Talk:United States/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

A few words to the "mainstream" censorship

Hi! It is sad to see how even the article on the history of the country, United States, where the free Wikipedia encyclopedia is kept is subjected to the censoring of a band of editors hostages of a reducionist-materialist ideology that they call "mainstream": history must obey their premises or it did NOT happen; it doesn't matter how solid the evidences and supporting historical documents may be, since the proponents are always labeled "pov" and "troll".
Well, one should already be used to it instead of spending time, efforts and sometimes putting herself/himself into trouble when trying to clarify misconceptions born from common ignorance, right? Wrong! One lesson history teaches us all: societies, civilizations, the World itself only evolves when there are individuals who fight for Truth (be it material or ethereal, but factual) slowly changing the paradigm in which the society, their fellowmen, currently lives-sleeps its illusion.
It happened in the past when deep changes were occurring and it is happening now again...
Whatever you may understand from the above little soliloquy of mine, here is the edition that was constantly reverted, as if these editors resented from an extremely unjustified accusantion that was made into them; or can it be that their mental attitude is the acme of self-satisfaction and intolerance?:

into section "World-War I1 (...)" [1]:

“ However, Masons and Rosicrucians, which according to some researchers, assisted in developing the young nation and were instrumental in the anti-slave movement, women's rights, sexual awareness, strengthening democracy and increasing military might,¹ based on principles of spirituality regarding the complex issues of just war and the concepts of the philosophy of war, advocated the intervention of the United States in the conflict in the role of defender and emancipator of the weak subjected to the militarism of the aggressors, the Central Empires, and in order to turn the balance, so that peace could be restored and safety secured.² ”

¹Lindgren, Carl Edwin, The Rose Cross: A Historical and Philosophical View - The Rose Cross in America: 1800-1909 (Chapter III), Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, Volume19, Number 3:143-152, 1995

²Heindel, Max, The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers - Volume II: The Philosophy of War, ed. 1918, ISBN 0-911274-90-1

Thank you for the atention you have devoted to the above lines. Cheers, --Tekto9 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My mental attitude has always wanted to be the acme of something. Thanks for the accusantion.—DCGeist (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a mere retoric question: nevertheless, as you have granted, such is the case of your mental attitude; but please do not be resentful as we all have the capability of changing from within and keeping our mind in the fluidal state of adaptability to the new external conditions that may arise. See you. --Tekto9 (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your contribution is most appreciated. M5891 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

USA is one of the world powers. Much of the history involved other countries too.

76.115.130.174 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish not defacto

Current U.S.A. law in regards to language "Official is American English". this was passed 2.5 years ago. LOOK IT UP.208.54.14.3 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)jme1

I think we should place Spanish as a second de facto language since most documents of the government are available in Spanish, also, several states, recognise the Spanish language. There is also a large Spanish speaking population in the US.

I think we should at least place the Spanish as a regional recognised language.

190.140.234.215 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, calling Spanish a de facto language of the United States would be very misleading, as it is spoken by immigrant communities, though there are many such communities around the country. Identifying the existence of multiple "de facto" languages is more appropriate for places like Montreal. In most of the United States, there isn't that same degree of bilingualism. I think that the current footnote is the most appropriate solution, since it does indicate that Spanish is the second most commonly spoken language and that it is a regionally recognized language, but without overstating its importance on a national scale. --Confiteordeo 05:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well argued. I agree. It sounds like our anonymous visitor in Panama (that's where IP address 190.140.234.215 traces back to) has never visited the United States, particularly the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, or Mid-Atlantic regions. --Coolcaesar 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The current footnote is sufficient - though the anon IP does have a point. It is important to remember that the prominance of Spanish varies greatly. In CA it would be quite accurate to call it one of the defacto official lanugages (though many would wish to deny this). On the national overall level, however, Spanish is not that prominent yet, used by about 10% - 15% of the population. Official documents are often available in and it is recognized officially in certain places. As I've said, however, the current footnote does the job. Signature^brendel 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing my thoughts then, and I have visited only Florida, New York and Anchorage. You do have a point. ;) 190.140.234.215 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add a comment here from the Canadian perspective, perhaps how we handle this issue may have relevance. Unlike in America, we have federally mandated "official" languages, namely English and French. In America, though various states and localities have stated "official" languages, usually English, it is probably most accurate to state that the "de facto" language is English. However, in Canada in various regions, particularly in the North, there are what is called on the Canada page "recognized regional languages." These include Cree, Dene, Inuktitut, etc.

If there was a consensus to do this (and I can accept that given the sensitive nature of the issue of language currently in America this may be lacking), one might note in the box since there is no official language that English is the de facto official language, with "recognized regional languages" in various states and territories, namely Spanish, Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian and French. Canada Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to add to the rather odd remark above about Montreal ("Identifying the existence of multiple "de facto" languages is more appropriate for places like Montreal. In most of the United States, there isn't that same degree of bilingualism.") this is rather misleading. There is no issue of "de facto" language in Canada, there are, simply put, "official" languages and "recognized" languages. Various regions will be de facto English or French, or Chinese, or Polish/Portuguese/Ukranian (like my Toronto neighbourhood).The issue in Canada is not the level of bilingualism per se, it is what are "official" languages and what are "recognized" languages.

Later, when lists of languages spoken are given, then we see the various percentages of speakers of particular languages. In America's case, lacking an "official" language per se, English is de facto with the above-mentioned recognized regional languages. Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The territories aside--it's such a headache accommodating our empire--Hawaiian is the only language that has a legal status comparable to Canada's "recognized regional languages". The recognition of Spanish by New Mexico and French by Louisiana is of a less formal, more purely practical order. I think the general language of the infobox note as it stands adequately addresses the matter there, with greater detail provided in the appropriate article section on Language.—DCGeist (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In defense of my "rather odd" remark, I wasn't making a statement about the legal status of any language in Canada, or really even addressing "the issue in Canada;" I was merely using Montreal as an example of a place where there are multiple languages spoken city-wide, and are hence "de facto" for the city. Regardless of their official statuses, Montreal is is a place where there truly are two "de facto" languages because of the degree to which they are both spoken, and there aren't many of those places in the world. You're conflating my local example with your national politics. --Confiteordeo (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If English were indeed the "official" language of America, I'd agree. But since it isn't, it seems appropriate to note those recognized languages. Maybe Hawaiian is the only one (going by states), or others should be included if we are talking territories, etc. But when something is "de facto" it by definition is outside the normal legally defined boundaries. Yet several other languages within America do have legal definition. Which is why it seems a little odd to exclude them from the box since they have legal status. Canada Jack (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Be interested to hear other people's perspectives here. Mine is this: English is widely recognized as the de facto language of the country. Spanish is the second most common language spoken in the country, but is the official language nowhere (again, leaving the territories aside). There are two and only two official languages within the integral United States:

1. English in at least twenty-eight states
2. Hawaiian in one state, Hawaii (where English is also official)

This would imply an adjustment of the infobox to read something like:

• National language English (de facto)
• Official state languages English (28 or more states), Hawaiian (Hawaii)
• Other common language Spanish

I'm not convinced that constitutes an improvement, though I wouldn't fight hard against it. (For those confused by the ambiguity about the number of states where English is official, please see the excellent source cited at the appropriate point in the Language section. Essentially, there's no official definition of "official.")

There is a related point that the article does not currently address at all: the semi-autonomous American Indian reservations where, of course, a host of Native American languages have official status.—DCGeist (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon looking at other national pages, I see rather consistently "official languages." But, for Spain, for example, in their Autonomous Communities, one sees differing official languages, Catalan, Spanish and Aranese for Catalonia, not mentioned on the national page. Accordingly, in keeping these national pages somewhat consistent, I'd suggest a slight modification of the above, as America seems somewhat unique in lacking a national official language (and also in keeping with the wikipedia pages on Official Languages and National Languages):

• National language English (de facto official language)
• Official state languages English (28 or more states), Hawaiian (Hawaii)

Any other language - Spanish included - should be mentioned within the body of the text until such time as Spanish gains an official status within a state or states. Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In defense of my "rather odd" remark, I wasn't making a statement about the legal status of any language in Canada, or really even addressing "the issue in Canada;" I was merely using Montreal as an example of a place where there are multiple languages spoken city-wide, and are hence "de facto" for the city. Regardless of their official statuses, Montreal is is a place where there truly are two "de facto" languages because of the degree to which they are both spoken, and there aren't many of those places in the world. You're conflating my local example with your national politics.

Didn't mean to be snide when I said "odd remark." I should have said it was a misleading comment in that there ARE two official languages within Montreal, at least in terms of service from federal institutions: English and French. And that also matches the overwhelming de facto situation in that city. But to note this is somewhat misleading. Though the title of the thread is "Spanish not defacto language", I am suggesting that the ONLY reason to include a de facto language in the box is if there is no official language. Therefore, lacking an official status, Spanish should not be in the box as English is the National language AND the de facto official language, Spanish is not, though in some localities within America it may have that de facto status. Speaking as someone who was born in Montreal and lives in Toronto, it might be better to note the difference between the "official" status in Toronto vs the de facto status: English and French are official languages for federal institutions, English is the de facto local universal language, with pockets of de facto languages spoken (as I note, near me, Polish, Portuguese, Ukranian, Somalian etc.).Canada Jack (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point about Spanish in the infobox. I never said that there weren't two official languages, and in fact, I never said anything about official status at all, so I don't understand how I misled anyone. I never suggested anything about what should be included in Montreal's infobox nor why. I was simply providing an example of a place where there are two de facto spoken languages (it's irrelevant that they're official in that context- and I think you read too much into it.) Given size and prominence of Montreal's Anglophone population over the past 170 years or so, it is likely that the city would still be bilingual even without any of the language laws, which is why the "but it's also official!!!!" argument is specious. --Confiteordeo (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that in Canada there are two official languages nationally, and in America there are none. So it is somewhat comparing apples to oranges (har har) when we talk of the language situation in terms of de facto in Montreal when in Canada there IS official status. It seems to me that you are trying to make a point about the conflation of "official" with "de facto," and to me it seems to be the wrong city to make such a point (with the fights federal vs provincial on language laws; the history of the English banning the use of French, and the reverse since the 1970s, etc.).

But this is all beside the point as the real question here in terms of America is whether, since there is no official language nationally, does Spanish rise to the level of "de facto" national language alongside English? Clearly, it does not, and we agree on that. Though I would hasten to add that in some parts of America, Spanish speakers were there before English speakers, so suggesting it is "immigrant" language is not entirely accurate, Spanish is as indigenous as English.

But, separate from the Spanish issue and for the reasons stated above (no "offical" language) the box nevertheless should be altered to reflect the "official" status that does in fact exist in a number of states: ie. the official status of English and Hawaiian. Do you agree with that? Canada Jack (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT I'M SORRY, BUT IS THE SINGLE ENGLISH OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN THE UNITED STATES ...

WHY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEFACTO , THEREFORE IS NOT OFFICIAL, AND WHY THE SPANISH OFFICIAL SL SL OFFICIAL IN PUERTO RICO AND PUERTO RICO IS PART OF THE UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO IS IF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE AND THIS IS PART OF USA, THEREFORE THIS IS OFFICIAL.

Jampalar (Jampalar_talk) 06:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

not to be rude but please have someone translate what you mean to say from your native language into english. SJMNY (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

is dutch: Wat spijt me, maar is de enige officiële taal in het engels DE VERENIGDE STATEN ...

        Waarom de Engelse taal de facto, dus is niet officieel, en waarom het spaans officiële ambtenaar in PUERTO RICO en PUERTO RICO is onderdeel van de verenigde staten en PUERTO RICO is als officiële taal en dit is een onderdeel van de Verenigde Staten, dus dit is officieel.

If I'm reading this right, you are saying english is not official because Puerto Rico, a territory of the US, speaks Spanish and has Spanish as it's official language, therefore making Spanish the De facto language of the US? If so, that's not correct. Looking at the Puerto Rico page aswell, it says Puerto Rico's official languages are English and Spanish. Apparently some decision to make Spanish the only official language in Puerto Rico was over turned and reverted back to both English and Spanish. But one territory does not determine de facto language in the first place ofcourse. Something happened the above quote, I can't figure out what happened, my apologies.135.245.152.36 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)unsigned

   Uh no PR is NOT part of the US as there are only 50 states...this does NOT include PR. The United States is a Democratic-Republic and the official language is English. It does bother me that wiki does not have it shown on the site but it IS english. 

If you live on a border state to Mexico or Florida then you might hear many people speaking Spanish however it is NOT the official language; infact these people speaking Spanish in public is incourtious. You don't visit Germany without speaking atleast some German do you? Speak what you want at home but be polite and speak English in public.Also a little known fact that German lost to English as the national language by one(1)vote.72.91.93.95 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's little known, but it's certainly not a fact...closer to "urban legend". [2], [3]. And, of course, the United States has no official language, as we quite clearly show in the article. - Nunh-huh 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know why english is not our de facto language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.104.164 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to Borders

I have noticed that the United States is the only nation I could find which does not provide links to its neighboring nations in its opening paragraph. Having such links available is very useful in that it allows you to quickly find specific information about a number of nations in a region (for example the heads of state in North America). Instead of providing a link to the nations Canada and Mexico, this article provides links to the borders between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico. To bring this article into agreement with the treatment of neighboring nations around the world I included links to the countries Canada and Mexico (02:14, 29 November 2007 ) but I retained the links to the border pages under the words "to the north" and "to the south" so that by clicking on the word Canada a person would see the page for Canada. I think this should be a fair compromise. My edit was reverted and I'd like to know what is so important about the border pages that they make it into the opening paragraph while Canada and Mexico do not.MarsInSVG 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the articles ended up that way or who did it that way, but I agree with the status quo. The situation with the Mexican and Canadian borders is so insanely complicated (for example, there have been several National Geographic articles over the past two decades covering issues for both borders) that it makes sense to link to the border articles to explain how the U.S. connects to those countries. Linking directly to the articles on those countries would give an improper impression as to the physical relationship of Canada and Mexico vis-a-vis the United States. --Coolcaesar 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coolcaesar. In addition, there was extensive discussion in the FAC about focusing on high-quality links--that is, to articles that are likely to further inform the reader about the topic they came to this article to learn about: the United States. The two border articles do that. Links to Canada and Mexico don't nearly as much. Further, they are hardly obscure--no reader will be lost as how to find the Canada or Mexico article if they really want to go there from this. Though it's a close call, I do believe that dedicating those bluelinks to the border articles rather than splitting them is most likely to benefit readers interested in learning about the United States.—DCGeist 08:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that the links to Canada and Mexico have been created but I have to say that it to me is rather odd to mention the borders in this way in the lede. Canada and Mexico are neighbours - what's the deal with focusing on the demarcations between the three countries? Seems to me to be a very odd thing to note at the top of the article. Sure, the issue of borders is complicated, but I would note that to mention it in the lede would be appropriate if there was some sort of border dispute, such as the ones between India and some its neighbours, or Israel where it is a big political issue. The main issue vis a vis America and its neighbours surrounds issues of security and immigration, NOT on disputes over the actual borders. Just my 2 cents. Canada Jack (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Transportation section

The present version of the transportation section is (here I am not citing the references):

As of 2003, there were 759 automobiles per 1,000 Americans, compared to 472 per 1,000 inhabitants of the European Union the following year. Approximately 39% of personal vehicles are vans, SUVs, or light trucks. The average American adult (accounting for all drivers and nondrivers) spends 55 minutes behind the wheel every day, driving 29 miles (47 km) The U.S. intercity passenger rail system is relatively weak. Only 9% of total U.S. work trips employ mass transit, compared to 38.8% in Europe. Bicycle usage is minimal, well below European levels. The civil airline industry is entirely privatized, while most major airports are publicly owned. The five largest airlines in the world by passengers carried are all American; American Airlines is number one. Of the world's thirty busiest passenger airports, sixteen are in the United States, including the busiest, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL).

• 'compared to 472 per 1,000 inhabitants of the European Union the following year' what is the need of this comparison here. I have already put them in Transportation in the United States‎ page. These making the article unnecessarily long.
• Again comparison! 'compared to 38.8% in Europe'.
• 'Bicycle usage is minimal, well below European levels' further comparison.
• The facts on the airline industry need to be shortened.

I suggest to put these in the Transportation in the United States‎. Regular contributors to this page please don't take it offensively. I see there is already a debate on the article size. It is true the article is already long. And such comparisons will make it further long. I agree that these facts used in the comparisons are significant, but please not here, in a country page. They should be discussed in more specialised articles like in Transportation in the United States‎ page. Here I suggest a concise version of this paragraph:

As of 2003, there were 759 automobiles per 1,000 Americans. Approximately 39% of personal vehicles are vans, SUVs, or light trucks. The average American adult (accounting for all drivers and nondrivers) spends 55 minutes behind the wheel every day, driving 29 miles (47 km) The U.S. intercity passenger rail system is relatively weak, with only 9% of total U.S. work trips employ mass transit. Bicycle usage is minimal. The civil airline industry is entirely privatized, while most major airports are publicly owned. United States have world's five largest airlines by passengers carried with American Airlines is first position. 16 out of world's 30 busiest passenger airports are in United States, including the busiest Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL). Please consider it. Otolemur crassicaudatus 11:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, the proposed edit needs a-fixin'--it ends with two nongrammatical sentences. The use of numerals for cardinal numbers contravenes the style of the rest of the article (and a sentence should never begin with a numeral, in any event). We might discuss changing to a style in which, for instance, all cardinals over ten are represented as numerals--but then we would have to have 13 colonies and 50 states throughout. Finally, the text savings gained by cutting the comparisons is quite small, and the section, I believe, reads better and is inarguably more informative with them. We can discuss cutting virtually all the comparisons throughout the article, but to do it piecemeal, I think, is not a good process.—DCGeist 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree relating the comparison. But I have made the airlines related sentences concise. No fact is missed during this process. Regarding the number issue, I have followed your argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus 11:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The United States of America is situated in "America" or "The Americas" not the Western Hemisphere. *ReWrite*

Intuitionz (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No rewrite. The information currently presented in the article is correct. Please take a remedial geography course. Seriously, my friend.—DCGeist (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm sorry but the Western Hemisphere is way too broad and misleading to the public. Can you be alot more specific in the whereabouts of the western hemisphere please? First, try including WHICH continent The United States of America rests in please. Intuitionz (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article states which continent the U.S. is primarily located in. (Perhaps remedial English is in order. Seriously.) In addition, the State of Hawaii, an integral part of the United States, is not geographically "situated in 'America' or 'The Americas.'"—DCGeist (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. You just proved my point by saying the State of Hawaii, is not geographically "situated in 'America' or 'The Americas." Thus prompting eliminating the first sentence of saying that: "The country is situated almost entirely in the western hemisphere:" Which is quite misleading and inaccurate since "almost" does not count when we are trying to be factual. It creates speculation to the public. So why include it? I say remove the first sentence, it's A: just NPOV anyway, and B: Inaccurate.

Finally, if Wikipedia feels that "almost" is "good enough to be factual" for this article, just keep it. Intuitionz (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The FACT is that the country is situated almost entirely in the western hemisphere. That is neither misleading nor inaccurate. That is the verifiable reality of it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree, it should say North America first, since only a small portion of the country is not on the North American continent. I suspect that the article on France says it's in Europe, even though portions (larger proportionally than Hawaii) are not. --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, yes, it is not necessary to mention the hemispheric situation in our lede--that's adequately covered in our Geography section. I wouldn't be averse to something like this:

The country's forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie in central North America between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent with Canada to its east, and the state of Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific.

—DCGeist (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the current wording arose because of an edit conflict that spilled over from Mexico. User:Corticopia edited the lead to read that Mexico is located in southern North America, which the Mexican editors found offensive. One editor (disingenuously) said that if the United States lead were edited to read "in central North America" then "southern North America" could stay in the Mexico lead. User:Corticopia preferred the term "western hemisphere" as a way to include Hawaii and the other Pacific Islands when s/he edited the lead here (over a week or so,) and it stuck. Your revised version is just as acceptable, of course. --Confiteordeo (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah...thank you. I've observed that "central North America" was an unusual locution, but haven't argued against it, as I appreciate its precision. Any other thoughts on that phrase?—DCGeist (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a Google Book search shows many authoritative sources use the phrase "central North America" (though some apply it longitudinally rather than latitudinally--our oceanic contextualization prevents confusion on that score). I'll advocate keeping it.—DCGeist (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole debate seems a little odd to me, not least because both sides seem to have expelled both Alaska and Hawaii from the Western Hemisphere, when infact both of them are in that hemisphere. (except for a couple of the most remote aleutian islands)

Yes it does seem odd: the prior lead was correct. In fact, the original commentator's basic logic is flawed: 'Americas' and 'western hemisphere' are not always synonymous, either, the latter of which is sometimes reckoned to comprise the half of the globe from 160 E to 20 W. Moreover, the articles 'western hemisphere' and 'eastern hemisphere' elaborate as to why the former is of more utility -- with the WH sometimes being referred to as the American hemisphere -- while landmasses on the latter (namely Africa and Eurasia) span onto the former. Apropos, the lead now in place reflects the country's location with a wee-bit more detail yet economy (proceeding from the larger to the smaller), while the prior one was rather imprecise and still longer byte-wise.

BTW: my last edit to the article was an erroneous self-rv; cancelled yet not apparently -- mea culpa. Quizimodo (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think I have solved the problem by my simple-but-clear edit to this lead: "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. It occupies the whole of the continent of North America, except those parts occupied by Canada and Mexico, plus Hawaii which is in the central Pacific. The United States also possesses several territories, or insular areas, that are scattered around the Caribbean and Pacific" which I have copied here becasue no doubt it will have been reverted by now. Abtract (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is less clear and a little misleading. "It occupies the whole of the continent of North America, except those parts occupied by Canada and Mexico [i.e., except for most of it], . . . ." The previous version was more clear. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK it may need refining slightly but I was trying to make the point that in fact everyone knows where the USA is located so we only need a very simply statement to that effect. Abtract (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we really do need to be more specific about the location. One of the reasons "everyone knows" where the USA is located is because every encyclopedia article on the subject--like ours--provides those specifics in its lead section.—DCGeist (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but there are only fourty-six states. Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are all official Commonwealths. Even so it gains no special constitutional rights, it only differs from states by name. Even though most people see them all as states surely as the beacon of knowledge Wikipedia is, shouldn't we try to be accurate? Thank you to QI for the information. .—mmmchocolate (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (GMT)

That curiosity is handled in the States section. We also omit Palmyra Atoll from the intro, because it's not an important enough fact, like the Commonwealth distinction, needed to introduce the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

There was much discussion in the FAC about overlinking in the article, which went well beyond just cutting down on links to "things not relevant like 'economic' 'cartographer'". Here's a sample comment from one of Wikipedia's better-known copyeditors.

I was asked to discuss overlinking. I take a functionalist view to wikilinking: how does it help/hinder the reading experience? Some delinkings may come down to subjective judgement, but given the amount of blue spattering, particularly early on in the article, I'd be inclined to delink dictionary words and the names of countries, unless they're likely to be unfamiliar to many English speakers, or piped to a focused article (such as immigration, which is a good one). Canada, Mexico, France, Spain, Russia could all be smooth black rather than stick-out blue; some are linked more than once, as though we didn't get a chance earlier to digress. "Italian explorer and cartographer" ... well, who wants to interrupt their flow and read the Italy article in that sentence? "Cartographer" and "adjectival" I think people should know; why not remove "and demonymic" (it's not the place to teach us all a new term, unless it's important to understanding the meaning, which it's not—it's redundant). "English"—hello? Same for "Spanish" and "Portuguese"—they're either trivial or just too off-topic to risk diluting the high-value links, the ones you want readers to consider hitting.
(Tony)

The lede of our article has long presented North America and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans without links for several reasons: (a) the relevant paragraph is already dense with links; (b) these terms are hardly likely to be unfamiliar to any English speakers; (c) we do not have focused articles for them. There are some high-quality links in the paragraph, and some fundamental ones (like Alaska and Hawaii). Linking to such universally known terms as North America and so forth dilutes those.—DCGeist (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The links to things that define the location in a paragraph about the location cannot possibly be considered 'overlinking'. Just because an argument was made in an FAC doesn't make it true. --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Cannot possibly"? No, actually, quite possibly. The terms are universally familiar. The paragraph is already loaded with links, many of which will be of much more value to almost any reader than links to continent and oceans. The terms have not been linked in our lede paragraph for an extended period. You have offered nothing in the way of rebuttal other than to make the objectively false statement that your desired links "cannot possibly be considered 'overlinking'" and the obviously true and irrelevant observation "Just because an argument was made in an FAC doesn't make it true." Well, yes. And just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it false. Can you make a good case for changing the long-standing approach of the article or not? I have given several specific reasons for continuing to not link these terms. You have failed to rebut a single one.—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

These things are being used to define the location - it seems only logical that they be linked, because even something "universally familiar" can require a definition from time to time. For example, France includes links both to its continent and the bodies of water it borders; Russia includes links to every nation plus body of water it borders; Mozambique uses links to describe where in Africa it is... if the lede is overlinked, then it is not because of the links to the contextual items. --Golbez (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see linking to countries - afterall many users say that these links make browsing WP enjoyable and informative. Yet linking words like "Italian" and "catographer" is not needed. I think working the article once over for overlinking is a good idea. If someone beleivs too many links have been removed, he or she can point those links out here and provide a rationale for inclusion of the link. Happy Festivus, Signature^brendel 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not (yet?) dogmatic on the subject of overlinking, but I will comment that I find the ratio of blue to black in this article unusually striking. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automatic peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), aluminum (A) (British: aluminium), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), cosy (B) (American: cozy), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
• The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Pbroks13 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Transportation picture

I have added a picture of Interstate 80 in the transportation section. This a featured picture in wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for picture in Military section

An F/A-18 taking off from USS Kitty Hawk.

USS Nimitz (CVN-68) returns from deployment in the Persian Gulf.

The present picture in the military section is of USS Ronald Reagan. I think there might be better picture than it. Here I suggest some pictures. The F/A-18 picture is a featured picture in wikipedia. I think the pictures of USS Abraham Lincoln and USS John C. Stennis are very good. In my opinion the picture of USS Abraham Lincoln will be very good. Ithink there should be a consensus about which image will be suitable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier

USS Abraham Lincoln, supporting Operation Southern Watch, 28 November 2002

USS John C. Stennis

• I really like the F/A-18 picture, and the USS Abraham Lincoln is also good. But the USS Nimitz is the one I'd !vote for. Of the five presented here, the USS Ronald Reagan is the least impressive, IMHO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• As a photograph the F/A-18 picture is good, but we already have an image of similar military aircraft in the article, and our goal here should be to show an entire carrier. The Reagan and Lincoln photographs make similar effective use of the horizon line; I prefer the Reagan in this context, as I find the tiny planes in the top left of the Lincoln photo a bit distracting at the scale we're working with. The Stennis image is relatively bland--though it does give a good sense of the carrier's scale vis-a-vis its planes. The Nimitz image is excellent, with my only hesitation being that it looks a bit too much like a promotional photo. At any rate, I'm in favor of keeping the Reagan or replacing it with the Nimitz.—DCGeist (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Both the Nimitz and Stennis images are low quality, so low that they really do not deserve to be in a possible FA article. Also, I agree with DCGeist that the F/A-18 is similar to other photos in the article dealing with warplanes. Thus, I say the Lincoln is the best choice of the ones you posted, but there are probably far more pictures available for Free Use that would be of better quality. The Lincoln accurately describes what kind of projection power the section talks about and suits it best currently. If I remember, I'll search for new photos available for free use by the US Federal Government. Bkkeim2000 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found the mother load of US aircraft carriers. Most of these pictures are in high resolution, and would fit the criteria of the section. Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Bkkeim2000 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Great job. Would you like to select a few for consideration here?—DCGeist (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do so this weekend when I have time. Bkkeim2000 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't ground forces be more representative of the American military?PrometheusAvV (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

File:060502-A-0559K-001.jpg Soldiers on patrol in Sadr City, Iraq.	File:061127-M-5585B-014.JPEG A Soldier during a humanitarian mission in Qaryat Al Majarrah, Iraq.	A Soldier during a humanitarian mission in Qaryat Al Majarrah, Iraq.	File:070621-A-0559K-001.jpg A Soldier at a range at Camp Atterbury, IN.

• I don't believe so. The supercarrier is more distinctively American and has come to symbolize the United States' unparalleled capacity to project its military power around the world.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The picture of the USS Abraham Lincoln is good. Maxpower37 (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Carriers are, to me at least, symbolic of American military power and have been since WWII, i'd keep one as the picture without question. i like the one thats there now, though any of them are fine.SJMNY (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to get at is that both of the photos under the military section are Navy, top right is Sailors and Marines and bottom left, an aircraft carrier. Yes, a carrier is and impressive object but it is not a fair representation of the U.S. military. I propose three photos, not necessarily these, but one from each of the three service branches.

Air Force F-22 Stealth Fighters	File:DA-SD-04-13634.JPEG A Soldier during a mission Afghanistan	Air Force B-2 Spirt	File:DF-ST-98-04736.JPG 501st Infantry at Fort Richardson, Alaska

No. Remember, the section is actually Foreign relations and military. We are keeping the general format as is--one photo representing foreign relations, one photo representing the military. The photo in the top right illustrates foreign relations and is there to represent the president of the U.S. and the prime minister of one of the United States' chief allies. The presence of servicemen and women in the photo is ancillary. The consensus is that the photo illustrating the military be of an aircraft carrier. Let's maintain focus.—DCGeist (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree with DCGeist, and the LAST thing this article needs is to get longer by adding more picturesSJMNY (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with other editors about not including said pictures -- everything has its place. However, if we were to, would it not be more prudent to include one of a Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile/farm or Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (either exemplifying nuclear weaponry, a relative rarity in terms of military power, the latter also exemplifying cruise missile/conventional weaponry), or a carrier battle group (exemplifying both naval and air power)? Quizimodo (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are each certainly as good choices as an individual carrier, conceptually--perhaps even a bit superior. I just wonder if, in any of those cases, we're likely to find imagery of equal interest. Just looking at the lead photos in the three articles you link to, none of them is as graphically compelling (or even as visually informative) as any of the carrier photos we've been weighing. That's not to say we might not have superior photos in those categories at our disposal.—DCGeist (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As for images that truly pique interest, there are also those which exhibit the atomic bombings of Japan during WWII, or later thermonuclear detonations (like the Trinity test or as part of the Pacific Proving Grounds) that were far more powerful -- read: mushroom clouds. Those would exhibit, implicitly and explicitly, the nuclear capabilities of the U.S., its ascendancy in world affairs as a global power since the 40s, the onset of the Atomic Age and the later Cold War all the same. Quizimodo (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

i still think the aircraft carrier is more symbolic of american military power and its projection than anything else, including atomic weaponry.SJMNY (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

John Roberts links to a disambiguation page and I can't find his page on wikipedia. Randomblue (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

John Glover Roberts, Jr., if you're talking about the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He's not the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, he's the Chief Justice of the United States. - Nunh-huh 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Picky, picky. You say potato, I say potato. --Crosscountrycpjon (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Potato and potato are correct. Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court: not. It's best to tell people which is the correct term, so they don't risk being thought ignorant by using the wrong one. We're here to inform people, after all, not misinform them. - Nunh-huh 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Depressing

Wow, reading through this article I was shocked at how depressing it made it sound to live in the US. In fact, just about every article about a country seems to highlight its negatives more than its positives. I know it is human nature to dwell on the negatives, but I feel like it is a clear bias in these articles and those contributing need to work harder to avoid it. All right, I said my piece so feel free to rip into me. --138.49.23.12 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Maxpower37 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. The balance of this article needs to be addressed.PrometheusAvV (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. How can you be depressed by an article featuring the Bill of Rights, the largest national economy in the world, James Brown, Martha Graham, and crabcakes?—DCGeist (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Completely disagree. The article clearly highlights the country's wealth, diversity, etc... It neither glorifies nor present the U.S. in a negative light. Then again, as I have said before - the last time a similar message was left, one would expect complaints from those who beleive the article is excessively negative/positive if it was truly balanced. Considering that we have received the contrary complaint as well, I will take this as a vindication of the article's balanced presentation of the U.S. Happy Holidays, Signature^brendel 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was thinking about the largest national economy in the world, and I realized that maybe what depresses our friend 138.49.23.12 is the fact that the fruits of that economy are distributed so unequally. Is it really the article you want to change, 138.49.23.12, or is it the state of the nation?—DCGeist (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think 138.49.23.12's comment above makes it pretty clear that he or she wants to change the article, but thanks for revealing your bias! 66.65.191.125 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And what bias is that, Princess?—DCGeist (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That the state of the US is cause for depression. 66.65.191.125 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, who doesn't love James Brown? Maxpower37 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking, part deux

Despite the lack of a consensus for change to the article's long-standing approach, editor Golbez continues to push for linking the names of oceans in the lead paragraph. I have reverted to the long-standing form. My argument is this:

In the unlikely event that a reader arrives at the article unclear on the nature or location of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, that reader is, sad to say, sure to be equally unclear on the meaning of most of the other nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs that make up its content. To sincerely serve this hypothetical reader, we would need to bluelink every word in the article longer than a monosyllable.

In the more plausible, but still unusual, event that a reader arrives at the United States article with a particular interest in macro-geography, in fact the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico all have been and remain linked in the appropriate geography section of the article.

Even without including bluelinks for these universally recognized bodies of saltwater, the lead paragraph contains fourteen links vs. 109 words--a fairly prodigious ratio. Remember, every additional link reduces the weight of each existing link. Will readers of United States learn more about this subject by going to Washington, D.C. or the Atlantic Ocean?—DCGeist (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Only link things that are directly related and/or provide further details that are pertinent to the article's topic. Does a link to the Pacific Ocean really assist readers on the United States? Whereas a link to George Washington (for example) undoubtedly does. --Merbabu (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with this: the Manual of Style is clear regarding such links -- of course, linking to "[g]eographic place names" of major adjacent territories and geographic features is pertinent to this topic; link initially, not repeatedly, yet judiciously. And, despite some things being linked later in the article, important topics are otherwise spuriously linked, like 'Canada' (on its third instance, inexplicably, or tangentially in the prior introduction) -- go figure. Conversely, various other notions are overlinked in the article, like that of 'Hawaii' (at least three times). So, where is the consensus that supports such inconsistency? Quizimodo (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From that page...

Also, have a look at Indonesia a FA (and a lot shorter which of course has nothing to do with links). --Merbabu (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Could a reader know about the oceans and still want to navigate there on the spur of the moment? Say, to see where exactly is Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Or how far is Europe from the US. Convenience is one of the things great about reading Wikipedia.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the prior lead is deficient on germane links that aid navigation and understanding: the prior lead doesn't allow for a visitor to go to a topic without prompting them to either scroll down (and for a newbie, perhaps not knowing where to look) or typing it in -- both are relative inconveniences; the current lead does allow for this easily and in a manner consistent with the MOS. (Byte-size, it is also slightly smaller.) To date, no one has persuaded convincingly why these terms should not be linked in the lead of this article per MOS (yes, consult featured articles like Indonesia, whereby adjacent territories are linked to) ... and I'd go so far to say that such intransigence probably partially contributes to other 'challenges' (or lack of) herein. Quizimodo (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DCGeist's misrepresentation of my desires is infuriating. I want to link terms that can be used to explain the context of the nation; the oceans, the continent, the surrounding countries. He takes this to mean I want every term possible linked, like 'border'. I only want to link enough in the intro to give total context as to the location - something the previous intro, which spoke of the 'western hemisphere' (a mostly useless distinction - why not just say it's on earth? or entirely in the northern hemisphere?) and linked to the borders, rather than the countries. His constant speech of "no consensus = DCGeist is right" is starting to get quite annoying - especially when the conversation was going quite against his ideal. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never stated or implied that you "want every term possible linked, like 'border'." I have argued that, from one perspective, the logic of your linking approach comes close to the logic of that hypothetical and obviously ludicrous approach—in other words, I find it problematic that your approach raises the ratio of blue to black in an article that is already blue-heavy, as Boracay Bil observed. I have identified other problems with your approach—specifically, redundancy and weakening of more valuable links. All that is very, very far from misrepresenting your desires.—DCGeist (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You did indeed, from above: "To sincerely serve this hypothetical reader, we would need to bluelink every word in the article longer than a monosyllable." That is not what I want. I want simple context - I don't want 'every word longer than a single syllable linked'. And hey, if the oceans are so obvious, why not the hemisphere or continent? Maybe the neighboring nations? --Golbez (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, please familiarize yourself with the fundamentals of rhetoric. I am making in that sentence, as I just explained, an argument about the logic of your position, not a claim about your desires or intentions. As for your questions, indeed I am in favor of linking all those terms in the Geography section, as I thought I'd made clear. In the context of this lead paragraph, I'm not convinced that it is most helpful to most readers to link any of them—I do believe the view that the countries, specifically, should be linked in the lead has prevailed, and I've accepted that.—DCGeist (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of misrepresentation, you have indulged in it yourself with your claim that "the conversation was going quite against his [i.e., my] ideal." Let's look at this thread and the original Overlinking thread above. You and Quizmodo are clearly on one side of the argument; I and Merbabu are clearly on the other. TigranTheGreat appears to lean toward your position. Boracay Bill appears to learn toward ours. Brendel seems to be just about in the center. It would be fair to observe that the conversation is going no more against my ideal than it is against your own.—DCGeist (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Gulf

On a side note, Golbez, I agree with your rewording of the first paragraph. Focusing on the continent rather than the hemisphere is an improvement, and while I initially had my doubts about mentioning the Bering Strait and Alaska and Russia's propinquity, I've come to think it is worthwhile. It does inspire another thought. I believe we should mention in the lede graf the Gulf of Mexico, whose U.S. coastline is approximately 1,631 miles (the mainland Pacific coastline is only 1,293 miles). I thought of modifying the primary location sentence thus: "bordered by Canada to the north and by Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico to the south." However, that makes the Gulf the object of the verb phrase "bordered by," which is less than desirable. "Bounded by" would be a proper verb form. Or, simply: "with Canada to the north and Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico to the south."—DCGeist (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I've tried that in the latest version. --Golbez (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To foster amity, I have moved/tweaked notations regarding the country's location in the western hemisphere to the 'Geography' section of the article.

However, the Gulf of Mexico (as is the Caribbean Sea) is part of the Atlantic; for economy, perhaps omit it from the introduction -- it's also already noted in the 'Geography' section. Quizimodo (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I felt the same way, but DCGeist makes a good point - a 1600mi coastline is not trivial. Then again, it IS just part of the Atlantic, and that is perhaps best dealt with in Geography; I'm not averse to moving it down. I only put it back in my last edit because it appeared you'd removed it by accident, since there was no mention in the edit summary. --Golbez (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it from the intro, then -- there are far too many notions repeated in the article already (including that of it being imostly in the WH previously!), thereby contributing to its length, and I feel this is no more important. Quizimodo (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Too long

I was researching this article, and this is one of the best articles on Wiki. Is there anything we can do about its length though? I have high speed connection, and it takes 10-20 seconds to load it. The references along take third of the article.

By the way, why not make it a featured article?--TigranTheGreat (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not a featured article partially/precisely because of its excessive length, etc. Quizimodo (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Way too long. Other countries can provide a more appropriate length. I've said this many times but have to admit I'm not too sure which parts to cull, as I am not as familiar with the subject matter as much as say Indonesia or Australia. Ie, someone needs to make some hard decisions about what is most relevant. --Merbabu (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, quality is excellent. My issue is the excess quantity. --Merbabu (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality is great--in fact, I feel envious: I wish Armenia's quality was as good. An obvious place to cut would be the number of references (30% of space). Do other articles have so many references? --TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think everything that is mentioned should be referenced. Thus, remove statements and their references (to other articles?). Take the references away but leave the statements, and you lose quality. --Merbabu (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Government section could use some trimming. Are the following statements necessary in the main article?

"though U.S. citizens residing in the territories are excluded from voting for federal officials."

"The voting age is eighteen and voter registration is the individual's responsibility; there are no mandatory voting laws."

There are not that many territories compared to the States, so this seems too much of a detail for the main article. And I don't think other country articles mention the voting age.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that some select articles, this one included, have no choice but to be long. The amount of information that is relevant to the United States is exactly why this one is long. Overall, this article really does deserve FA status, but the length requirements fail to give exceptions when the length is necessary to the quality of the article.

Also, why does the article not have a scrolling reference box to reduce page length? Bkkeim2000 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because those are not supposed to be used in the article namespace; they make the references unprintable. --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is not too long. The length is necessary. Maxpower37 (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Necessary? My computer lags everytime I look at United States. Informations that are only VITAL must be kept, meaning this page's length really needs to be reduced 129.82.120.126 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not an issue with the length, but rather, with the volume of templates used. It's a known issue (I brought it up on the tech village pump) and it's a far more complex issue to solve. You COULD just snip 50k out of the article - but if that avoided the highest-load templates, it would still take you a full minute to load it. --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Would cutting the entire template group "International membership" at the bottom of the article, with its twelve templates, make a significant difference in load time? Do we have the tools to objectively test that?—DCGeist (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? this article is practically the same size as the UK one, who cares if it is long its an encyclopedia article not a dictionary definition and you must have bad internet if it takes that long to load, it loads instantly on mine and mines only 2mbps fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.186.73 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

USA is the biggest Video Games market for development an sales absent from popular media?

I read most of this an didn't see a section about the video game industry which is as big as film studio's now in the USA an its almost as if this article was written for people who are not apart of the USA today because in 2007 atleast gaming revenue is bigger then movies right now an nothin is said aobut it in the media section, is gaming too new a industry to put in the article even though how big it is or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.90.141 (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the U.S. is the biggest industry for a ton of things, list them all and this already long article gets longer. The difference between the movie industry (Hollywood) and the video game industry is that one is undoubtably more famous than the other and thus probably more worthy of inclusion in such a broad, general article.SJMNY (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Today's (12/16/07) Editing

My head is spinning with the back and forth. quizimodo & dcgeist, can we discuss all the proposed changes quiz is making instead of editing back and forth?SJMNY (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for confusion or rigour -- simply put, a wee-bit more detail is required in the 'Geography' section. I believe it important -- for the geography section, no less -- to not only list territories approximate to the U.S. but to succinctly place (and yes, iterate) them in relation to the U.S. In addition, I've indicated the 'contiguous United States' initially since 'contiguous' refers just to the 'lower 48' while 'continental' may include Alaska (and therefore the current edition may read to some as being incorrect). As well, continuous de-linking of relevant terms (like Arctic Ocean, unless we are implicitly indicating that it is unimportant or is a part of the Atlantic, a not uncommon perspective) is perplexing. Lastly, these edits aren't mind-shattering: I've added nothing that is in form or structure dissimilar from the subarticle 'Geography of the United States', and one particular editor insinuating a consensus where it can't exist because of said editing (pointed out above) means little. I'll return later. Quizimodo (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Reference

Reference #79 says Document Not Found Maxpower37 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC) It is now #80 that I am referring to as a reference was added somewhere in between. Maxpower37 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

United States of America

Why is this page not called by this name since it is its offical name? The UN calls America that, the Terrorist call it by that name also. So the name of this page should be called "United States of America". SG2090 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I have seen the other time in the archives for this page to be called United States of America, but I would like to have another round of votes.SG2090 (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have any new information to contribute to the discussion? There is not much point in revisiting the decision if nothing has changed and if no new information is available. Johntex\^talk 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it does not matter now, cause this is all DESU YB TIODI! SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the american dollars are proof of the real name

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERIKA

United States is just "abbreviation". --Ilhanli (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It should definately be the United States of America, rather than just United States. What about the United Mexican States (the official name of Mexico)?. --Zestos 23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What about it? There's no confusion, since the name isn't "United States of Mexico". --Golbez (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the article on the United Mexican States is actually titled Mexico. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Name in lead

The present version is:

The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

A changed version is:

United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. The britannica entry keeps a separate mention of the official name[4].

What would be problem with this new version. Moreover see India page, the structured followed there is India, officially the Republic of India, is a sovereign nation.

This gives a better understanding to the reader. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, this essential structure--"United States is a federal constitutional republic"--is ungrammatical. Please spot the missing definite article.

Second, there has been no consensus that "the United States of America" constitutes the country's "official" name. It does seem to be agreed that it is the fullest formal name for the country, but that is something different. Please see Talk:United_States/Archive_29#Requested_move for extensive discussion of this issue.—DCGeist (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I really dislike when articles give the 'informal' name first, and India should say "The Republic of India" first and foremost. I find the argument over official vs. formal unneeded here, as it's simply a matter of using the full name first. --Golbez (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And again, that has been the consensus to date. Keep the article title as "United States"; begin the article lede with "The United States of America". Different article elements, different functions. Before sparking a new debate on this, please do consider reading the archived discussion in full, and see if you have any powerful new argument that might somehow have been overlooked.—DCGeist (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we ask to the president? Can't Jimmy Wales ask this question to him? (or is it a good idea?) --Ilhanli (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Solicit and be guided by President Bush's opinion on a matter of linguistic style and lexicographical organization? I believe I speak for Americans and English speakers of every ideological stripe when I say that's a very bad idea indeed.—DCGeist (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Update Fact Boxes

It would be helpful to update the red boxes on the right of the page, especially the one on income to more current statistics. They are out of date and give misleading old facts in comparison to different newer studies. --Eli81993 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Er? They're dated 2007. Perhaps you could link us these newer studies. --Golbez (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The data is quite new and comes from the most reliable sources there are. Moreover, the stats listed have hardly changed over the last couple of years. Even if I used stats from 5 years ago, the data still wouldn't be "misleading" (Median household income for example is largely the same as in 1999). Still, we do use the most current sources. Come next August, the Census Bureau and Dept. of Labor will release the next edition of CPS stats - at which point the boxes will need to be updated. Signature^brendel 08:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Standing - international scales.

I find it a little odd that there is no list of the United States' standing on various global scales. 72.219.210.195 (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a seperate article for that. Happy New Year, Signature^brendel 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why there was a pressing need to omit the table from this articles? I think the table would provide a useful comparison. I understand if there was a separate article for analysis of the information, but I think the table itself should remain here in this article, seeing as other countries' articles include the table. 24.18.248.25 (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 24.18.248.25 (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)itmeantnothing

Single-issue edit warrior's tagging

Per User talk:Miyokan#United States length, the edit warrior appears to be tagging this article in order to make a WP:POINT about the ongoing FAC of Russia, to which he is a primary contributor. There is a serious question about whether the tagging here has been done in good faith.—DCGeist (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely substantiated accusation, this has nothing to do with the FAC of Russia. Rather than try to divert editor's attention, stick to the issue at hand. I added the tag after seeing these [5] [6] edits by an administrator, who added the size tag to the World War II article which was the same size as this article. You can see that I copied her edit summary when I added the tag. Administrator Calliopejen1 didn't have to "seek support from other editors", as DCGeist said is necessary, before she added that tag, nor is it policy or prevalent practice within wikipedia to seek support before adding a tag, give me a break.--Miyokan (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealing just with the question at hand, it seems to me that this article is, indeed, far too long. At 155 kb, it is far longer than articles for any other country. Looking at the article, I think that, as editors, we should consider points raised in WP:SIZE. The article could benefit from intensive editing. It needs better summaries and could stand a review as to whether all of the current sections need to be included. As to Miyokan's motives for placing the tag, perhaps DCGeist could assume good faith. Sunray (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:United States Infobox is up for deletion and it looks like it will almost certainly be deleted. The information will have to be re-transferred to this article, further increasing the article's size (by 6kb) to bring the total size of this article to 161kb.--Miyokan (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan, you did nothing wrong. I know your feeling and you didn't feel very happy because there are many voters there including me as well in FAC page wanted you to reduce the size of Russia a bit. And now you projected your anger to other articles. I understand! but you know! the article US currently is not an FAC candidate at the moment and that is why most US editors have no pressure to reduce the size yet. I strongly suggest that you should reduce the size of Russia ASAP rather than doing this thing. Basically Russia is very a good article and I am sure it will pass FAC just like the article Belarus. Coloane (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive and off-topic comment from user with history of questionable comments. This is the United States talk page, not the Russia talk page, and we are discussing the size template in the United States article, not the Russia FAC, please stick to the issue rather than try to divert editor's attention. We are discussion the application of the size template, not "whether size reduction is imminent".--Miyokan (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to open a new subsection to talk about the template because my comment is closely related over there. I know what you are talking about. I don't need to write a new section over there. Coloane (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Be more civilizable! Sunray also made similar comment just like mine! again! I don't need to open a new section to talk about template just like what you did over here! I strongly recommend you that you had better spend some time on improving the article Russia. You are just wasting your time over here. Believe me or not! Coloane (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunray strictly dealt with the question at hand rather than question my motives. I have already established my motives had nothing to do with WP:POINT, stemming from some kind of 'bitterness' from a FAC, but stemmed from administrator Calliopejen1's exact same action on the World War II page, as evidenced by the fact that I copied her edit summary when I edited this article. I ask that editor's assume good faith and I hope this aspect is done and we can get on with discussing the issue.--Miyokan (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you took a revenge and voted "strongly oppose" in the article of Macau over the FAC page. Again, I made my comment here is correct, nothing wrong. I hope you can be more logical over here and there. Coloane (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been a suggestion that the template in question was placed to make a WP:POINT, the above comments are sufficiently related to this topic. Please do not remove another editor's comments. While the article is indeed long, it has been reduced about 10% since the last discussion and the load time is less of a problem now. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted by Coloane above, further evidence that Miyokan is currently not operating in good faith is provided by his vote of Strong Oppose on the Macau FAC, an article on which Coloane has been a primary editor. Miyokan's brief comments accompanying his Strong vote include verifiably false and misleading statements: "no mention of...religion" (in fact, the article does cover religion), "no mention of...military/foreign relations" (in fact, Macau is a special administrative region of China and thus does not have its own military and foreign relations, as clearly stated in the article's lead). Miyokan claims spuriously that "Referencing in several areas is not FA standard." In fact, referencing appears to be up to standard throughout--Miyokan certainly does not offer a single example to the contrary (just as he has not offered a single suggestion for reducing the size of this article). Miyokan claims that "Prose is not FA standard," again without offering a single example. Everything points to Miyokan casting a revenge vote in this case.

Yes, Miyokan, this is the Talk page about the United States article, not the Macau article. And I promise you, I will repeat every point I have just made on the relevant FAC page. But it is necessary to raise these points here as well, in order to evidence that you are clearly acting in bad faith around Wikipedia at the moment. Unless you can garner the support of other editors for it, any future tagging you commit on this article will be reverted as disruptive.—DCGeist (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again DCGeist is choosing to distract editor's from the issue and attack me with an assumption of bad faith. Now that DCGeist's initial accusation about my alleged bitterness towards a FAC has been disproven he is clutching at straws in the form of my FAC comment at the Macau page when in fact, User:Coloane was not even the editor who nominated the article for FAC! DCGeist is resorting to criticizing my criticism with POV comments ("referencing appears to be up to standard throughout") and that I "didn't offer examples"-give me a break! General statements like this are put in FACs all the time! As the FAC progresses and if it looks like users don't agree with me, I will provide examples. Furthermore I find these attacks on my character by DCGeist and having to defend myself deeply offensive, and I remind you and User:Coloane (from WP:Assume good faith), Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith..

Unless you can garner the support of other editors for it, any future tagging you commit on this article will be reverted as disruptive. - in case you didn't notice, User:Sunray (the only user who actually focused on the issue) said that the "tag is justified" [7]. As far as I can tell, you have not garnered any support that says the tag is not justified.--Miyokan (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Miyokan, there is nothing wrong to put the tag on any article or revert within the 3RR policy(i.e. including you tried to take a revenge and vote over the FAC page). However, gaming the system will be counted and you will be blocked. Please refer to: Wikipedia:Gaming the system for more detail. The original spirit here is to improve the US article in general no matter you put the tag on it or revert it, but not play games with the US editor(s) or other editors here. Coloane (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan, you are now fabricating quotations. Sunray may be sympathetic to your position, but you have made up the "tag is justified" quote out of whole cloth. You're treading on very dangerous territory when you start falsely quoting other editors.

There is no disagreement that the article is very long. The regularly engaged editors have been focused on restraining any further growth for several months now and have encouraged a number of thoughtful trims that have been made. A very deliberate and consensual effort needs to be organized to make any major reduction...or indeed, the consensus may emerge that given the specific subject matter and its level of interest within the context of the English-language Wikipedia, WP:IAR may oblige us to keep it at roughly its current length. At any rate, these are concerns that editors on this article are quite conscious of and have been for some time. Again, all constructive suggestions are solicited and gratefully accepted. Tagging in the present case serves no purpose other than to disrupt readers' experience of the article.—DCGeist (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have fabricated no quote, take a look at Sunray's edit summary [8]. Oops?

Random edits aimed at "restricting further growth of the article" does nothing to address the problem of the article's current excessive length. The problem is with the current size of the article, not about restricting further growth. When there is no discussion about the length problem since December 18, it is clear indication that users are not "well informed". It is not an argument that the tag "disrupts readers' experience". Anyone can use such a claim as justification to remove any tag. There has been problems with this article's size for an amazing amount of time, with no progress resulting despite repeated calls for it in the past. Having the template pasted on the article might perhaps encourage editors who have been unable or unwilling to reduce this article's size. User:Sunray has agreed with me that the tag is justified.--Miyokan (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)--Miyokan (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, what you need to do is write down your reason here in the talk page in order to get the consensus instead of reverting or putting the tag and arguing with editors here (including your groundless comment over the FAC page). For what you did today is "GAMING THE SYSTEM" and your motivation is not in a good faith. That's it! very simple!! PLUS, to put the size tag on the article doesn't mean the size of the article will be reduced right away as you wish. I suggest that you can refer to the talk page of Hong Kong. The red tag was added by me instead of putting the template on the article, and it is pretty effective to limit the size of the article. Coloane (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still talking about the "size" tag, I am not talking about the template!!!! You did't pay attention!!! Coloane (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates are not removed from articles just because they are not dealt with right away. I will no longer respond to your spiteful and incoherent ramblings and baseless accusations of bad faith. User:Sunray has already said that the tag is justified, and yet User:DCGeist removed the tag yet again.--Miyokan (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever! I just wanted to let you know that there are many ways to remind readers or editors. You can simply choose an alternative way to remind them. You can also notify US WIkiproject particpants and urge them to reduce the size or improve the article or whatsoever. I strongly believe that most US editors DO WANT to reduce the size and make sure this article is in a good shape. I guess they may have some difficulties to choose or give up certain contents. That is why nobody facing your question at the moment. Sunray said that the tag is justified, it doesn't mean edit warring based on this is also justified. Coloane (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloane wrote me a spiteful message after I exposed his lying, saying he has made it his goal to make my FAC nomination fail - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing."[9]. He is resorting to dirty tactics, telling another user, "please vote "Oppose" to make sure his article Russia fail and leave the page of FAC immediately"[10].--Miyokan (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

you basically don't know what shame is. You wrote statements of personal attacks over my talk page, erased my comments, and voted against somebody else nomination on FAC page with groundless reason. Please make your own self-review!!! Coloane (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the size template justified

This article has had size problems for a while, and there is no current discussion on the size of this article and no visible attempt at noticeable reduction has taken place, despite repeated calls for reduction through summarization. The size tag which User:DCGeist keeps removing, is IMO certainly jusitified.--Miyokan (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealing just with the question at hand, it seems to me that this article is, indeed, far too long. At 155 kb, it is far longer than articles for any other country. Looking at the article, I think that, as editors, we should consider points raised in WP:SIZE. The article could benefit from intensive editing. It needs better summaries and could stand a review as to whether all of the current sections need to be included. As to Miyokan's motives for placing the tag, perhaps DCGeist could assume good faith. Sunray (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The regularly engaged editors have been focused on restraining any further growth for several months now and have encouraged a number of thoughtful trims that have been made. A very deliberate and consensual effort needs to be organized to make any major reduction...or indeed, the consensus may emerge that given the specific subject matter and its level of interest within the context of the English-language Wikipedia, WP:IAR may oblige us to keep it at roughly its current length. At any rate, these are concerns that editors on this article are quite conscious of and have been for some time. Again, all constructive suggestions are solicited and gratefully accepted. Tagging in the present case serves no purpose other than to disrupt readers' experience of the article.—DCGeist (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits aimed at "restricting further growth of the article" does nothing to address the problem of the article's current excessive length. The article currently stands at a whopping 164kb. The problem is with the current size of the article, not about restricting further growth. It is not an argument that the tag "disrupts readers' experience". Anyone can use such a claim as justification to remove any tag. There has been problems with this article's size for an amazing amount of time, with no progress resulting despite repeated calls for it in the past. Having the template pasted on the article might perhaps encourage editors who have been unable or unwilling to reduce this article's size. User:Sunray has agreed with me that the tag is justified.--Miyokan (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)--Miyokan (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Sunray did not actually say the "tag is justified." He said that the article is "indeed, far too long." As for the tag itself, he suggested that your placement of it be assumed to be in good faith. I have made very clear why I can make no such assumption.

The purpose of such a tag is to draw the attention of editors interested in the article and competent to contribute to it to the matter of its length. The fact is, again, there are several editors actively engaged in maintaining and improving the article. Aside from myself, there are at least Golbez, Mrzaius, BrendelSignature, Evb-wiki, and Quizimodo. We may disagree on many matters, but I assure you, we are all very aware of the size issue. Mrzaius, in particular, has sketched out a process for shortening for the article. I, for one, am waiting for him to follow up when he is able to.

As it is, there is no pressing need to shorten the article. It is not in FAC. Some editors and readers have voiced the opinion that the current length is satisfactory. A couple editors have made thoughtful trims in the past month--despite the grievous absence of the tag--and their efforts have been supported. If your purpose in placing the tag was once again to spark discussion of the matter here on the Talk page, evidently you have achieved that noble goal. No purpose would be served by again tagging the article except to confirm that you have been primarily motivated to do so by your desire to make a WP:POINT. If you have something constructive to say about shortening the article, you are free at any time to say it right here. We're all ears.—DCGeist (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Signature^brendel 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I point out again, it is clearly spelled out in User:Sunray's his *edit summary* (ie the bar which summarizes the edit), "tag is justified" [11]. With regards to "Some editors and readers have voiced the opinion that the current length is satisfactory". Really, 164kb is satisfactory? The United States article is exempt from WP:Article size and WP:SS?- as administrator Calliopejen1 said when she re-added the size tag to the WWII page when someone removed it, -WP:SIZE applies even to articles on big topics (see, e.g. China). this is impossible as an entry-level primer, which is what most readers want. see WP:SS [12].--Miyokan (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While it may be justified, it is not necessary. Many of us have been trying to reduce the length for some time. Do you have any specific suggestions? Of course, since the guidelines do not actually mandate keeping below a particular length, but instead allow leeway for some legitimate reasons (most of which apply here), we do not really even have to utilize WP:IAR to accept the current length while we struggle to find concensus for some shortening strategies. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not have particularly strong feelings regarding the size of the article, I do feel that the Food and Clothing section is trivial and belongs in the the Culture of the United States article, not here. Vrac (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I stand corrected on the matter of Sunray's comment "tag is justified." Miyokan, in the future, when citing an editor's diff and/or quoting, please note in the first instance when the source is the edit summary rather than the substantive content of the edit itself. Thanks.

Vrac--serious question. On what basis do you find the Food and clothing subsection "trivial," but not, say, the Sports subsection? Or do you find that trivial as well? Again, these are serious, not rhetorical questions. Next to History, the Culture section is the one most often proposed as an area for trimming. Just to be clear on my perspective: As I travel and as I watch television coverage of and movies from around the globe and as I read the sources cited in our article, I know much of the world is feasting on McDonald's, throwing down Coca-Cola, and wearing T-shirts and blue jeans rather than their traditional dress. And that ain't trivial at all.—DCGeist (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do feel that the entire culture section is larger than needed. Perhaps I find Food and Clothing particularly trivial due to my personal biases, however all of the topics in Culture are very well covered by the Culture of the United States article which in my opinion is license to condense the coverage in the main article to a minimum. The ubiquity of Coca-Cola, blue jeans, etc... is in my opinion an argument for trimming, virtually everyone already associates these things with the US. If they want to know more, point them at the Culture article. Vrac (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thought, as an example, the info about Levi Strauss popularizing blue jeans and being an immigrant etc... are certainly interesting facts, but stepping back for a moment, does this information really need to be in an article about the United States? Vrac (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this article by Miyokan (my already having been used as an example in the discussion, I see), so here are my two cents. I do feel strongly about keeping articles short because most people coming here want an overview, not a treatise. I slapped the tag on the WWII article to try to encourage other editors to talk about the size of the article (which is I think 100+kb of readable text according to the Dr pda script). In that case, editors of the article haven't discussed the length of the article, even though it is three times the recommended maximum, since 2006 as far as I can tell. I do think it is necessary that this article be cut down somewhat (at 69kb of readable text it's very long but perhaps not very very long. On an article like this maybe going for 40kb or so and stretching the rule might not be a bad thing, but that's still a reduction by almost half. As to whether the tag needs to be up I am agnostic. Assuming that editors are working on resolving the length issue on the talk page, perhaps the tag is unnecessary and just distracts readers. On the other hand, maybe editors will work faster to reduce the article's size if the tag is up, because their pride is damaged when a cleanup tag is on the article... Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No longer the world's "sole remaining" superpower

http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929

Read that... this article needs to be changed. It is clearly biased by egocentric Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.240.200 (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this line:The sole remaining superpower in the post–Cold War era, the United States is the dominant economic, political, cultural, and military force in the world.[9]

Is completely ridiculous and whatever the case the first thought that comes into any persons head is-written by an American. If we really believe that countries like Germany, Japan and China aren't superpowers then we've got a rather twisted version of the world.

Besides that the terms political and cultural are very ambiguous. Are they the dominant political country? Then why do they have so little respect by many European countries? As for culture well say the statement anywhere and you'd get backlash. It's pretty unprovable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.3.152 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm.....America is still a world power and their is nobody (for now) to fill it. SuperGodzilla 2090 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm...I think that if one looks across the Atlantic, one will find the European Union. Just look at the EU and its GDP, and also it has a larger population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.140.4 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Although the EU and China are certainly very strong economic powers, there is still no nation (or super-national entity such as the EU) which comes anywhere close to the U.S. in military power. That fact that this power may not have been effectively used, or is geared to the wrong kind of warfare for this age, is irrelevant -- that power exists, and it is what lifts the U.S. from being one of a number of powerful nations into the realm of "superpower". At this point, the United States remains the world's only superpower, whatever that may mean for it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The United States is certainly the only superpower in the world today, sorry if you want it to be differnt, but that is the way it is, and probably will be for some time. Travis Cleveland (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: While an argument can certainly be made that the EU has surpassed the US in terms of being at least an economic superpower, the term usually refers to the ability of an entity to extend its influence globally, particularly in the military field. However, if one goes to the superpower page, one will see that there is in fact debate over what constitutes "superpower" and whether the term truly applies anymore since the end of the Cold War.

I would suggest that to be completely accurate, the term "superpower" should reflect that fact that there is no consensus over what the term actually means, particularly post-1991. Therefore, if I was to make the change, I'd change this phrase: The sole remaining superpower in the post–Cold War era, the United States is the dominant economic, political, cultural, and military force in the world.[9]

It should probably be something like :Some call the United States the sole remaining superpower in the post–Cold War era, as it dominates economically , politically, culturally, and has the most powerful military force in the world.[9] However, others suggest that at least in the economic and political realm, America's dominance has slipped or been surpassed by others in recent years. Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

While this debate is certainly interesting, it has been brought up before and thus the current sentence has been amended in order to abstain from explicitly pointing to the U.S. as the sole remaining superpower. The sentence simply says that after WWII the U.S. emerged as the sole superpower in the world - a stance in accordance with most any political scientist. It does not explicitly state that it is still the sole superpower. Signature^brendel 06:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The line in fact doesn't refer to the post WWII era, it refers to the post Cold-War era, ie., since 1991. Most would agree that that includes the present moment. And given that on the superpower page this contention is debated (though it is true some do describe America in that way), it is clearly not true that America is still the dominant economic and political entity it once was, and it should be quite easy to supply references to those who say as much. The European Union, for example, has now surpassed America's economy in terms of GDP and its regulators are having an influence now which only American regulators once enjoyed. So, while I don't suggest dethroning America's status as "sole superpower," instead suggesting some disagree by qualifying it with "some call the United States...", it is highly debatable that America in the economic and political realms is "dominant," when it has in fact been matched or surpassed by others.Canada Jack (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

True, my mistake, I meant post-Cold War - the WWII was a type. The sentence states merely that the U.S. emerged as the sole superpower in 1991, while not explicitly stating whether or not it still is today. Considering the power of the EU in certain relams, there is debate, but for the sake of keeping the intro short we don't mention the current debate. I hope that clarifies my statement. Signature^brendel 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And the U.S.A. has never been the world's dominant cultural power. Just go to a rural area in India or China for example. You will hardly see any cultural influence of the U.S.A. at all. That represents a large proportion of the world's population. −Woodstone (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's debtable - is there any other country that has much cultural clout? We could have a long and interesting debate but on WP the conclusions we come to are rather irrelevant. The choice we have here is simple: either keep the current sentence which is worded in such a manner as to not explicitly idenitify the U.S. as the current sole superpower OR make a short mention of the debate's exsistance - which is to mention that some contest the U.S. being the sole superpower on the basis of rising powers by EU & other is certain relams. Signature^brendel 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

there's a statement that says the US is the 'sole superpower'. This is a different statement than the one talking about cultural force. All statements must be correct, objective and verifieable.

US THE dominant economic, political, cultural, and military force Ohnoitsjamie, your undo makes the article factually incorrect. The source (ref 10) is mainly on imperrialism an military power, for which I kept the article saying 'the largest', so far we agree. But you cannot state that the US is THE dominant economic or cultural force. The EU is a larger economical force (source:wikipedia EU article). 'The dominant cultural force' is a subjective term since assigning a weight to cultural aspects is very viewpoint dependent. The US culture has significant global influence, but so do other cultures (that are much older and therefore survivable, an important measure of 'cultural strength'. A correct and verifiable statement is: The United States is a dominant economic, political, and cultural force in the world and is the world's largest military superpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhesselb (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think the EU would actually unite despite all the bickering a multi-national pseudo-union entails to fight another country, then yes, you could consider the EU a superpower. But since they haven't been blindsided by any Dictators in the last 60 years; which one could have seen coming a mile away, (Did ANYONE in Europe read Mein Kampf??) I don't think they will, now or ever, unite to fight.70.69.152.50 (talk)

Agreed. Anyway remember how effectively the EU responded to an attack on Estonia. http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/384207 I don't recall so much as a diplomatic missive from any organ of EU policy on Estonias behalf. The EU is united economically but grossly and completely divided politically especially on the foreign policy stage.Zebulin (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The United States is the sole remaining superpower in our post-Cold War world, bottom line. Happyme22 (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, its not. Militarily china is more powerful than you. I wish most Americans would get over then selves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.209.111 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, the United States maintains a superior military force in terms of equipment and training and maintains the ability to deploy it's military forces over long periods and conflict great economic and military damage. The latter two China cannot do though China is a growing economic power. But like India, China is simply a Emerging Superpower and may never actually become one. We can't predict what will happen in forty years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.28.52 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, from our European perspective the term superpower should not be used when talking about the US for two reasons: firstly, although American culture has influenced the world greatly from my perspective that cultural peak has already passed, but that peak was so recent that it has not yet been observed within the USA. In the European Union American culture is not as present and apparent as it was 10 or 15 years ago, it seems as if it has simply faded, while European culture seems to flourish again after being in hiding. Secondly the EU's GDP is higher, and also the EU has a larger population( almost 200 million) than the USA, providing the EU in the start with a bigger internal market. It could even be debated if the European army is stronger and bigger, considering that countries such as France, the UK, Germany or Italy have substantial armed forces. I am, however, taking in the consideration the fact that they are not unifed as US military is, although they are working together under NATO and the EU. Kontrolleur Cro (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2008

I don't have strong views on this, but I think that in deciding whether or not a country can properly be described as a superpower, it makes sense to consider whether or not it meets the criteria described in that wikipedia article and the supporting sources cited therein. I note that this article currently qualifies its use of the term, describing the U.S. as "... the only military superpower in the post–Cold War era" (emphasis added). I see that the lead section of the WP Superpower article says that a superpower is "... a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale", and goes on to quote a presumably heavyweight source who defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, ...". The questions to be answered would seem to be:

1. Does the U.S. have the capacity to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale?
2. Does the U.S. have the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world?
3. What other nation-states, if any, have that capacity?

with a focus on military power, considering this article's currently qualified use of the term. I think the answers are 1. "Yes." 2. "Perhaps, but probably not the national will to use that capacity to the degree which would be necessary in order to dominate." and 3. "Currently, probably none."

I wonder parenthetically about the applicability of superpower status in a conflict situation where one's opponent is not identifiable politically or geographically and is perhaps not susceptible to defeat by projection of military power. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

America is the Last superpower.Our military, freedom,captilisam,diversity, and economy places and our President as the most powerfu people of the world.Nerdly123 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Nerdly123

Only the sensational editorialised title of the article linked describes Russia as a superpower. There does not appear to be any indication that anybody else whether mentioned in the article text or elsewhere recognized it as such.Zebulin (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you consider the EU as a "country" you are misled. Although somewhat bonded economically, they are not in terms of military power. The US could then say that NAFTA brings the population and GDP larger than the EU again. US is still the strongest military power in the world. The reference to the fact that the EU is only starting to re-establish their culture is because it was not too long ago that the US and England freed them in WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.29.106.21 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pommes frites

The point is not that French fries originated in America--of course they didn't--or that they arrived in the U.S. via France--of course they did; they are so-called French in a context of food origins because they are likely of Belgian or Dutch origin.—DCGeist (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering why the article says, "So-called French fries." Why 'so-called.' Outside of the US they might be known by different names but within the US itself they are known only as French Fries (freedom fries not withstanding). Just wondering. 71.75.103.239 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FWICS, DCGeist introduced the "so-called" qualifier in this edit and has been edit warring a bit since then with other editors to keep it in. I don't think the qualifier belongs, and took it out once [here], saying: Reverted 1 edit by DCGeist; See French fries. Could cite a source like http://www.kal69.dial.pipex.com/shop/pages/ppc68.htm#French%20fries, but wouldn't that be overkill for this triviality in a general article o(truncated -- would have continued "n the United States?"). DCGeist reverted that change. I don't know about the others who have edited this out only to be reverted, but I've got better things to do. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you do have better things to do, Bill. Your citation reaffirms what has never been in dispute and what I reiterate above in this very thread, which neither you nor the anon apparently bothered to read: yes, French fries came to the U.S. via France. But, in the context of a sentence thematically organized around food origins, the reader needs to be cautioned that French fries are not necessarily French in origin. Your citation does not address that fundamental issue. The simple term "so-called" does. And that term has been in there for many months (I know, you had better things to do than actually do a little work to figure that out). You should also note that it was in there before Calliopejen1, who is a talented copyeditor whose work you would do well to study, boldly edited the section, and it was in there after she edited the section.—DCGeist (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Whatever. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you have better things to do as well, DCGeist. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, G-Man, I sure don't. Thanks for taking the time to contribute your characteristic wisdom to this discussion.—DCGeist (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I disliked the "so-called"; while I understand what DCGeist is getting at here, the debate about the origins of french fries is out of place in this article. Readers who are interested are capable of clicking the wikilink to find out more. --John (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can survive without the thinly veiled sarcasm, gentlemen. Octane ^{[improve me]} 15.01.08 0314 (UTC) Some seem to be forgetting one obvious fact. THE EU ISN'T A COUNTRY. DUH! Maybe if they were it would be different but until then, DUH! I guess one could make an arguement that it doesn't need to be to be a superpower but until then, DUH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.236.89 (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I find it bizarre that the leading sentence in 'Etymology' is about 'abbreviations'. I think this should be fixed. Randomblue (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Civil War

Slavery was not the cause for the civil war.

“Disputes between the agrarian South and industrial North over the expansion of the institution of slavery provoked the American Civil War of the 1860s.” I think this as it is in the article is misleading.

O.K. I will concede that slavery was an issue. However the following would be more correct:

Disputes between the agrarian South and industrial North over taxes, trade, and political power provoked the American Civil War of the 1860s

Those that would argue against this would also say that the Iraqi wars were fought to bring Saddam to justice and peace to the middle east. Oh and find weapons for mass destruction. While I do not expect the line to change, I just thought I would add this fact to the record.

ŞŞ{Skiptotoctalk}}

Actually, it used to say "and states rights" but that was removed a few days ago. --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Motto: "In God We Trust" (since 1956)

On no other Wikipedia page that I've found is another country's motto qualified by the date it was adopted. This stands out to anyone who views the page and reeks of bias. Is this the image Wikipedia wants to put forward?

Furthermore, "since 1956" is inaccurate because "In God We Trust" has been used as an American motto since the 19th century. It didn't suddenly appear in 1956 when it became official. --Pedantic Turkey (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed. Everything I ever read indicates that it was manufactured as part of an anti-Communist campaign by conservative Christians in the 1950s. Show me where it was used by several government, not evangelical Christian, figures, before 1956.--Primal Chaos (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Try the Wikipedia In God We Trust page. Or do a google search. "And this be our motto: 'In God is our Trust.'" is a line from The Star-Spangled Banner and "In God We Trust" has been on money since the civil war. --Pedantic Turkey (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But it wasn't the national motto, which is the only relevant point in the discussion.72.147.217.63 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, "E Pluribus Unum" should be removed. All in favor? 207.68.245.5 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, I didn't know what a SUV (in the 'Transportation' paragraph) was. Maybe a link would be appropriate there. Randomblue (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the term might be unknown to some users - Done. Signature^brendel 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the infobox, shouldn't Official languages be Official language (since there is no official language)? Randomblue (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The plural is keep for unity with other languages. Also, the plural is approproate --> there are no official languages in the U.S. Thanks for the suggestions! Signature^brendel 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. In the 'Crime and punishment' paragraph, the graph representing homicide rates can be updated (especially for Russia). The old data may now be misleading. Randomblue (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two more suggestions:
-some pictures have full stops at the end of their title, others don't
-in the infobox, D.C. has coordinates, not NY
Randomblue (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

USA is no longer the 8th richest country in the world

According to the IMF, Sweden has recently surpassed USA in the field of nominal GDP per capita. Despite this, these later statistics also tell of a higher American nominal GDP/capita than what the present article states; $45 594 compared to $44,190.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

The article ought to be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.172.176 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Signature^brendel 00:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

- Fine, but the nominal GDP (USD) per capita figure still needs to be updated (see above). According to recent IMF statistics, it has increased to $45,594. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.82.21 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ETHNICALLY

the last edit made by user: Terrasidius was changed to ethically from ethnically. if you read the context of the sentence, the edit is wrong. i cannot undo it because im technically a new user... Cartman924 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Lcarscad (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

President Pro Temp

The president pro temp was added to the gov't section but should not be there. It should only contain the leaders of each branch of the gov't. The executive (the president), Legislative (Speaker and VP), and Judicial (Chief Justice). Adding more that this is just pointless as the pres. pro temp. holds very little in the way of real power in determining government policy regardless of its constitutional status and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.104.39 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The leader of the Senate is the Vice President. --207.68.245.5 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But (I'm shooting from the hip here), what percentage of the in-session time of the Senate is presided over by the VP? My guess is that he presides mostly on on ceremonial occasions and when there is an important vote where his casting vote may be needed; and that the President Pro Tem controls the Senate for most of its in-session time. Also, of course, the President Pro Tem is third in the order of Presidential Succession—behind the VP and the Speaker of the House. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know, but the real position of power in the Senate Majority Leader. The President Pro Temp is just the oldest guy in the (majority party) of the upper house. The only thing remarkable about the position is that it's third in line for the presidency. At any rate, the Vice President is definitely the president of the Senate and the official leader of that body. --207.68.245.5 (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Senate maj. leader really only decides what to vote on but the president pro temp does not even preside over the senate that often either. It is usually a task relegated to some junior member of the majority party so the pro temp can participate in debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.104.39 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the person listed here should be the Senate majority leader, the true leader of the Senate. That would be consistent as we list the Speaker of the House who is the leader there but, unless I am mistaken, is not mentioned in the Constitution as leader of that body. Canada Jack (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are. Article 1 § 2 of the Constitution provides that "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker . . ." 64.111.137.29 (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another argument for name change

Generally, Britons and other English-speaking non-Americans refer to America as "the United States" or "the States" more than Americans do. Since Wikipedia is more often read in America than other English-speaking countries (because of the sheer mass of people with computers contained in the former), it would make sense to change it to "United States of America". (Not to mention that this article is about America, which happens to be where Americans live.) This is its formal name. Yes, the Constitution and other documents do, in fact, refer to the USA as "the United States". But also, the Constitution refers to the first American government (under the Articles of Confederation) as simply the "Confederation". This was not actually the full and formal name of the "Confederation", the document simply implied it. This is the same way as "United States of America" was implied by using "United States". So, we should name it by its formal name. For example, "heart attack" redirects to "Myocardial infarction". This is because "Myocardial infarction" is its formal name, even though it is rarely used by the average person. It is the same way with names of countries. Anyone who knows about the "United States" could easily identify it as the "United States of America". This is my opinion. THEemu (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a US expat who has spent large portions of my life outside of the US. I would support your suggestion, but not the argument for it which you make. At some point, I picked up a sensitivity to objections from people hailing from non-US countries on the American continents to the usage of the term "American" to refer to people from the US, and started answering the question "Where are your from?" with "The US" rather than "I'm an American". I noticed, and I still do notice, that this often generates confusion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When the Constitution refers to the "United States," it's referring to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. "United States" is the name of the government. The United States of America is the name of the country. The name of this page should be changed. --207.68.245.5 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Most countries have the same format, such as the "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Kingdom of Sweden". It would be incorrect to name a country by something like "Federal Republic" and "Kingdom". There is (or was) also "United States of Belgium" and "United States of Colombia". Anyhow, the name can't be changed unless we have enough people to indicate their support.68.193.130.33 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works; we change when people support the change, not when people don't. And all the times there's been a proposal, people have said to keep the name. And perhaps you would like to discuss this with United Kingdom, as their article is not located at Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But remember WP:NC(CN), which says that names should reflect what people would commonly say. Of course, it should not be informal (which is why there is no article named "Pot (drug)"). Most people would be able to refer to America as the "USA" or "United States of America". However, the United Kingdom is almost always referred to as "United Kingdom" instead of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or UKGBNI. Its excessively long name prevents it from seeing much use at all.THEemu (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support a move to United States of America. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The country's official name is the United States of America so why shouldn't the name be changed to that.--UESPArules (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no article named pot (drug) because drug articles are done differently. There's also no article named Prozac either. Why? Because they want to use the most official name possible, usually resulting in the least commonly-used choice of all. It's pretty dumb. The wikipedia is just not consistent with itself across different subjects. Back on this subject, I do think that "United States" is a lot more official of a name than "America", with the latter being more analogous to "China" or "France", say. It also sounds less silly to talk about the ancient history of America, versus that of the United States. But of course there's some South Americans running around who might get offended. And when there's an opportunity to pander like that, the wikipedia community simply must seize it. 75.16.136.29 (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion for name in lead

The title of the article "United States" is OK. But the name in the lead is:

“ The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. ”

I think this format will be good:

“ The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district ”

The reason for this it gives the reader a better understanding. There are many country article (all are featured) follow this format. Germany, Bangladesh, Chad, India, Israel, Libya, Peru, Turkey - all are features country articles and follow this format.

• Germany:Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany, is a country in west-central Europe.

• Bangladesh: Bangladesh, officially the People's Republic of Bangladesh, is a country in South Asia.

• Chad: Chad, officially the Republic of Chad, is a landlocked country in central Africa.

• India: India, officially the Republic of India, is a sovereign nation in South Asia.

• Israel: Israel, officially the State of Israel, is a country in Southwest Asia located on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea.

• Libya: Libya, officially the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, is a country in North Africa.

• Peru: Peru, officially the Republic of Peru, is a country in western South America.

• Turkey: Turkey, known officially as the Republic of Turkey, is a Eurasian country that stretches across the Anatolian peninsula in western Asia and Thrace (Rumelia) in the Balkan region of southeastern Europe.

Now there is a question is "United States of America" is the "offical" name or not. The CIA World Factbook entry states conventional long form is United States of America and conventional short form is United States[13]. On the other hand, Britannica entry clearly states that "United States of America" is the official name[14]. The present title is ok, no need to change title. But the format in the lead should be changed in the above way if the "official" issue is solved, if "United States of America" is confirmed as the official name. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never liked the format of those other articles, featured or not, I much prefer we give the full name first, then shrink if necessary (though it's not necessary in cases like Peru, India, Israel, etc.) It looks much less repetitious and unprofessional. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez. It's best to keep it as it is. Happyme22 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez too. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

USA economy stats

The article states the GDP of the USA is 13 trillion and 19% of the gross world product, this is inconsistent with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29. its only 19% when the gdp is based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) which is something else. Also the national debt in % of GDP rank of the world is stated to be 13th of the world in 2005, maybe an update is required as, acourding to the reference, it is 66 per 2007. Melchior.meter (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the cited CIAFactbook page, the rank is now 65 as of 22 February 2008 66.208.27.179 (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review requested

Hello, everyone. A peer review has been requested for the article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. This is a controversial topic that really needs more outside input, as there are a lot of polarised views there at the moment. Your comments on how best to improve it would be appreciated. John Smith's (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Topographic Map Incorrect

I hate to be picky, but the topographic map of the US (on the left, first photo under geography) looks a bit amateurish and contains a very elementary misspelling. Corpus Christy, Texas should actually be spelled Corpus Christi, Texas. I didn't notice any other misspellings. There are definitely other, better, public domain, higher-res topographic maps out there. This map – in my personal opinion – is rather embarrassing considering this should ideally be one of the more perfect articles in Wikipedia. Such errors (particularly in the case of Corpus Christi) might also temporarily hinder efforts for non-US residents that are attempting to research the US or its cities.

EDIT: Same map, another misspelling... "Pazific Ocean" should actually be spelled "Pacific Ocean."

EDIT: One suggestion might be to use a US Government topographic map like this one from NOAA. I don't think a topographic map necessarily has to have city name overlays if the other maps already have them. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/images/usa-avhrr.gif

Timdlocklear (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Map replaced per your suggestion. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Size query

(Sorry I don't know how to add any of the little codes) I just wanted to inform you that the section involving United States' size in comparison with other nations is false. If one follows the reference provided (#13) and actually READS the stats in said reference, it is clear there as well. The wikipedia article says the USA is third in size behind Russia and China, and just ahead of Canada. That is wrong. Canada is the second largest nation in the world behind Russia. The USA is third, and then comes China. The article should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.230.57 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The information currently presented in the article is correct. You are most likely confused between the relevant rankings for total area and land area.—DCGeist (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the US being ahead of Canada in land area, other than some silly Yahoo table with no references? 76.69.39.83 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Maths? --Golbez (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That "silly Yahoo table" in fact does have a reference, though it would be helpful if it was cited more clearly. The reference is the authoritative World Factbook published by the CIA. While the Factbook has a rank order page for total area, it happens not to include one for land area. Silly ol' Yahoo fills the gap by accurately reproducing the land area data from the individual nation pages in the Factbook.—DCGeist (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

World's oldest surviving federation?

Wouldn't that be Switzerland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.70.16 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the link to frequently asked questions at the top of this page. The link is there for a reason. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too long

Why not make it better and cut it down to like the size of the article of Norway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.203.101 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See the archives. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

America and global culture

Has anyone thought about adding more on America's cultural relationship to global culture? I.e. How it is generally considered the only true "global culture" with aspects of its culture integrating into nearly every culture around the world... Fast food, movies, music, etc., making American culture a near universal indicator of world culture. The article hints on this strongly but doesn't really spell out the "global culture" status. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

references

The whole (quite big) third paragraph of 'Native Americans and European settlers' has zero inline citations. This should maybe be corrected. Randomblue (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The request for "correction" implies that an error exists. Per well-established Wikipedia policy, inline citations are required for direct quotations or for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Can you specify such material in the paragraph? If not, please be aware that the notion that every paragraph in every Wikipedia article requires an inline citation or more just for the sake of appearances is based neither in policy nor in common sense. Please familiarize yourself with our policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability.—DCGeist (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Too long, rehash

It's still way too long. It blasts the suggested article length guidelines out the window. Me saving one simply change to the article takes nearly a minute to process. We need to cut a lot of meat out this article and relegate it to subarticles. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston

Jennifer aniston power??? please edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.77.73.78 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's been reverted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

mixed economy?

Hi - I just noticed that the USA is described as a mixed economy. Surely the correct definition should be a market economy. (Perhaps I am just being 'picky' because I teach economics!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you should know that it's a mixed market economy, like all developed countries. Of course, some people call all developed ecoomies, "market economies," but mixed market economy is more precise. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, do you accept that the following is a description of the US economy?

" ..incorporates aspects of more than one economic system. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics."

That is what 'mixed economy' means! Either we have to change the article that defines 'mixed economy', or the USA is not a mixed economy. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your definition is correct but your assertion that the U.S. doesn't fit the criteria is not. The U.S. govt. does own enterprises (Post office & some utilities) and, as in all developed countries, there are certain planned or "socialist" elements in the U.S. economy: a minimum wage, a central bank that controls monetary policy, govt. income redistribution, a universal & mandatory social security system, govt. health insurance for tens of million or poor & elderly citizens, public education, govt. run & owned protection services and infrastrcuture, subsidies given strategically to certain industries, etc... The U.S. is clearly a mixed economy - not a pure market system (there would no public education, no central bank, no minimum wage, no medicare or medicaid, no redistribution of income in such a system). I can only repeat this: all developed countries are mixed - they differ only in the extent to which they adopt planned or "socialist" elements, but all, including the U.S., do incorporate such elements. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BrendelSignature is correct that the U.S. is a mixed economy; that's how it's described in all standard introductory macroeconomics courses in the United States. The federal government is directly involved in providing important services like railroads (Amtrak) and electrical generation (Tennessee Valley Authority). --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So be it, but if the definition of mixed economy is as wide as to cover any economy with elements of 'market' and 'planned', I think you will find that virtually all economies of the world will be 'mixed' - including Cuba which has about a quarter of its workforce employed in the private sector! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point - if everyone is a mixed economy, then clearly the term has no meaning, and we need to be more specific with how these terms are used. --Golbez (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Briefly superpower?

The lead currently states: "The United States emerged from the Cold War to become, at least briefly, the only superpower in the post–Cold War era and the dominant economic, political, and cultural force in the world."

What is "at least briefly" supposed to mean? From the debate a few threads above, it is clear that the US is widely regarded as the world's only remaining superpower,[15][16][17] and although Russia and China are both powerful, Russia still has problems and China's military, although large, is weaker than the US's and ill equipped, plus there are numerous human rights abuses in the country. Therefore, what does "at least briefly" mean? --Happyme22 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"at least briefly" is intentionally vague and could mean any length of time. For every reference that the US remains the only superpower there are at least as many others that claim that there are no longer any superpowers or that the EU or even China have already attained the influence due a superpower. "at least briefly" does not preclude the view that the US remains the only superpower.Zebulin (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything aside, I think that the page reads much better now. Thank you very much for changing it! Happyme22 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I agree. Semantic near-nullities like "up to five dollars or more" and "at least briefly" set my teeth on edge. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems a little "Crystal Ball-ish." 198.109.26.19 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TOO Much U.S. Not Enough U.S.A.

Ok well if the anti-americans dont want it to be called america why not just use the full united states of america or U.S.A. if we are gonna use U.S. for the short we mind as well use america for the short which we all know people throughout the world use to describe us ChesterTheWorm (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. 'America' is longer than U.S. - I'd prefer to stick with U.S. On a more serious point, people used to know the USSR as 'Russia', and still today refer to the UK as Britain. Wikipedia should attempt to use accurate terms at all times. I would have thought 'U.S.' was accurate and specific. (I can't think of any other country known as 'the United States'.) Please explain why you don't seem to like the term. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being ludicrous. Saying "US" is in no way "Anti-American". It's usage is probably even more common than USA. Sometimes, conservatives get ridiculously PC.72.147.217.63 (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now just a minute, how can you say that conservatives are the ones who are "ridiculously PC"!? We're not the ones who demand legislation be passed so that everything can be culturaly sensitive so that we don't offend anyone! Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, lets keep politics out of this; this is an encyclopedia [[69.22.71.123 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Parties And Elections

The current Republican president, George W. Bush, is the 43rd person to hold the office. That statement is incorrect, he is the 42nd personto hold that position. Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president. We've had 43 Presidents, but only 42 people.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayersdelano (talk • contribs) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo

USA has accepted Kosovo independence. Could you please change the map of USA, including the independent Kosovo? Bardhylius (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean "add a line on the map", and not "add it to the United States". That'll be done eventually, don't worry. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the question is 'when does Wikipedia recognise Kosovo' - do we not have to wait for the UN to recognise Kosovo first? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not, since the UN doesn't recognize Taiwan (then again, that's not a big issue with drawing lines on maps). I agree, though, that we can't go around having individual maps for each country's recognitions, that would be impossible to maintain. There will be a certain time when the overwhelming consensus is either that Kosovo exists, or Kosovo does not exist. We have accepted that with Israel - even though a large number of countries do not recognize it, all of our maps contain it. --Golbez (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue, and I'm not 100% sure how I feel about things. On the one hand, the UN speaks for the international community and I am inclined to believe that Wikipedia should recognise as an independent country only that which the UN recognises. On the other hand, the use of the veto power sometimes means that the UN is not able to represent the actual view of the international community. (By the way, Israel joined the UN in 1949 so it doesn't matter if some countries won't recognise it - Wikipedia should, and does.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the relevant article's discussion page, and that is not this page. JonathanFreed (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

USA has not only accepted but involved itself in the initiating process that has accomplished Kosovo independence, so I think that it is worth being here at least for this reason. Please look more into other major international recognition that Kosovo has received as an independent state from Serbia. The case is similar to Taiwan so the map should include a separated Kosovo from Serbia. If it is necessary, I can provide the map, I just thought that it would be reasonable for users who contribute more to this article to change it. Bardhylius (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture posted under the "Food" section

Okay, I know that at some point, most Americans have had apple pie, pledged allegiance to the flag, and played or watched baseball, but isn't that picture a bit overdone? And what about Americans who don't like apple pie that much, or baseball, or they dislike the design of the flag for some reason?

I mean, yeah... :/ Those *are* cultural icons, but they also seem as if they're, oh, I don't know... a bit cliche?

I mean, imagine if you were not American and you were reading this page on the United States, and then you came to a picture of an apple pie and a baseball bat sitting nicely on an American flag. It's almost humorous in its innocent absurdity, its subtle stereotyping.

Imagine if you were reading an article on Japan and you came across the sub-section for food and it showed a picture of Pocky and sushi sitting nicely over the Rising Sun design. Or imagine seeing a page for Russian food which showed a liter of vodka and a plate of blini and borscht sitting on top of the red, white, and blue barred flag. It would be stereotypical and dare I say insulting.

Not that I am insulted by the nature of the picture on the United States page, it's more like I want to laugh out loud about it. It just seems absurd and silly at the best, and at worst, stereotypical and cliche.

However, I guess if it doesn't get taken down, I can always have a good laugh with people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.93.253 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FAR listing

I am self nominating this to FAR.Sumanch (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no. It's not a Featured Article, so it's not eligible for Featured Article Review. Wasted effort, my friend.—DCGeist (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ambiguous religion statistics

"76.5% of American adults identified themselves as Christian [...] Protestant denominations accounted for 52%, while Roman Catholics, at 24.5%..." - This is ambiguous. Are Protestants 52% of the total population, or 52% of the Christian population? I'm pretty sure it's the former, but this should be cleared up. --24.58.3.248 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.—DCGeist (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity  ??!!

White 73.9%, African American 12.4%, Asian 4.4%, Native American and Alaskan Native 0.8%, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.1%, Other 8.3%, Hispanic or Latino 14.8 - all this numbers makes 114,7%...I don't know, but maybe smth is wrong with it - don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letonic (talk • contribs) 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Um...relax friend...the table states very clearly that Hispanics/Latinos may be of any race. "Nth" is wrong with it.—DCGeist (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

US and USA versus U.S. and U.S.A.

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style:

In American English, both US and, decreasingly, U.S. are common abbreviations for United States; US is yet more common in other varieties. When referring to the country in a longer abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned along with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US or U.S. can be too informal, and many editors avoid it especially at first mention of the country (France and the United States, not France and the US). When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.). The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. USA and U.S.A. are not used unless quoted or part of a proper name (Team USA).

thanks for your attention, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style was factually incorrect. The form with periods—U.S.—remains the most common in American English, and is recognized as standard by most major publishing houses and journalistic organs. The Manual of Style has been edited to reflect this fact.—DCGeist (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I accept this, but surely the three-letter USA is correct, and not U.S.A.? As per the above passage even after your edit? (If you haven't checked me out yet, I'm actually posting from Great Britain :) ) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Either form is perfectly correct. As the usage is relatively uncommon compared to U.S., I didn't feel it necessary to further emend the MOS, but I'm happy to do so in order to stave off additional controversy.—DCGeist (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno who edited the Manual of Style to say that but the MoS is somewhat incorrect. U.S. continues to be commonly used. I think the main reason is that all American lawyers (myself included) are trained in Bluebook citation style, which prescribes U.S. Since lawyers are so prominent in American culture (as media figures in themselves, and as journalists, politicians, judges, writers, executives, professors, bureaucrats, etc.), the lawyer-driven usage of U.S. is still very prevalent, especially in government documents and major newspapers and magazines. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

US History

Should the sections be changed based on time periods? For example, right now little of what is in the section titled superpower is about the US being a superpower. Rds865 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC) But America is a superpower & the only superpower around ChesterTheWorm (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Please archive some of this page please. It is 166 kilobytes long.AlexNebraska (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

President Capitalized

I have begun capitalizing "President" throughout the article, b/c when spoken about in the context of the U.S. government, it is a title, not a mere position. The same goes for "Senator" and "Representative." -- Jophus00 (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, please respect the long-standing and proper style of the article. The word "president" is capitalized only when it is used grammatically as a title, i.e., preceding the name of the office holder (President Bush, but George Bush was elected president). This is the style preferred by the authoritative Chicago Manual of Style and by almost every major publishing house and journalistic organ in the United States. Read The New York Times or Washington Post, if you're in any doubt. Look, here's a Times article published today. Note the following: "the first woman to be a serious contender for president." And here's a Post article. Note the following: "Some senior Clinton advisers accept the former president's political logic." Some people mistakenly believe that the rule changes if the reference is specifically to the current office holder, but no, the same rule applies. See, for instance, this Times article published yesterday. Note the following: "Despite his obvious delight at being invited to Mr. Bush’s ranch, Mr. Rasmussen wanted the president to reciprocate his loyalty." Here's an article from USA Today. Note the following: "Last year, Congress and the president tangled over the domestic spending bills, ultimately approving 11 of them in one massive measure signed by Bush the day after Christmas." Please, cease and desist. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that now. I have always capitalized titles, but after my own research, I see it now. Thank you for explaining it, and not merely "undoing" it. I really do appreciate the explanation. This is a learning curve for me, so I also appreciate your patience.

Date of formation of the United States?

The editors of the United States article have settled on 1776 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the 'Date of statehood' of the United States was actually 1787 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The other one includes both. The text should make it clear what all the different dates mean. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Different things happened on different dates, as this article does make clear--not once but twice: both in the lede and the main text. And not every fact demands an inline citation. Per WP:VERIFY, direct references are required for quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged (failure to read the article sensibly, of course, does not constitute a substantive challenge). Financial and other specific data should also be directly cited. For those partying too hard to sit down and read the whole policy page, there's a li'l "This page in a nutshell" box up top that summarizes the basic policy.—DCGeist (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Superpower section misnamed?

I notice that the content of this section seemingly has nothing whatever to do with its title. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

To much boasting and arrongance in the intro paragraphs. I would like to see a more humble approach, such as culture, or maybe it's University structure. thank you Dwilso (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What you call "boasting and arrogance" appear to be important and well-established facts. And while I'm stumped as to what "a more humble approach, such as culture" means exactly, it sounds like you'd prefer to downplay facts you're unhappy with. That's not how an encyclopedia works.—DCGeist (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I apoligize, I don't want to downplay anything, it's just that the article is garbled a little bit, anythanks Dwilso (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Garbled? What's your definition of garbled? I do admit this article needs some work, but this is an encyclopedia article! 208.126.51.37 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbus arrival

The sentence "European explorer Christopher Columbus arrived at Puerto Rico on November 19, 1493, making first contact with the Native Americans" is incorrect. Columbus arrived first in Hispaniola (today Haiti and the Dominican Republic), which also had natives (Tainos). Why would Puerto Rican natives be considered the first Native Americans he contacted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvicente75 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Section edited.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

United States is

The source cited does not say, as our article did before I changed it, that the usage began in the early twentieth century; it says that the first study of actual usage, by John W. Foster, was conducted in 1902, a quite different assertion. Foster indeed concluded that usage had not changed magically in 1865, which makes sense; but our source (Zimmer) quotes him as saying; The result of my examination is that, while the earlier practice in referring to the "United States" usually followed the formula of the Constitution, our public men of the highest authority gave their countenance, by occasional use, to the singular verb and pronoun; that since the civil war the tendency has been toward such use; and that to-day among public and professional men it has become the prevailing practice.

It was occasional before the Civil War; it tended to be used more and more after it, and it was established educated use by 1902. I suggest "commonly" as accurately summarizing the whole body of usage over the last century and a half. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Understanding how language works

Editor Miyokan has recently made a couple of efforts to eliminate the description of the United States economy as postindustrial on the basis that "no reliable service sector cutoff percentage classification to determine which nation is or isn't a postindustrial economy/society." This is an entirely insensible rationale.

Like most terms of characterization, "postindustrial" does not rely on some mathematical "cutoff percentage classification." By Miyokan's logic, we should not characterize the United States as a democracy, because there is no reliable voter participation cutoff percentage classification for the term. Nor should we characterize the nation as diverse, because there is no reliable standard deviation from homogeneity cutoff percentage classification for the term. Nor should we characterize the nation as capitalist, because there is no reliable private ownership of means of production cutoff percentage classification for the term. A modest proposal: We should abandon writing the article in English or any verbal language at all, and present a pure gallery of statistics.—DCGeist (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

horrible grammar

Starting with the first sentence: "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district."

how about "comprised of"? Look up the word "comprise" in a legitimate dictionary. Why can't us common folk edit this junk?

A valid complaint, though less whining and insulting please. It's semiprotected for a reason. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, it's an invalid complaint. The grammar is perfectly correct. It is the anon who, instead of demanding that we all turn to a dictionary, needs to do just that him- or herself. Here's a "legitimate dictionary"—the latest edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the reference dictionary of virtually every major publishing house in the United States. Here is the relevant definition: "comprise": "to be made up of." And here, as fortune would have it, is the example given: "a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings"—Jane Jacobs. Jane, as it happens, was a powerful advocate for projects, such as Wikipedia, that value and encourage popular participation. The article has, in fact, been written by common folk and—as the evidence demonstrates—it is very far from junk.—DCGeist (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NYC Image

The existing image of New York City, Image:NYC wideangle south from Top of the Rock.jpg, was recently replaced with Image:Panorama clip3.jpg, a change I reverted. I did so for two basic reasons:

1. The existing image contains a familiar landmark, the Empire State Building, at its center. While it is, of course, not the clearest representation of the skyscraper, its silhouette is widely recognized and serves as an immediate signifier of New York City.
2. I believe the existing image better conveys the geographical breadth of the New York metro area's dense development. The substituted shot also does this well, but the existing image I think does it a bit better.—DCGeist (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Track & Field

There's no mention of Track & Field in the sports section, and that is a major sport in the U.S. especially the Olympics. It should be mentioned especially since it's popularity has grown.Mcelite (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

What The...?

I was looking at the article of the USA, and it said that the states' leading cash crop was marajuana. What the heck! Is this spam or something?

As far as I know that's true.. not sure why you'd be suprised given it can sell for 10$ a gram Somatosis (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Basketball

Is the ethnicity of a sport defined by where it was first played or by who invented it? Baskeball was invented by a Canadian, James Naismith, who happened to be working in the States at the time. The sport was played and developed in both the US and Canada, so it's not an exclusively American invention. Dallan007 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The first flight was done in North Carolina by Ohioans. Both states claim ownership of being the first in flight. (Ohio claims "birthplace of aviation"). Basketball is just another instance of this, I'd say. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Economy

The lead needs to be edited. As of March 17th the US became the worlds second largest economy. When the Euro hit $US1.56, the EU officially became the largest economy in the world. Wayne (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a national economy? --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

According to some measurements the EU has actually had a larger GDP than the U.S. for a couple of years now. But as Golbez pointed out, the EU, though included in the CIA factbook and the such along w/ other countries, is not ranked as it is not a country. Thus, the U.S. retains bragging rights to the world's largest national economy :). Regards, Signature^brendel 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hollywood sign

The word sign in the phrase "Hollywood sign" has been properly lowercased in the article for a long time; after attempts to incorrectly render it as "Hollywood Sign," the proper orthography has been restored.

In general, the specific wording of signs is capitalized like a title ("there was a No Smoking sign"), but the word sign is not, just as, say, the word flag is not in the phrase "American flag." See The Chicago Manual of Style/"Names and Terms" for more. For confirmation from a leading source, see the results of a simple search on the string "the Hollywood sign" in The New York Times. Every single instance shows sign lowercased (yes, the results are identical if the search string is "The Hollywood Sign"—without exception the Times lowercases sign). Examinations of recent article from The Washington Post/Associated Press and USA Today show exactly the same thing—sign is lowercased.—DCGeist (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a simple google search shows that "Hollywood Sign" (sic) is quite common. (The Times has its own amusing biases, with which most readers are familiar). Tedickey (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The familiar "amusing biases" of the Times are those of ideology, not orthography--it is recognized as one of the touchstones of contemporary American English style. I have also adduced evidence from two other leading sources for the proper orthography of "Hollywood sign." As for the value in this matter of a Google search--most readers are familiar with the wealth of errors and incompetent writing accessible thereby.—DCGeist (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way - when you say to 'see the talk page', it's sort of expected that the content is there before you refer to it Tedickey (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So true!—DCGeist (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Second sentence revision?

"The country is situated mostly..." neglects the fact that the United States isn't a unified unit of land. "Most of the country is situated" allows for the possibility that there are nonbordering units. I also highly doubt that someone would dispute whether the continental states are exactly in central North America. - Somatosis (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no difference in meaning between the two locutions. The former is preferred simply to prioritize the phrase "The country"--a few editors felt some time back that the phrase needed to be in the first sentence. While the consensus was that this was unnecessary, it was agreed that the second sentence should begin with it.—DCGeist (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States of America does not "lie", we are active and currently presiding over the territory between the Pacific and Atlantic.! [[Lisazipper (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)]]

Preside isn't being used in the proper context - Preside means to exercise control and authority, or hold such a position. We are merely talking about geographical location, hence lie is the word of choice here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in the Infobox?

Many people think adding this to the infobox is of no importance, although i see adding that in the 2000 census,european Americans make up 60.7% of the US population. Although an undercount. African American are 12.4% etc.. I think it needs ot be added since ive seens this added to many other countries on wikipedia and have no idea as to why someone would not think this is important to the Statisitics on the infobox.Britannic1 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a strange figure, though, since it's 60% "European" and then another 12% German, etc.? Also, it's way too much information, without any context at all (considering the Census Bureau's weird figures - how do you handle Hispanics in an infobox?) for the infobox. --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, int the official 2000 census, the 60.7% includes the 15.2% German, 10.8% Irish, 8.7% English-americans or British Americans combinied which is about 13% of pop...I think that putting the "average american" with the 3 largest ethnic groups and maybe 2 more like Italians at 5.6%, should be added in..look at the United Kingdom they have done it fairly well.which is ok. for example it could be like this:

15.2% German,
13% British (incl:English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, Welsh)
10.8% Irish
12.3% West African
12.5% Hispanic (of any race)

i agree it cant be very big at all, so the Hispanic population will just have to be included together at about 12% i think, because i know that about 16 million hispanics are mainly of european ancestry primarly spanish, but this isnt at all clear enough to be put in this yet... 81.151.199.231 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom example isn't really comparable—the equivalent of all of what has been suggested we list here as German, British, and Irish and some of Hispanic is subsumed there under "White Other."

The real problem is this—the percentage figures for different white ethnic groups in the U.S. are no longer very reliable. More and more respondents simply describe themselves as "American", without identifying an ethnic background. Yes, we can be pretty sure there are more people of German ancestry than Irish or English (as we make clear in our Demographics section), but those percentages of 15.2% and 13% aren't too meaningful in the absence of the sort of detailed analysis that's not appropriate for this overview article (and, anyway, "British" is a lot of things, but an ethnicity it ain't). I think it's best that we continue to rely on the figures in our Race/Ethnicity box in the Demographics section.—DCGeist (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Template location

{{editprotected}}

Please move the "Major topics in the United States" template to the bottom of the article, above all the other templates there where it can be found. This article in particular is so horrendously long (167,000 bytes) that it is particularly important to locate templates in the proper location where they can be found. This is not a "see also" list, it is a nav template, and belongs at the bottom of the article. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What factors contribute to whether the US or China is the third largest country by total area?

I made a change to the article stating that the dispositive factor was the size of the US, as the CIA World factbook number for the US is larger than any area for China (regardless of China's territorial disputes) and the Encyclopedia Britannica number for the the US is smaller than any area for China (also regardless of China's territorial disputes). The article now reads that both China's territorial disputes and the different ways of accounting for the US size are reasons for the dispute. I am just wondering what the argument is for the inclusion of China's territorial disputes in an article about the US where the outcome of the disputes is irrelevent to the subject? Of course, perhaps I am mistaken and China's disputes do matter, but if that is the case can someone please explain to me how they matter? Thanks in advance. LedRush (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Another evidence for China is that Japan was historically considered as a territory of China. China therefore has much larger area than the United States and ranked the 3rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.54.167 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Japan was never, ever, in history, at all considered a part of China. And if it did - which would have been over a millennium ago, if it happened, which it didn't - that would have no bearing on the present day. --Golbez (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The China/India territorial disputes do matter to the ranking if the reference for the size of the United States is the UN Statistics Division's figure, which I've just added to the article. Those interested can turn to List of countries and outlying territories by total area for all the relevant details.—DCGeist (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed your addition and was just typing your answer at the same time you were. Now I have a new question: why do the estimates for the US vary so widely while the China ones are largely the same (assuming either side of the territorial dispute)?LedRush (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for bringing in this significant data disparity to the article in the first place. I'd noticed it just a few days ago while researching something else, and have yet to determine exactly what the source of the different calculations is. My guess at the moment: different definitions of territorial waters.—DCGeist (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008

Isn't it just the inclusion of enclosed water surface? From the CIA factbook in km²:

country	land area	total area
China	9 326 410	9 596 960
U.S.A.	9 161 923	9 826 630

So China's land is bigger, but adding in lakes and rivers, the U.S.A. is bigger. −Woodstone (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Woodstone, the difference is more problematic than that. In calculating total area (land and water) China is always bigger than the US if we use Encyclopedia Britannica numbers, the US is always bigger than China if we use CIA Factbook numbers, and if we use UN numbers, which country is larger is determined based on your view of China's territorial disputes. The article now succintly addresses this problem, but I wonder why the calculations for China don't vary nearly as widely as those for the US (some 300,000 km2 difference between the CIA Factbook and Britannica numbers). DCGeist suspects territorial water definitions, and that could be correct.LedRush (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't we change the land area and world ranking (based on total area) in the info box on the right?LedRush (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox, like the second paragraph of the article's summary lead section, uses the CIA World Factbook figure, which I think is appropriate as it passes for the country's official calculation of its own size. My inclination would be to add a sentence to the existing infobox note when we determine the basis for the varying numbers. Something like "Sources provide varying calculations of U.S. size based on different definitions of territorial waters"--or whatever the case may be.—DCGeist (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair, but the infobox indicates that the US is the 3rd largest country. While true if we assume the validity of the CIA Factbook number, I would think that some sort of explanation is warranted. What do you think of keeping the CIA Factbook number, adding the explanation you suggested, and changing the "3rd" to "3rd/4th disputed" like the infobox for China does? (on that note, China includes both numbers in its info box and the template seems to work ok)LedRush (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox edited per your suggestion. Will add explanation of number variance if and when we can establish what it is.—DCGeist (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

singular v plural

Regarding the etymology section paragraph on treatment of "the United States" as singular, there appears to be some hearsay creeping in that is not supported by the given ref. The ref is an essay by Benjamin Zimmer, a linguist at the University of Pennsylvania, that examines the story that the Civil War marked a definitive break in the usage as a plural to that of singular. This story, which began as early as 1887, is widely known due to it being repeated by renowned Civil War historian Shelby Foote. Zimmer tracks back actual usage and arguments over the story and finds research done by John W. Foster, Secretary of State under the Harrison administration, in 1901, which states,

The result of my examination is that, while the earlier practice in referring to the "United States" usually followed the formula of the Constitution, our public men of the highest authority gave their countenance, by occasional use, to the singular verb and pronoun; that since the civil war the tendency has been toward such use; and that to-day among public and professional men it has become the prevailing practice.

This is a far cry from the strong version of of Foote and others that there was a definite break after the war. Further the addendum "and there was discomfort with the plural before that" is unsupported by the Zimmer article. I have a feeling that editors who saw Foote repeat the strong version of the theory in Ken Burns' The Civil War documentary will occasionally drop by to repeat the strong version, so it's worth keeping an eye on it. - BanyanTree 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

name

does america come from amerigo? according to QI, it doesn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.120.253 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So what does QI say? --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno what "QI" might be, but see the Amerigo Vespucci and Martin Waldseemüller articles. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an alternate theory that the Americas were named after a Welshman, Richard Ameryk. There is a book called 'The General Book of Ignorance' that gives some compelling arguments, but I'm not an expert. Kman543210 (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not in fact, an alternate theory, but actually correct. I will try to find a citation for this as soon as possible. Forelle (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

New infobox

Hello, there are proposals for a new coloured infobox at.... Talk:Wales! I would appreciate your input there. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish opposition to World War I?

I'm curious about the actual quote from source #35 , Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty (1991). The Reader's Companion to American History. New York: Houghton Mifflin, p. 576. , which claims that there was strong Irish-American appeal towards neutrality in WW1? Many Irish volunteered to fight including the 69th regiment, and I'm just wondering how concrete the line from the article is.24.105.236.66 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lede paragraph

Why does this Article claim that America is the "only" superpower. Give me a break buddy, Please tone down the rhetoric of this article. Thank you! Viper55 (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FAQs

• If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, rename "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
  • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy-cat each other.

This just contradicts itself. If exceptions are allowed, US can be USA but UK still UK and not UKGBNI. In my point US is globally biased and strongly US-peoples-only pushed term and is not a "worldwide" representing name (which it should be). Thats just my two cents.--Kozuch (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The main point of that is to counter people who say "it's the official name". That can't be a good argument, since very few of our country articles are at their official names. Yes, there can be exceptions, but such a reasoning doesn't allow for exceptions. What is biased about the name "United States"? --Golbez (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"What is biased about the name "United States"?" > From my point of view US is not an INTERNATIONAL term.--Kozuch (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Is "Mexico" an international term? "United Kingdom"? Please explain what you mean. --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Kozuch, the two lines you quoted are the argument and counter-argument, so that's why they contradict each other. That being said, I totally agree with you. The article should be "United States of America" because people from there are called "Americans", not "United Stateians" or something, and there are lots of other "United States" too. Also, if you tell someone you're from "America" it's pretty clear you mean "the United States of America". The country is often referred to simply as "America" as well (though technically it's just part of North America) and there hardly any confusion about what country is meant. Oddly, I don't see most those arguments mentioned in the FAQ. So, I too would like to see "of America" added to the main title. -- HiEv 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

People from the UK are referred to as "British"; would you suggest renaming that article to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Also you are incorrect, there are not 'lots of other United States'; the only one presently existing is this one, the others are either past-tense or with different names. --Golbez (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The first argument you make is a straw man, since I have proposed no such thing. As for your second argument, Wikipedia includes information on many historical and fictional places, so the number of currently existing places is irrelevant. There are, in Wikipedia, many other "United States" listings, as seen in the disambiguation page. Adding "of America" makes it perfectly clear which one you're referring to. -- HiEv 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"The article should be "United States of America" because people from there are called "Americans"" Either you think this rule should only apply to a single article or it should apply to the other was well. If you think the former, what makes this article special? --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rules, schmules. If you want to make some sort of rule, that's up to you, but I'm not trying to create a rule here. I'm simply giving my reasons why this article title should be changed. I'm sure there other article titles that should be changed, but I'm not concerned with them at the moment. -- HiEv 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What does the sign say at the United Nations building? Thats right, it says United States... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.250.74 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "sign" you're talking about, but the UN's website listing of member states clearly says "United States of America". The argument is irrelevant anyways, since a sign or web page at the UN should not influence us here at Wikipedia. -- HiEv 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

HiEv, please review all the Talk archives for this article thoroughly before you end up looking ignorant or like a schmuck. If you can come up with novel and new reasons, feel free to do so; otherwise, please do not waste everyone's time having to point out all the Texas-sized holes in your arguments. If you persist, you may be engaging in trolling (see WP:TROLL) or even worse, attempting to insert original research in violation of official policy WP:NOR. I see that you have been editing since 27 November 2006, so you should be aware of Wikipedia policies by now. Trust me, every argument that you can possibly raise in support of your position has been raised and refuted at length, two or three or four times over, during the past four years. This is a closed issue.

Also, your impudence on the rules issue is appalling. You should be aware by now that consistency is a huge problem on Wikipedia. Otherwise we end up with massively incoherent pigpens of overlapping, underlapping, repetitive, or mutually contradictory content which no one has the time, energy, or inclination to fix. For example, there is a huge mess over in Freeway v. Motorway v. Autoroute v. Expressway, another mess in Law school v. Law school in the United States v. Legal education in the United States v. Juris Doctor, and another mess in Administrative law v. American administrative law v. Administrative Procedure Act. I have repeatedly pointed out the situation with all three messes but as a working attorney with professional and social obligations and the like, I don't have the 50 hours of sustained concentration to spare to clean up just one of them. Get the picture? If you start attacking the common name policy on Wikipedia (which you are doing, whether you know it or not), you are going to open up a huge can of worms. The consensus in the past has been to stick with the common name policy and no one wants to go there again right now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. You say I'm beginning to look "ignorant or like a schmuck", I'm being impudent, and you accuse me of "trolling", when I'm simply voicing my opinions on this issue and the reasons for them, and you have the nerve to accuse me of violating policy? I recommend you take a good look at WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:CIVIL yourself.

Putting that aside, you say, "This is a closed issue." But in fact, it is not. The renaming debates in the archive show that the result was not "keep", but repeatedly "no consensus". That says to me that it is still up for debate. Expecting me to "review all the Talk archives for this article thoroughly" (your emphasis) is absurd in the extreme, especially considering that there are currently 30 pages of talk archives, much of which has nothing to do with the title of the article. Asking me to read the FAQ and/or Talk:United_States/Name would have been far more reasonable. Obviously I have already read the FAQ, and that is why I expressed some concerns that some arguments I could come up with off the top of my head were missing there. Whether they are "novel" or "new" is irrelevant to that point. Also, that was not me "attempting to insert original research" either, as this was a comment meant for a talk page, not an article. Go read WP:NOR yourself and you'll see it is meant to be applied to articles. As such your accusation of me attempting to violate that policy is absurd in the extreme. The TalkUSName page also supports the fact that this is not a "closed issue."

And finally, regarding my supposed "impudence on the rules issue", my point was merely that I was only interested in fixing what I see as an error on this page. While I agree that there should be more consistency in Wikipedia, I don't have the time, energy, or interest in working on some generic rule for all article titles of this type. That was all I was trying to say. I should not have to create a whole new rule in order to suggest that things might need to be fixed here, right? Thus I am not "attacking the common name policy" and your reliance on the "consensus in the past" flies in the face of the fact that there has been no consensus. (Making it all the more ironic that you accuse me of not knowing the history here.)

So, please, take your pointless name calling and accusations elsewhere. My comments here were made in good faith. Perhaps you were simply having a bad day when you replied or were taking out other earlier frustrations on me, but I do not believe my comments deserved that kind of rebuke. -- HiEv 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)