislators, however badly you think of them, aren't that crazy. Student7 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mormons

I would just like to point out that Mormons are Christians too (the real name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and should thus be included under the Christian subheading and not be it's own category. Kaylieb (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Small problem. This information is included in LDS-only articles consistent with LDS beliefs. The problem is that LDS is not considered Christian by any other denomination. So outside LDS-only articles, we have to go with WP:RELY sources. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Consumerism

Article is starkly missing consumerism. It should even be in the lede.[1][2][3][4][5] - Steve3849talk 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction to Values Map

There is a typo in the Values Map (Inglehart Values Map.svg). "Moldovia" should be changed to "Moldova."Auranor (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge: accept or reject

May we have an end to the People of the United States merge tag, please? This article is 100K, WP:SPLIT requires that articles be at least considered for splitting at 100k (the actual wording is, "100 KB: Almost certainly should be divided") . Adding more is out of the question. Anarchangel (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, "out of the question" was either too much, or should be accompanied by a WP:BOLD removal of the tag. Since I have SPLIT as a rationale, I will remove it, and let others find a rationale for its inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, forget that, I have seen what User:Beland has been up to on these articles and I want no part of an entanglement with a vandal armed with the power of adminship until I have enough support from other people. Look at the history of Society of the United States first. There are similar merge tags on People of the United States and Demographics of the United States as well. Anarchangel (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about merging Demographics with anything. But the other articles theoretically overlapped or duplicated. That does not mean that all of the material in the new topic has to share the same space. Some of it could be forked. Student7 (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger - The "people" articles differ in the way they are linked then Culture articles. As they will link to other people articles instead of country articles. Lets look at a good version of this set up - In the article Canadians you will note that all the links - link to other people articles - were in the Culture of Canada will be set up to link to countries not peoples. Like with British people in time even this article need to be split due to size. Moxy (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Piccies of food.

Maybe we can get some "Americanised" food in there...like American-Chinese or American-Indian or something. --24.27.21.34 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean like pizza and chow mein? The former is in the main article. Chow mein was not. Or did you mean like Tex-Mex, Dixie-Thai. etc. ? Student7 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Film

This subsection was unreferenced and a request for a reference ignored. Great idea, but it can't be limited without some demonstration of viewing or viewers. How else can popularity be determined? Student7 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

An editor has re-added a quote from an author that we both agree is notable. The quote is:

"In a democracy like the United States, it is the voice of the people — their likes and dislikes — that form the lifeblood of daily existence, of a way of life. Popular culture is the voice of democracy, democracy speaking and acting, the seedbed in which democracy grows. Popular culture democratizes society and makes democracy truly democratic. It is the everyday world around us: the mass media, entertainments, and diversions. It is our heroes, icons, rituals, everyday actions, psychology, and religion — our total life picture. It is the way of living we inherit, practice and modify as we please, and how we do it. It is the dreams we dream while asleep."

This seems like great poetry to me, but not really terribly informative. I don't think we are after poetry here. Or perhaps culture is only fluff, I don't know.

"..it is the voice of the people..." That could be said about just about anything. BTW, why is this definition restricted to the US? Why isn't it the same for Franco Spain, a dictatorship? They liked futbol, for example, and bullfighting, and food, etc. What does "democracy" have to do with this?

"Voice of democracy" - he is repeating himself and again not stating why it is restricted to a democracy. It seems fluff.

"democracy speaking and acting." Sigh. Another redundant phrase.

"Seedbed in which democracy grows." More Walt Whitman than Albert Einstein! I was hoping "Social Science" would have some basis in science.

The paragraph may be "epic" for something, but not really that encyclopedically worded. I'm sure the author is an expert, but this is just too much fluff for me. Student7 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You might think about moving this to "culture" generally and omitting the reference to the United States which seems like an unwanted appendage anyway. That would make more sense. But I think his poetry should be summarized rather than quoted. Student7 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You might think of contributing to this article rather than policing its content. Do you have any reliable source for your critiques of the scholar? This is important because your selective editing of a an area of scholarly study with which you seem to have no familiarity combined with your parsimonious deconstruction of a thought that spans multiple sentences makes me think that you are bringing a non-standard POV to this article in that you don't like what this scholar has to say. That is not a reason to remove academic definitions from an article.97.123.211.97 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
What he says is fine. The way he says it seems poetic rather than encyclopedic. It may read nicely in some lengthy textbook. It just seems like unnecessary cruft in an encyclopedia. We are, or were, never know when the sands of time will run out for this encyclopedia, trying to be objective. I'd give him an "A" on that paragraph for beauty, but we're are not looking for "beauty" so much here as substance. Dull substance. I mistrust words that are "poetic." They seem more construed to producing a state of mind (pov) that displaying facts (npov). Also, it was clearly US-centric for no particular reason.
Not sure why you are criticizing my taste rather than responding to my criticism. Student7 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Commonality of the ownership of handguns

The article claims that handgun ownership is less common than long arm ownership, and this is consistent with the citation. Some of the journalism I've seen surrounding the Heller ruling, however, suggests that handgun ownership is more common in cities and has become more common in the past 10 years. Does anyone know of a reliable source or survey to do with the commonality of handguns today? 67.241.98.126 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


British/Northwestern European descent claims

I removed : "Approximately 62% of White Americans today are either wholly or partly of English, Welsh, Irish, or Scottish ancestry. Approximately 86% of White Americans are of northwestern European descent, and 14% are of southern and eastern European ancestry."

It was unsourced and statistically questionable. It presumes a lack of overlap between English/Welsh/Irish/Scot ancestry and the divide between nw and se European groups are not well defined. PantsB (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no culture in the USA, only a "way of life"

It should be noted that the word "culture" does not apply to the "American Way of Life". McDonald's, Disneyland, Coca Cola and Fox News are NOT culture. Culture is European, also Asian and Arabian. But in the USA there is no culture, in fact, the cultures of the immigrants die immediately when entering the US living space. Ironically, the African element is the closest to a quasi-culture there is in USA (jazz, hip hop, dance movements), although Africa itself is also a continent without genuine culture (the Egyptian pharaos were white Atlanteans and don't count as Africans). But the Blacks have a certain natural liveliness which is the closest resemblance to culture as a form of living (on a purely biological level) there is in the United States. 93.219.183.233 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that "dance" is the only culture worth documenting? Student7 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't bother to debate him/her, I traced the IP address to some ISP in Germany. The anonymous editor is clearly a troll who's never visited the United States, let alone our major cultural centers like New York and Los Angeles. There are more cultural events in progress on any Friday night in those two cities alone then one could absorb in an entire lifetime. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Culture IS way of life. 72.198.79.196 (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

McDonalds

I think you could cut down on some unnecessary information and just put a big picture of a big mac in the middle of the page, would save people some time. 77.103.5.197 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger with the Society of the United States

A while ago, Society of the United States was merged here. I am restoring that article, per Talk:Society_of_the_United_States#Restoring_article (which most certainly does not suggest this merger was accepted by the majority in any case), but I am not removing anything from this one. Expansion is good - just like deleting (merging and redirecting without proper discussion!) is bad. Also, I have no time to see what was added, but if anybody thinks this article has too much on the society, well, please note that the society of the US article was restored, and excessive content can be moved there (or deleted, if it is redundant). I'll also fix all the redirects to point back to it in a sec. PS. And some content should certainly be removed from here; for example social class is a concept related to society, not culture. I'd remove it, but the section is entitled "Social class and work", which merges to mostly unrelated content (and I guess work culture of the USA, if the section coverrs it, should stay here). Ugh, what a mess... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Accumulating too much detail?

It seems to me that the article is going way to far into analysis when discussing culture. IMO, it is okay to show that "Americans liked toast in the 1950s" without going into the affect on the wheat farmers, exports, etc.

Yes, Muslims were very unpopular after 9/11. But going into every detail as to how this affected them seems disproportionate to the article. May be okay to fork. "This had negative ramifications for the Muslim community" for example. But going on and on about the alleged impact on the legal system (which I haven't noticed, nor anyone else accepted a handful of accused) seems inordinate.

If this is going to become "another collection of minority grievances" instead of "culture", I think it will have lost its impact as "Culture" and should be renamed "minority grievances against the US" or something like that. It runs the risk of no longer reflecting "culture." It will then proceed into the realm of charges and countercharges, hardly the stuff of "current or historical culture." Student7 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

An article on the culture of the United States could give a very comprehensive overview of the subject, touching on all the major aspects and omitting nothing of importance, in rather fewer words than I've used here.PiCo (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article talk about random crap like views on capital punishment and not more about arts, architecture, literature, music, etc??????

Why does this article talk about random crap like views on capital punishment and not more about arts, architecture, literature, music, etc?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.237.199 (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress - Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. That said - be bold - jump in and try to fix the problems if you like. For more info on how to help see Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Help.......... Moxy (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Book “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. Colin Woodard's 11 nations -- Yankeedom (Puritans’ New England to the land settled by their descendants in Upstate New York and the upper Midwest), Tidewater (Cavalier-founded), New Netherland (Greater New York City), New France (Quebec, whose liberalism traces to the first fur traders), Deep South (stretches to East Texas), Greater Appalachia, the Midlands (once-Quaker Philadelphia across the heart of the Midwest — German-dominated, open-minded and less inclined toward activist government than Yankeedom), First Nation (Canada’s indigenous north), the Far West, the Left Coast, and El Norte (straddling the Mexican border that was once a region unto itself of colonial Mexico).

  • ‘American Nations’ by Colin Woodard, a study of our ‘rival regional cultures’, excerpt ...

    The Deep South stretches to East Texas, long in tension but less so now with the Borderlanders, the feisty, individualistic Scots-Irish who scorned both the community-minded Yankees and the aristocrats of the Tidewater and the Deep South. The Borderlanders’ domain spans Appalachia, the southern Midwest and the upland South — the McCain stronghold described above.

99.190.86.93 (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

See Nation. 99.109.124.130 (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideological principles

Egalitarianism? Really? Fanatical devotion to capitalism is a massive part of American culture, thanks to the Cold War (largely a propaganda tool on both sides, IMO - see George Orwell's writings on perpetual warfare). And the bit about "faith in freedom and democracy" is too ambiguous, it should say something like "faith that American society is free and democratic". 2.122.42.216 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Grand Prix...?

This is a TERRIBLE lead picture for this article, it plays right into an extremely offensive stereotype that doesn't apply to a huge segment of Americans. Then nearly ALL of the pictures are of sports, even shooting? American culture should be represented by something like a Jackson Pollock, John Singer Sargent, or even Norman Rockwell painting, Miles Davis or Dizzy Gillespie, Edgard Allan Poe, Herman Melville, Ernest Hemmingway, Edith Wharton, Emily Dickenson, Thomas Keller or Alice Waters, or a shot of the Met, Gugenheim, Smithsonian, or Library of Congress. I'm not saying they all have to be NPR-approved, but it's wrong to imply that all we care about is sports, flags, and fast food. The food section is particularly ridiculous, it's nothing but McDonald's and Denny's, when in reality New York and Northern California are considered two of the world's finest destinations for restaurants. In fact the only picture on there I think deserves the honor is the one of Mark Twain. I don'r know if it was some proud redneck, or a European beating the dead horse of "Americans are fat, stupid, and uncultured" (I suspect the latter), but we're a country with SOME redeeming qualities, and this should be reflected in the most visible part of the article, the pictures. 24.91.244.221 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be these Europeans who emphasis football (soccer) as the pinnacle of European culture I am afraid. The makeup of Wikipedia editors (young males) seems to bias almost everything towards (modern) sports and this is not limited to this article; and it might easily be non-redneck US editors who caused this. (ps as most global articles are dominated by US editors, I would be surprised if this US centred one was mainly edited by Europeans.... unless of course no US editors care, which would prove the case ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the "Grand Prix" is inappropriate. Probably ought to have pic of crowd (taken from the football field with players) of a SuperBowl.
Money is spent on food 50% eaten at home to eating out. Eating out cost twice as much as eating in (average). The reason it is only twice as much is because of the huge sales rung up by fast food franchises, the leader of which is McDonald's. Americans spend most leisure time as consumers of television including sports, but also sitcoms, news, etc. (and users of web/internet). Young people may get out more.  :) Losers are churches, service organizations, PTAs, charities, clubs, or anyplace people used to congregate (and not excluding sporting events, which have suffered accordingly for varying reasons). Student7 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I put in Nighthawks - which depicts a typically American diner and is painted by a famous US artist. Covers both part of eatin out and art in the US in one. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Your comment on the caption looks like OR and POV (considering you're from the Netherlands). It needs citations, or the end should be revised or removed. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Marriage and divorce

The second sentence in the section on marriage in American culture is about the trendy new issue of gay marriage? Really? Surely there is more to be said about marriage, the family, and its impact on American culture than simply whether America gives visitation rights or whatever to homosexual couples as well as to heterosexual couples.

What about the whole deal with the Mormons and polygamy? That seems like it might have been a defining moment in the history of marriage in America.

What about the American nuclear family as it developed distinctly from some of the tighter-knit extended family units that we find in other cultures and managed to secure itself a place as a defining feature of American pop culture?

All of this cultural development is reduced to pure legal voluntarism with the laconic sentence, "Marriage laws are established by individual states." That may be the case, but laws are not made in a vacuum. The implied diversity in American marriage laws by state doesn't let you cop out of going into more detail; in fact it makes the topic more interesting and gives you even more to write about.

The main article on "Marriage in the United States" kind of goes into some of this a teeny bit more, I guess, but then again, no, it really doesn't. It just kind of excuses itself from discussing the impact of the American family on American culture (even in the Sociology section) and instead tries to establish that marriage is now about love, to set us up for a poorly made and clearly polemical (what is that doing in an "encyclopedic" article?) apologia for same-sex marriage which, being a brand-spanking new institution, has had the least impact on American culture of any form of marriage.

This needs some work.

NihilNominis (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Military

Another thing this is missing a mention of the military, its hard to believe that an government organization as big as the American military (one of the biggest in the world in fact, easily the largest navy, infact larger than #2-#18 put together) has no effect on its culture. British military sure has an effect on its culture, especially its navy in the Colonial period. Even the Canadian military (all 5 guys) has an effect on their culture, with the peacekeepers and what not. Also a note, if you find a change I add to be OR, then delete it or [citation needed] it, do not revert to other OR and certainly do not delete [citation needed]s unless you actually get sources, the burden of proof lies on the defensive side. I realize some of this comes off somewhat negative, I don't mean it to be, at least not unrealistically so (every culture has its faults), but I also don't think its right to say what a great place America is without anything backing that up (which is whats happening when you say how great and better off you are because your diverse and equal and always have been when you still aren't 100%). It sounds like Einstein before he actually got there, when he only knew what the propaganda told him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Race relations

I have tagged the section Race relations (African Americans) with the unbalanced and expand tags due to the fact that it only deals with one race, African Americans, with only very brief mentions of race relations of other sizable populations such as Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. Without covering, these race relations, or Interracial marriage in the United States, it serves as an unbalanced representation of the subject, even if the section header specifies a single race.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples to address and issues to fix

This article is quite poorly written and gives undue weight to some topics. Some problems are the examples being given in the cuisine, race/gender relations, national holidays sections, and the undue weight being given to deaths and funerals, organizations, and volunteerism. The examples being given in many sections are not the most common ones and may be deviant from mainstream culture. I don't see any good examples for the literature/architecture/buildings (such as the Library of Congress, Smithsonian, Fallingwater, etc.), nor do I see any good examples for other forms of art. Examples from User:ProfDEH/Icons of American Culture may help give editors an example of what to put in this article, as well as the previous section comments. One would think an article like this would be a featured article, but it looks like no one really cares or knows enough about American history/literature/culture to add good content into the article. Hopefully it can be improved. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely and single-handedly overhauled this article about three years ago. I don't mean to brag, but it was a gem. I haven't touched it since then. I can still see a few faint traces of my work but most of this article has been butchered, mutilated, and sown back together like Frankenstein. It is, for lack of a better term, a monstrosity. I really don't have the time to mess with it these days but a good place to start would be cutting out all the fluff. It's way too long, it bulges into a lot of niche areas, and the thumbnails need to be standardized in size. I believe some of the statistics are probably outdated, and the sources need to be checked too. I would do it again if I had time, but I just don't. 72.198.72.102 (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree on your point regarding the picture sizes. I have a very wide monitor so the pictures often ended up in the incorrect sections. For example the picture of "blue jeans" was pushed down almost into the sports section. Stu18401 (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

72.198.72.102, do you know which revision that was? I could try restoring it back to that revision and update the statistics. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

History?

Like a lot of topics, this one includes "history" sometimes at the expense, or distraction from, describing the actual culture today. But there is already a Cultural history of the United States, where most of this belongs. Why not move it there and barely reference it here? There is too much history IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Culture of the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Culture of the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "b02001":

  • From Americans: "B02001. RACE – Universe: TOTAL POPULATION". 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved February 28, 2010.
  • From White American: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Retrieved 2009-11-07

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Done - replaced uncited refname with the first citation from Americans and renamed refname to "b02001 2008". - M0rphzone (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cocking's Theory?

Where does the subject heading "Cocking's Theory" come from? There's also a reference to Cocking in the text of that section, but with no referent to who this person is. A cursory search revealed no hits related to "Cocking's Theory."

I'm thinking this part needs to be re-headed and the content changed.

SweetLou33 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent vandalism. I reverted. Student7 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies.

Cut and pasted form article:

White Americans (non-Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic/Latino) are the racial majority, with a 72% share of the U.S. population, according to the 2010 US Census.[81] Hispanic and Latino Americans comprise 15% of the population, making up the largest ethnic minority.[82] Black Americans are the largest racial minority, comprising nearly 13% of the population.[81][83] The White, non-Hispanic or Latino population comprises 63% of the nation's total.[82]

71 per cent minus 15 Hispanics equals 57 per cent of non-Hispanic whites, not 63 per cent. Unfortunately Wiki is full of this type of errors that destroy its credibility!

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Redundant subheadings

As part of the series "Culture of the United States," we have the heading "Mythology and Folklore," made up of the subheadings "Mythology" and "Folklore." This is all well and lovely, except that both "Mythology" and "Folklore" lead to the exact same article. I'm assuming this is a hold-over from a previous time when there were two separate articles; in any case, the series' taxonomy should be updated to reflect the fact that there is, at present, no relevant distinction between the two subheadings under discussion.

Also, my apologies if this article talk page is not the relevant place to note critiques regarding the organization of an article series. If any individual now reading knows the correct location where this organizational discrepancy ought to be noted, please alert the relevant site moderators to the aforementioned situation.

Cheers, Anonymous Crane Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

This has something to do with imbedded macros leading up to (eventually) Template:Culture of region and the use of the "mythtopics = ". But I couldn't figure out the connection. It might be redundant everyplace? Student7 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge "Race and ancestry" and "race relations"

It seems to me that these two sections/subsections should be merged somehow. Maybe placing the Race and ancestry down under sociology. As noted, the info in "Race and ancestry" is rather outdated though still on the right track. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fischer's Theory

This single book gets an exposition that is almost twice as long as the main body of the section on regional variation itself (of which Fischer's theory is a subsection). There are quite literally thousands of books discussing regional culture variation in the United States, and hundreds that are much more recent than 1989. I've never read the book and know little about the subject, but I must ask: is this guy's theory (which sounds kind of facile anyway) really that important? And if it is, there should at least be some explanation of why it deserves special attention and an exposition of such great length. Is his idea a now a general consensus among U.S. ethnographers/ social historians? Also, the name Paul Berinde appears at the very start of this subsection but is never mentioned again. Who is he? Someone who knows about the topic could maybe clean it up or add some explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.226.51 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, both with your argument that undue weight is placed on Fischer's theory, and that is sounds kind of facile. I also agree that if it is that important, there should be some explanation of why it is. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Salad Bowl?

The lead says "The United States has traditionally been thought of as a melting pot, however beginning in the 1960s and continuing on in the present day, the country trends towards cultural diversity, pluralism and the image of a salad bowl instead." My question is what cultural diversity? What pluralism? What salad bowl?

I realize the media pushes this line since it is consistent with the "culture war" they are trying to conduct. However, the bulk of the country speaks English, as opposed to years past when immigrants often spoke Yiddish, Italian, German, Japanese or Chinese. Some Spanish is used, but not inconsistent with past experience with immigrants.

As opposed to past practices, blacks, whites and Asians mix, more or less in harmony. They mixed not at all prior to the 1940s or so (Hawaii excepted). Whites marry blacks. This was a felony in many states 60 years ago. In South America, people don't think in terms of "black or white" and America is pretty much following this path, it seems.

People did not cross religious boundaries years back. Catholics and Protestants did not interact, never mind Jewish and Christians.

People dress uniformly sloppy. Sixty years ago, one could look at a person's clothes and tell if he were upper class or not. But not today. And, yes, people dress up "in costume" on occasion, but costumes are more nostalgic than defining. Kilts? Yes, but not at work!

In the past, one could look at skin pigmentation and pretty much tell what your place was in society. This is not possible either.

I think pretty much we have a single culture. What people wanted to believe in the past is that we had a "melting pot" when we didn't except for Europeans. Now we do, and it's for everyone. The media is full of beans, as usual. The material should be rm from the lead. It is incorrect and irrelevant. What we had in the past was a "salad bowl! But the dominant white culture did not want to believe it! Student7 (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Cultural Supoerpower"

Alongside the UK and Japan shouldn't we mention the fact the US is often regarded as a "cultural superpower"? Quite a significant amount of articles suggest this (including Wikipedia pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.243.191 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


+ China; + USSR; + Australia...but of course.../-:ᾃᾃάῂφῺא♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.82.192 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Often regarded without reliable sources is original research at best; so please provide these articles in high quality neutral sources which unambiguously state this (I did not even know the term cultural superpower existed, so you may need to provide a reliable source to that term as well). Wikipedia articles are no reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Social Interaction

I find this article very informative, however I believe what is missing is american social interaction as a subject. This would differentiate from other cultures where, for example, formal and informal encounters are very distinct, or casual interaction between strangers may be more prominent or less frequent. This can of course vary from individual to individual, but speaking in general terms this American social behavior can and has, particularly through media, influenced how other cultures around expect Americans to behave in any social situation partly due to our idea of social equality (No nobility) and God given respect and dignity which may be in other cultures recognized through a series of achievements or positions in society (e.i. education, political, financial). Although behaviors can be very generally classified by social status such as education and income (as pointed out in the article), I find social interaction to be quite different in such that although the circumstances by which interaction is initiated may be dependent on social hierarchy, the nature of that interaction and the behavior of the participants is often independent. I have observed this difference after living in another culture (German). In American culture I find it typically much easier to 'buddy up' than some other cultures. It would be nice here to see some discussion for or against this hypothesis.

87.243.144.141 (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) T Day

Shouldn't this article be locked/uneditable?

It seems like an editable article on such a subject could go awry pretty quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.248.101 (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

History

In some subsections, it is very clear that current status is reported. In other subsections, they are similarly clear that history and current status is reported. History should really be a separate subsection IMO.

For example, the fact that the country had minstrel shows in the 19th century does not affect current entertainment at all. Not all that is past is prologue. Student7 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

it's not a culture, it's a Way of Life

Culture you find in Europe and Asia. But in the USA, it's a mere Way Of Life. 93.219.146.89 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The above is a perfect example of cultured European thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.43.237 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
European and/or Asian hegemony cannot be allowed to undermine this article. Europe and Asia do not have a monopoly on "culture" nor do Europeans or Asians have any right to declare what is and is not culture outside their borders. 68.12.139.61 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Irony. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Translation

I can't believe there isn't a German language version of this! As we all know the largest ethnical background of US citizens is German. de:Kultur der USA -- Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Culture of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate wording

"A strand of what may be described as American culture started its formation over 10,000 years ago with the migration of Paleo-Indians from Asia, Oceania, and Europe, into the region that is today the continental United States." Yeah, I guess semantically you could also call this "American culture". But not only do we have no idea what this supposed culture from over 10,000 years ago would have been like, it also has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. I have no idea what it's doing there. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

South Louisiana French Heritage and Culture

I am not sufficiently expert to add this, but it seems that the unique culture of South Louisiana should be included under Regional Variations, and the use (Acadian) French under Language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.47.34.77 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposing a merger

Reason: lack of responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I propose to merge Sexuality in the United States into Culture of the United States. I think that the content of Sexuality in the United States can easily be explained in the context of the Culture of the United States, and the Culture of the United States article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Sexuality in the United States will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Plus, it makes sense to include it with the other elements of culture (such as marriage).ElectroChip123 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality in the United States

Discussion Complete, Result: Don't merge
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I propose to merge Sexuality in the United States into Culture of the United States. I think that the content of Sexuality in the United States can easily be explained in the context of the Culture of the United States, and the Culture of the United States article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Sexuality in the United States will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Plus, it makes sense to include it with the other elements of culture (such as marriage). All of the content in the "sexuality in the united states" can be fit into it's culture, religion, and marriage pages. That said, like culture, religion and marriage have an effect on it, and as such, it is more related to our culture. Hence, I am proposing to merge it into "Culture of the United States" over the other two options. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a bad idea in principle, but I think merging it into Culture of the United States at this time, while it's marked as having multiple issues (including that it may be confusing or unclear to readers) and probably bites more than it can chew will most likely make it worse. It will make the Culture of the United States article even more convoluted and make the decent Sexuality in the United States become just another section in an article full of problems.
Again, this would probably not be a problem if the Culture of the United States was up to standards, but at this time it's really not and I really can't see the proposed merger helping with this. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What occurs to me is that by the time the "culture" article reaches its full potential this will be a distraction that is better handled in a separate and rather extensive article. Jzsj (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


  • I recently went to the Culture of the United States because I wanted information on Sexuality in the United States. I was surprised to see it was not included. While merging may not be the best option, it is important to be aware that other readers may go to this page searching for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B03A:FC43:9098:49D4:3796:684 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I could certainly this this continuing to expand as a {main} subarticle, but I definitely see a place for this in the culture article. Reywas92Talk 19:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Once again,

that Crank Anthropology book "Albion's Seed" is referenced in a US cultural article on Wikipedia. As scholarship, it is about as serious as Cracker Culture and shouldn't be referenced in an encyclopedia article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2019

Add to Dance section: Alvin Ailey was an American dancer alive from 1931-1989. Jasonfunderburker1 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. First, you need to provide reliable sources. But also here, any attempt to add to the empty section would have to talk about dance in American culture in fairly broad terms. Simply stating some random person was an American dancer doesn't add anything of significance. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Deacon Vorbis: There are many sources on the article Alvin Ailey. Though I agree that say, discussing the genres of dance in American culture is more important than naming individuals. -- Beland (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing Singe

Why is Beyoncé listed on the page when Madonna, Mariah Carey, Taylor Swift and even Rihanna have sold more records worldwide? (List of best-selling music artists). Can we change? 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:6434:1018:3E8A:4A76 (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)2605:E000:93C1:5B00:6434:1018:3E8A:4A76 (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we WP:TNT the article?

I scrolled through it a couple of times, and what I found was as follows:

  • many, many paragraphs which were entirely (or almost entirely) unsourced (and the ones with some sources at the end of the paragraphs only source the information in the last sentence, not in the entire paragraphs)
  • many paragraphs are confusing or just terribly written (it's very tempting to go ahead and remove the dance section, it has no sources and its writing is entirely unencyclopedic)
  • no shortage of original research
  • the only well-sourced paragraph is about politics, and it reads like a poorly-written essay (plus it has obvious NPOV and WEIGHT concerns)

It's rare that I'd ever support the nuclear option (I'm very much an inclusionist), but I've never been this convinced that an article needs to be rewritten from scratch. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support I'm not even sure if this is something to support in this sense but I do think it needs to be reworked from the ground up. puggo (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. In its current form, this article is absolutely atrocious for one of such high importance. Full of original research, little to no Manual of Style compliance, undue weight, vague statements, a general lack of neutrality; the list of issues goes on. Geolodus (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I am not exactly sure what TNTing an article means, but to me it means that I can go in and start slashing & burning anything that offends my sensibilities. Maybe I will start now? Carptrash (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Basically, it is deciding to more or less rewrite an article from scratch after it has been found to be nearly unfixable through regular editing. (That is my impression, anyway.) Geolodus (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    Geolodus, it's essentially removing all or most of the content, and starting over. It should be fixable if we do this. Koridas (Speak) 17:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Article with way too much issues needs to be fixed. Koridas (Speak) 17:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Anon here but this page is particularly bad. Curious if one of the other languages have a better version of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.105.140 (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Columbus Day

I'm sure someone can do research for this because, frankly, I do not have the time to do so. I propose recognizing Indigenous People's Day in the Columbus Day section. Something about how in recent years many Americans have celebrated IPD instead of Columbus Day because of the atrocities Christopher Columbus committed against the Native Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnic56 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Culture of the United States article reflects white privilege

This morning I google searched "Define American Culture" and the first definition that pops up is Wikipedia's definition, "The culture of the United States of America is primarily of Western origin, but is influenced by a multicultural ethos that includes African, Native American, Asian, Pacific Island, and Latin American people and their cultures." (Wikipedia) with a big picture of "Uncle Sam" above the definition.

This statement is entirely inaccurate as American culture is not first and foremost white, with other cultures added into it, now making the nation diverse. The United States started out as a land that was originally inhabited by Native American people groups, so if anything, this definition should read, "...is primarily of Native American origin, but was colonized by white settlers and slave owners, leading to a multi-cultural nation including, but not limited to, African, Native American, Caucasian, Asian, Pacific Island, and Latin American people groups and their culture and languages."

Please re-write the definition of "American Culture" so that it does not contribute to the systemic injustice of racism in our nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.88.29.77 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Gun culture section

This section (Gun culture) now contains the sentence, “Considerable freedom to possess firearms is usually ascertained by the people and the government to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.” It previously read: “Considerable freedom to possess firearms is often considered by the people and the government to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.” This makes it sound as if the “Considerable freedom to possess firearms” is not a highly controversial topic in the US. When I suggested to the editor who had made this change that it should be discussed on the talk page the answer I got was, “The phraseology of the original sentence represented a biased opinion on the matter in question. The current modification represents a factual and unbiased statement on the matter supported by a reference from an authentic source. There is no need for further discussion on the talk page.” The references given are the US Constitution and some legal decision. Neither, to me, all that compelling. Please join in and let’s remind ourselves that anything in wikipedia can be discussed on the talk pages. Carptrash (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The sentence has been reverted to its original form by other users. Well I more than happy to discuss this on the talk page. I still stand by what I said in the previous paragraph. The argument made by the user who wrote the paragraph is biased; saying the the US constitution and some legal decision are not compelling enough for him/her. The idea that the topic is controversial doesn't change the facts. There is a Harvard study by Victor Agbafe, titled: The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?, mentions that "83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members". The study continue to say that NRA leaders don't. However, my point is there is a difference between supporting backgrounds checks and banning specific types of weapons/not supporting gun ownership at all. The majority of Americans support gun ownership. Those majority may disagree on universal backgrounds checks and the mechanisms of its implementation. Therefore, I chose my words carefully when I said usually ascertained not always ascertained but it is definitely not often considered. (Eng. Ethical Hacker (talk) 11:06 PM, June 21, 2021 (CET) — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

add Juneteenth to public holidays 98.182.27.89 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Please change the list of federal holidays to include Juneteenth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juneteenth 108.56.159.18 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks, I have added Juneteenth to the "holidays in the US" section. WikiSilky (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling

Under the nuclear family section there is used instead of their Baba5barn (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up, fixed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Geography Research

The impact of formal education on unemployment in America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.245.122.26 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

American way of Thinking about sales

What. Americans think first before buying anything 203.192.229.12 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thirteenth Ammendement

The start of the first paragraph in race and and ancestry incorrectly states that the thirteenth amendment was ratified in 1965. It was ratified in 1865. A simple typographical error. 2600:1005:B153:47E9:20EF:D92F:4681:2BE0 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Date Error in Race and Ancestry Section

In the Race and Ancestry section, a sentence says that the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1965, not 1865. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.212.171 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Article improvement

This is a massive article of great importance—37,818 pageviews in the last 30 days—but it's a mess. I've done some work reorganizing the content into appropriate sections and subsections, which should make it easier to evaluate each section to address rampant issues of WP:DUE WEIGHT, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, WP:NPOV and more. إيان (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Delete the picture of Breezewood, Pennsylvania, which has no relevance. It's an attempt at insulting American culture that has been used online. That's like posting a picture of highway-side development in Brazil or France and claiming "this image has been used to represent Brazilian/French culture". Threefrgy (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

See discussion above. Carptrash (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This was just removed from the article

and I think it should stay, or at least be discussed here. What do you think?

I think it's too problematic. I don't think it says anything specific about American culture - it's not something you'd see attached to the cuisine sections of articles about other country's cultures. On top of that, the "obesity epidemic" is largely a result of the way the US has uniquely surveyed the matter in order to set insurance premiums, and BMI, and particularly the values on the scale that the obesity cutoff is set at, don't translate across ethnic groups and are highly misleading. Threefrgy (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Carptrash (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying a new picture

Since an editor whose 1st wikipedia edit was on his user page on Feb. 13, 2023 and whose 1st edit in any article was in this article on April 4, 2023 has declared that we somehow reached consensus about removing the Pennsylvania picture I have added one that hopefully we can all recognize represents American culture. Carptrash (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I restored it to previous WP:QUO long stable version with tag since there is a dispute over what image goes in lead. It should be settled here first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
So @Fountains of Bryn Mawr:, please tell us what these 100 year old images tell us about American culture. Carptrash (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Huh? They are WP:QUO images, no other guarantee or warranty implied ;). The image that should be there should follow MOS:IMAGEQUALITY and MOS:LEADIMAGE, re:
  • readable at thumb scale
  • details not too small
  • details not hidden in clutter
  • appropriate representations of the topic
  • type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works (for example [6] [7]])
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I asked, " please tell us what these 100 year old images tell us about American culture." You answer with a list of wikipedia suggestions, none of which address my question. The closest is "appropriate representations of the topic", so my question, phrased a bit differently is, how are these images serving that purpose? If you have to do research to answer these queries, then the image is way too obscure. Or something. Carptrash (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? again, WP:QUO is not about preference for whats there, its about reaching consensus on this page. Best to keep discussion about the images themselves to the section already started (see that section). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

In other words, these tell us nothing about American culture, they are just there because they have always (so to speak) been there. Carptrash (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the images (Uncle Sam and Columbia reaching out to the viewer ) that are there now are fine. There is no consensus for changing them. See above. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't participate in discussions much but I reached into my storage closet and right there, at my fingertips was a 1970s Reader's Digest 8 X 10 32-page book titled "Life in America the Beautiful".

The cover shows a sketch of a mom and dad on bikes lovingly looking at each other. He's wearing black socks and shorts. Her bike has a basket with flowers. Two children in the sketch preceed them, they also look at each other. Their bikes seem too big for their little bodies. They are walking their bikes. --> So a family and the path they ride and walk on, is- not clear. That was the culture of the US of the 1970s as communicated by Reader's Digest magazine: travel, family, America the Beautiful. Travel and family in America the Beautiful is what I think best represents American Culture, still now.

America itself is a beautiful place. There is no dearth of ideas for images because one country as big as this. So, I think, don't change the image or do open up the discussion to the community. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the discussion is open to the community. The community that edits this page. Have you @The Eloquent Peasant: looked at the other images offered? What do you recommend? Carptrash (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Carptrash, I support your image of the cheerleaders on the aircraft carrier as better for now than the two current images, which are literally US military propaganda, but I still think we can do better. إيان (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Change the two front pictures

Why not an image of Jazz? It summarizes everything. The two images in front give a sense of American culture as white culture which is wrong. 172.58.27.210 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this in various segments above that has been stalled for a while. You can read through and offer your opinion in the above discussion. إيان (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary of Philosophy

Per this re-addition of content and comment - this WP:SUMMARY parent article should have general summary information about the entire child article (probably drawn from its lead), and not just wholesale copy/paste of a small section introduced recently. Also "prominence in reputable sources" means sources on the topic "American philosophy", not individual bios. Adding individual bio reference A + individual bio reference B + individual bio reference C + to reach some conclusion is WP:SYNTH. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Which version better serves readers seeking to learn about philosophy in the culture of the United States?
  • the diff
    replaced links to two versions with the diff to make differences more clearly visible إيان (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Fountains of Bryn Mawr's version removed material about the contributions of Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, Dr. Herbert Marcuse, and other critical theorists, as well as images of Dr. Judith Butler and Dr. Cornel West—contemporary American philosophers internationally renowned as public intellectuals—added to counterbalance the non-notable, unsourced nationalist illustration of the exclusively white, male politicians at the Constitutional Convention that is given pride of place as if the politicians were philosophers and as if the image were representative of philosophy in US culture.
This user insists on treating the Wikipedia page entitled "American philosophy" as if it were a WP:reliable source, and apparently the most important one. It's also fascinating to me that out of a section widely devoid of citations—which gives Ayn Rand her own sentence, for example—this well-cited material is what Fountains of Bryn Mawr decides to take issue with. إيان (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
You may want to rethink what you are doing, Wikipedia is not the place to add counterbalance. Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, not whether they look like they need to be balanced out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion

voorts (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (إيان)
....
Viewpoint by (Fountains of Bryn Mawr)
....
Third opinion by voorts
....
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference IFT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culture_of_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=1189172167"