Talk:United States
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 | United States has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on . |
Article length
I was charting the growth of the article over the last couple of weeks using User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js and thought I'd share the results:
Current http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_States&curid=3434750&oldid=141$ (150k)
- Prose size (text only): 63 kB (9992 words)
From the end of the most recent FAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_States&oldid=139239542 (133k)
- Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9110 words)
From the start of the FAC process: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_States&oldid=135527718 (114k)
- Prose size (text only): 48 kB (7779 words)
It's worth noting that there are a fair number of template:main articles linked here that require a fair bit of cleanup or that don't contain many of the points that are new to this article. The pre-FAC/mid-May suggestion that the article be broken up isn't viable, as those articles do already exist. That said, it might help us try to get back to a more effective article length to go through and take the scissors to the article, carefully cutting few dozen sentences after moving their key points and references to the main articles. MrZaiustalk 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Spanish will become the main language of the US in fifty years time
According to one of the sources used in the Spanish language article it will. Looks like POV to me.
- It's plausible. But please use a reputable source that is easier to identify. Signaturebrendel 02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. It's the Spanish language page editors that don't.
It's not so pov, it's a reality. --Tones benefit 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think a prediction of the future can be considered reality. --Golbez 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- We can't really predict this. Also, America is a big place. Spanish may be the most commonly-used language in the states bordering Mexico, and they may very well eventually constitute the majority of Americans, but that doesn't by any means that Spanish will be the main language in the U.S., there will still be many parts of America where the majority still speak English, and their congressional appointments will speak English. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe)
- Have a read of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unless we have a 100% reliable source that guarantees its going to happen, it's either OR, POV, or violation of NOT. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
United States of America
Why is it that the name "United States of America" is still in existence. Is there a continent called "America" ? There's two domiant ones called North and South, the other one which is Central. So shouldn't THE United States of America be called THE United States of North America
THE United Kingdom of Great Briain is actually known as THE United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Icedevil14 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
Oh and on another topic, I was pondering over how all these countries in our world were formed. Like who decided this portion is your country, this is yours, etc. I know it may be a silly question but I have to ask! I have a werid feeling it's the britsh.
- Depends on what part of the world you're talking about. Africa was divvied up in Berlin in 1885, the Middle East after WWI, North America through various treaties, wars, annexations and purchases (mostly by the U.S.), South America was divided into Portuguese and Spanish sections by the pope and the Spanish sections became separate nations through various revolts in the 1800s, the nations of Asia and Europe were formed through various wars and treaties dating back to the beginning of history. I hope that this has been informative! -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 07:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very funny but what does this have to do with the article? Signaturebrendel 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fortunately or unfortunately as it may be, it is not the job of Wikipedia to decide what each country should logically be called, or where their borders should logically lie; it's merely our job to report on what actually is, as illogical as it may sometimes be. *Dan T.* 03:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Icedevil, don't use the talk page as a discussion forum. Also, altering links to point to the United States of North America can be considered vandalism. CloudNine 08:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, if you dont know the answer, just say it. Instead of using all those space for teaching me that this is not a forum. (Icedevil14 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
- No. It's off-topic and a waste of space. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. CloudNine 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I really want to know how they made the name "United States of America"
- Christopher Columbus named what we know now as North America "America" after Amerigo Vespucci. What we know now as Latin America was known as New Spain and what is now Canada was New France and Hudson Bay in 1776. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, we were 13 colonies with no distinct thing between us other than we spoke english and occupied territory that was once called "America". When the States in this area Columbus once called America Unified, well, the choice is obvious, isn't it? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 07:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I really want to know how they made the name "United States of America"
- No. It's off-topic and a waste of space. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. CloudNine 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, if you dont know the answer, just say it. Instead of using all those space for teaching me that this is not a forum. (Icedevil14 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
if u had a brain u would know that Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. Thats why northern ireland is added. Where as the United Kingdom is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I consider my self english not British because im not Welsh, Sottish or Irish. The same applies to your 'The United State of North Amierica' - I dont think the canadians will want to be reffered to as Americans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.210.249 (talk • contribs) 19:25, Jul 6, 2007 (UTC).
- Why do you think Canadians wont like being referred to as Americans?
Thoughts and suggestions
I came here mostly to look at the coverage of culture, but I read through the entire article and was very impressed. I also looked through the recent edit history to get a sense of what's been going on. I have to say, I find it very odd, this resistance against coverage of America's major current war. I've restored the essential data about how much it has cost and how many Americans have given their lives to it--this seems to me very basic information that the average reader would hope and expect to find in this article. Of course there are all sorts of minute details that belong in the specific article on the war and not here, but to claim that these fundamental data points about one of the most important actions of the country at present are in some way not "relevant" is just stupid, and, I suspect, ideologically motivated.
A few other things I think need to be covered:
- I see someone, perhaps rather awkwardly, tried to address Andrew Johnson's impeachment. That effort was reverted, I guess understandably. But really, shouldn't both Johnson's impeachment and Clinton's be mentioned? The unprecedented peacetime economic expansion of the Clinton years also belongs here--couldn't all of Clinton be done in a single sentence?
- It just seems weird that you can read this whole article and not learn what the country's leading industry is. Is there no source for what three or five industries recorded the greatest income or profits in the most recent year?
- Agriculture? I'm not sure exactly where this would go, but the U.S. is one of--if not the--greatest agricultrual powers in the world. What are the leading crops/animals? How dominant is the country?
- Philosophy. Very important. The transcendentalism of Emerson. The pragmatism of James and Dewey. The U.S. has made major contributions to the philosophical discipline. This can't be left out.
Alright, I'll dismount from my high horse. I'm happy to discuss/debate any and all of these matters. Just don't say that an accounting of the U.S. citizens who are currently dying in the U.S.'s war doesn't belong in the U.S. article.--DocKino 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since we have several extensive articles on the war, I don't see why any more than a howdy-do and a link to the article on the war is required. It's not very basic information for an article on the country. War, yes, country, no. --Golbez 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there are several extensive articles on many of the topics covered in the country article--it's hard to understand what point you think you're making here. The number of people who have died in a very recent or ongoing war isn't just basic information about a country, it's crucial.
- Another thought on culture--Music: Elvis is inarguable, but I'm not sure about the empahsis on celebrities (Michael Jackson, Madonna) rather than on true popular musical innovators like Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan, and James Brown.--DocKino 15:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed on the Iraq war data point. The other argument offered for cutting it--"We don't mention the costs of any of the other wars, nor should we"--is equally nonsensical. The "other wars" are not current. We mention many current data points--the population, the distribution of power in the Congress, the military budget, the winner and loser of the most recent presidential elections, and a host of others--without supplying that data for every, or even any, comparable point in the past. I would like to call that "common sense," but, sadly, it doesn't quite seem to be common; let's call it "good sense." Dr. K (are you a secret Dwight Gooden fan?), your other suggestions are all sound, though we are under some pressure not to expand but rather to trim the size of the article (there's a thread on that in the recently archived discussion). Perhaps you'd like to make a counterargument on that. Specifically, I've looked for the kind of industry data you mention online and have been unable to find it. My next trip to the library, I intend to check out the recent almanacs, which generally do carry such data. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 22:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you want current information on the war, by all means, go to the war article. It has no place in the country article. DocKino, you have yet to justify your statement that it is "crucial" information for this article. Would you suggest we include each state's death toll in every state article? Every city's? If not, then why here? --Golbez 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually mentioning the current death toll from our current "military engagement" makes sense. I see your point, Golbez, it makes sense but I would argue that our wars are fought on a national level. Therefore, it makes sense to menion the death toll on the nation's article, but not that of towns, counties or statiods. Dc. K. also has a point in stating that we don't mention the death toll of other wars; so why mention this? Becuase it's current - as Dan said above.
- As for the inclusion of ag data, true the U.S. is an ag-power. But the U.S. is a every-thing-power. Becuase the U.S. has by far the largest pop of any post-indstr. country, it has/is pretty much the largest everything (be it military spending or soy crops). Yet, agriculture is only a tiny component of the current American economy - our present day economy is characterized by the service sector and that is what we should focus in this article. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
US air force jets
i don't believe the source states that the oil fields being flown over by the air force jets in the picture are kuwaiti... they may very well be iraqi, and the kuwaiti reference should probably be replaced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.166.51 (talk)
- True, the source doesn't identify the location of the pictures oil fields. It doesn't mention whether they're in Iraq or Kuwait. Unfortunately I'm not a war-buff and don't know enough about Gulf War I to critique this pic's cap. I do, however, agree that unless the oil fields can be idenified as Kuwaiti they pic cap shouldn't speculate on the oirl fields location. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)