Open main menu

Contents

a history of the united statesEdit

president vice president and secrectaires --2605:6000:ECA1:8800:BD94:F869:5FA0:AD9B (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC) supermeme court and federal courts congress: sentate and house of presentatives

South Louisiana French Heritage and CultureEdit

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 mergerEdit

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 StatesEdit

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)

Should we WP:TNT the article?Edit

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)

Once again,Edit

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)

Return to "Culture of the United States" page.