Talk:United States/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions about United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

Economical datas

Usa public debt(considering FNM and FRE as well)/gdp today is about (we must write about because is soaring everiday) is about 150%. The global debt(public +private)/gdp is about 870%. A situation out of control in the opinion of the majority of financial instituions.Why don't you explain this better in Usa site? also yesterday China had to be reassured by Summers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like you have a user name now.Prussian725 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

EU 100%, as I said last time you (or someone with a similar point of view and grasp of English) brought this up, according to this article and this article, US debt is not out of line with other countries as a percentage of GDP. Please stop trying to push your poorly sourced and apparently confused point of view into the article. TastyCakes (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You can check simply the datas in Wikipedia to have these datas or better you can ask in ALL SERIOUS private or public financial international institutions.Us market are sliding not because of my words.Don't be pathetic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And do you have a reliable source showing US debt to be out of line with other first world countries? TastyCakes (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To have an idea EU global debt/gdp is about 140%.EU public debt /gdp is under 100%(about 85%).Many countries write false official numbers.For istance Usa declare the public debt/gdp is under 100% but they don't consider the debt of national societies like FNM and FRE (as well other countries do).If you consider as well FNM and FRE (and other that we can also not mentioning because smaller)the public debt/gdp is about 150% at the moment.You can look for these datas in Wikipedia sites but above all you can check these in ALL public instituions or international private institutions (Ubs,Unicredit,Hsbc,BNP,Deutsche Bank and so on...).The market datas in fact are punishing Usa markets. Maths is against Usa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I made myself clear, do you have a source? TastyCakes (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cakes, I too would like to see some sources.Prussian725 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll set the sources here next days to shut up you.You can check at the moment these datas also in Wikipedia under "The Global Debt".If you know maths you can easily find just now some right numbers.Anyway to shut up i'll set sources.Above all will be markets and history to shut up Usa!Bye.

Ok, I eagerly await your information that will shut up me. TastyCakes (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please share.Prussian725 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like comment offensive like Prussian725.Be aware!I understand your aggressive behaviour behind your words.Kino warned me!Will warn you?I don't think so because i've understand you are all together in a theatre.I haven't any time to lose with you.You can ask directly at the sources i referred for Official Studies. I like facts and not stupid arguing!Market will make you understand the datas that suggest you to ask in these institutions.In EU like all over the world Usa are considered in the final sunset.Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Look I don't mean to be rude here, but I don't even know what you're trying to say half the time. Have you considered contributing to Wikipedia in a language you have a better grip on (Italian perhaps)? Also, perhaps your comments would seem less scrambled if you would sign them by putting ~~~~ after them, and indenting them using :'s at the beginning of the paragraph. Also, do you know how to post a link? You click the "External link" button above the editing box. If you do insist on continuing your argument, please link your relevant evidence in this way. TastyCakes (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If Kino has a problem with what I am saying, I do not think he would hesitate at all to say so. I understand how it feels to have a language barrier, but it doesn't take a native English-speaker to tell that what English you are speaking is nothing but insults and unfounded slander. Please try to be constructive and considerate (believe me I had to as well). Also please cease with the insults and loud-mouthed comments. If you continue in this fashion I guarantee you will be blocked.Prussian725 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you (Prussian725)are aggressive and you 'll have a lot of problems with the Usa falling next times .I understood that you and other people are like in a theatre in this discussion.I read sometimes your opinion about Usa and you are nationalist and you are waiting only to deny my Official Citations.I've no time to lose anymore.So if you want to continue arguing you can do it ,but remember that in EU "the right is given to crazy guys and to the drunks!"GAME OVER.

Since this is rapidly becoming about editors and not about a proposed change to the article, anyone mind me deleting it? SDY (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

But where will he put his economical datas evidence when he rounds it up? ;)
I agree this isn't helping the article but I think it should be archived not deleted. TastyCakes (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, let's close and archive this is going nowhere towards improved article. Arnoutf (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Usa bonds ratings

This week CNN business has reported that some rating houses are lowing the Usa bonds ratings.They reported the position of some businessmen supporting the idea of this lowing because of huge public and private debt in Usa.EU 100% (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of responding to this obviously bias-motivated point, you can find the actual article here http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/23/news/economy/us_aaa/index.htm Pertinent points include, only small ratings houses have considered downgrading the bond ratings, the major ones have not and have given reasons for not downgrading. Furthermore, as also reported in the article, the US has a comparable debt-to-GDP ratio with all other AAA rated nations, mainly found in Western Europe. Remember to tell the whole story next time.24.7.41.15 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right.Anyway with the new EU laws about the ratings houses, next months all Us bonds will have hard downgrades.In fact all high finance knows that Us bonds aren't at all AAA but much lower.Us corporate bonds will have hard downgrades with problems for some Us banks and other societies.This is a problem also for $ because capitals will leave more and more $.All the castle of paper in Usa was based on trust that now is faded.No businessman today consideres at all the ratings of Moody's or S&P.It 's much easier that today are objective small ratings houses.The Usa debt /gdp (considering as well the debts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mec) is about 115%, and not as article says(in EU is about 75%).The Usa global debt /gdp is 862% against the 140% of EU.I wrote this to tell all the truth from A to Z!Thanks.EU 100% (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe all this time on Wikipedia hasn't increased this troll's ability to use the English language. Even simple matters like capatilizing proper nouns and leaving spaces after full stops and commas eludes him. Anyway, WP is not a forum, so this conversation should stop or a constructive edit should be suggested.LedRush (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If no constructive, properly phrased (English language), and verifiably sourced edit is forthcoming within 12 hours, move to archive.—DCGeist (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I set the problem in discussion because CNN business did it.I like CNN business site and i think it's a good source for discussions.You can see in fact one of the CNN articles posted by 27.7.41.15.About the language i can say that american is another language from english above all about speaking.American speaking isn't at all english speaking.Here my friend Anthony from Doncaster (UK) has easily recognized it.EU 100% (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are no discussion fora. They are meant to work on the article. So unless a constructive, properly phrased (English language), and verifiably sourced edit is forthcoming move to archive. Arnoutf (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

People attacked me about english so i answered.We are talking about the downgrade of Usa bonds by small ratings societies published by CNN business. This guy Arnoutf(he follows me in every talking like an obsession..for him!) attacks me all the times.His job is Wikipedia may be!EU 100% (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As the main ratings agencies haven't downgraded US T bills from AAA, this article and your take on it is complete speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if "next months all Us bonds will have hard downgrades" come back then, such a downgrade would likely be suitable for inclusion in the economy section. TastyCakes (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the second guy that is obsessioned by me!He checks and criticizes all my movements in Wikipedia.He promised to face me no more and today he criticizes another time (check my profile to trust!).I hope Wikipedia will stop their crazy actions. The talking is about the many problems that rightly sets CNN business.The downgrade by many small ratings houses of Us bonds is already a reality.EU 100% (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Typo in GDP

There is a typo in the GDP (nominal) total - should be a decimal point rather than a comma. I guess this page is locked - I can't edit. But someone who can edit please fix. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.28.229 (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! Ben Lunsford (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for 'Unlike in all other developed countries, health care in the United States is not universal.'

'health care in the United States is not universal' is explained adequately with sources later in the paragraph. However, is it possible to find a source for the phrase 'Unlike in all other developed countries,'? It feels like a sweeping generalization, and begs definition of a 'developed country'. 173.24.45.109 (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps "all other G8" or "OECD" countries? TastyCakes (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Except I'm not sure if it's true when put like that - does Mexico have universal health care? Does Russia? TastyCakes (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia does, and Mexico has a set plan for implementing one within 2 years. I think it would be accurate to say "unlike most of the developed world." I know we shy away from weasel words like "most," but in this case it seems to be fairly accurate. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with "unlike the other seven countries of the G8". It's very specific and easily shown. Ben Lunsford (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada, all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore all have universal health care (organised in various ways), so it does seem relevant to make a statement that specifies this. Without wanting to start an argument over "developed" or insult anyone, I'm not sure readers would include Mexico under the banner of "developed". So, which developed countries outside the U.S. don't have universal health care? Maybe there is no need for the weasel word "most" because the fact is that "all other" developed countries have universal health care? 216.94.11.2 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico is a developed country, industrialized, with the 12th largest economy in the world. It has a larger economy than Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, countries you list. I'll bet you it produces far more industrial products than Singapore as well. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but size of the economy is clearly not the deciding factor, as shown by India and China, per capita income is and average standard of living is. I would say that while great steps have been taken in recent decades, there are still areas of Mexico that are decidedly "third world" and undeveloped. Industrial production is also mostly not related to the definition, indeed most developed economies rely more on services than their third world counterparts (some, like Luxembourg, almost entirely so). TastyCakes (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all developed, developing and relatively small but prosperous countries, and universal health care is perceived as among the basic human rights in the United Nations. The economics for Japan which is more prosperous than Mexico can offer free health care, but not a communistic economy mainland China falls in, and the South American countries of Chile and Argentina had lower infant mortality rates than the poorest 10 US states. The more social "theocratic" countries of Israel, Kuwait and South Africa have expanded free health care programs, despite the "right-wing Christian capitalist" excuse of never bringing up the topic to pass it to law, develop reasonable resolutions within the constitution or gain support in the then-majority Republican (1995-2007) government. I don't see why only the past few days in June 2009, Obama broke an "American tradition" as a president for announcing vocal support and legislative action to pass a health care reform act, despite the US constitution stated social welfare issues is the matter of the states not federal level. The US is not centralized like France, Britain, Germany and Sweden, all have universal health care "free" of charge, but the bureaucratic policies are said to had created problems for citizens trying to get an appointment not be on a 2-week waiting list. My apologies for the off-topic message, but the important thing is we must keep the article accurate, updated and non-biased on controversial matters such as health care reform. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It implies negativity to it, and should be removed as it violates Wiki's neutrality.

75.179.163.66 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Jade rat

Ah. And no doubt you want us to remove all the facts that "imply positivity to it", as well. Lads and lassies, we've got our work cut out for us!—DCGeist (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

American Ethnicity

this sentence bothered me, "There is no "American" ethnicity; aside from the now small Native American and Native Hawaiian populations". I don't think we can call Native Hawaiians american from an ethnic point of view, at least not the same way we would a Navajo or Cherokee. ethnically they would either be Pacific Islander, Asian, or Polynesian. nobody says the people of Fiji or any other Pacific Island are ethnically "american". Gailim (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But you didn't quote the entire sentence. Here it is: "There is no 'American' ethnicity; aside from the now small Native American and Native Hawaiian populations, nearly all Americans or their ancestors immigrated within the past five centuries." You seem to have mistakenly read the semicolon as a comma. In fact, there's no claim in the sentence that Native Americans and Native Hawaiians are either ethnically similar or plausibly describable as "ethnically American" in the same way. (Indeed, we've already dismissed the notion of "ethnically American".) It simply states the fact that aside from these two native populations (which are each undoubtedly and equally American by citizenship), nearly all Americans or their ancestors immigrated within the past five centuries. (The "nearly all" is mainly there to accommodate those who like to differentiate between the Native American and Alaskan Native populations.) —

ah yes, now that I read it again I see what you are saying. I did misread the semi-colon as a comma. that really does make all the difference. Gailim (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing to change "American ethnicity" to "American race". The definition of ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed. By contrast a race is a group of people who share salient traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification. While it is true that there is no American race, it is not true that there is no American ethnicity. Many of us (regardless of race) have a history that has been intermingled and directly tied to one another for centuries now. And being "American" doesn't cancel out being part of another ethnic group. Some people have multiple ethnicities. Yongbyong38 (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Obama the only presidential photo?

Under the last administration we had no such photo of Bush- so why is Obama privileged to have his own image on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So you'd like a picture of Bush as well? Who else? How about Herbert Hoover, the previous president to preside over the onset of a depression?—DCGeist (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

President Bush had a photo in the article while he was president, as seen here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the wonders of being an online, instantly-updateable encyclopedia -- we can simply keep the picture perpetually current (at least until/if the USA ceases to exist (in its present form)). --Cybercobra (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Update inflation rate

Can someone update the CPI inflation rate from the currently shown 0.0% to the -0.4% that is the new CPI value (and linked in the wp:Economy of the United States article at reference 2)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.131.40 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done! Ben Lunsford (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Event du jour

I realize that the event du jour is homosexual marriage which occupies a considerable amount of space. Where is there room for statistics about heterosexual marriage? Student7 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can think of only one marriage statistic that sticks out: the sky-high divorce rate, higher than in any country in Europe. Ben Lunsford (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was along exactly the same lines. Thanks for the data, Ben.—DCGeist (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured

United States: featured article. When?. Alakasam (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Drives on"

It seems wildly inconsequential to include this in the fact bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bring it up with the Template:Infobox country people. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First President of the United States

The first President of the United States was not George Washington. George Washington was the first President under the Constitution. The first President of the United States was John Hanson under The Articles of Confederation (went into effect on March 1, 1781). He served from November 5, 1781 to November 3, 1782. The Articles of Confederation didn't work too well and broke in 1788.

With that being said, I recommend a sub-section is added about Hanson being the first US President. It would be most appropriate under Government (would be 4.2).

Sources: http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html --Rmhs15 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You would be wrong, but I heard this is a meme going around. George Washington was the first President of the United States, both in title and under the Constitution. The previous officeholders of the similarly-named job of "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" were not chief executives and were closer to a 'speaker of the house'. No subsection beyond explaining the basics of the Articles of Confederation is required. --Golbez (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

caption error

In the United States "topographic" map shown on the left of the article, under geography and environment, the caption says "Topographic map of the contiguous United States". However, if one goes to the picture's file page or even looks at it closely, it is obvious that it is not a topographic map, but a satellite image. Refer to the Topographic Map Article for more information. Just want to see this corrected by an admin. 68.81.16.24 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

when i put R after john roberts that was to indicate that he was appointed by a republican

I think that says a lot. Garynine (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, putting "R" after someones name would indicate their party, not that of the person appointing them. For another, the article FAQ already says why we don't do that for the Chief Justice. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, the supreme court justices aren't supposed to endorse their party, so even though he may have been involved with his party the "R" after his name doesn't fit as it would with a senator. ojay123 (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of View

I have a problem in the opening paragraph as I think that it is unfairly biased.

"The rebellious states defeated Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War, the first successful colonial war of independence."

To many Americans then and now, we were not rebellious. History recalls that we were upholding our self-evident right of self-determination as a people and as an independent nation as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Ask any British person and I am sure they would automatically think that Americans were rebellious. So I think in fact, this sentence is implying that we were the "bad guys" and our cause was wrongful.

It should read...

"The American colonists along with their European allies defeated Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War, the first successful colonial war of independence." --74.33.4.173 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "rebellious": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebellious. "Americans" at that time didn't like their government (order by the King), therefore they were rebelling against the authority (in one way or another). This would make them rebellious. Grammatically, and historically, this word "fits". Another thing is, asking any modern-day Briton "do you think Americans were rebellious during the colonial times" is useless. For one, no-one is currently alive that lvied in that era and therefore, their opinion is worthless. Secondly, every person (no matter country of origin or ethnic race) has a different opinion from someone else.--Rmhs15 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison, "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing." [1] --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly say we were rebellious. Not sure which Americans you've polled on the subject. Rebels are not automatically the bad guys, see Star Wars. :P --Golbez (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I live in Massachusetts, where some of us take this stuff pretty seriously. The Minutemen march past my house on the way to Concord every year. You know what? The romantic picture is of rebels fighting for a righteous cause. "Rebel" is not pejorative, on its own. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are missing the point. The term rebel was a British word used by the Redcoats to describe the American colonial uprising. To the colonists though, they simply referred to and labeled themselves as "patriots". So again, it is a point of view and simply bias. Hence, I think that this sentence is doing a disservice to our Founding Fathers and the principles of what they stood for. They were patriots, not rebels. --74.33.4.173 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, since as Evb-wiki demonstrated, the founding fathers themselves used the term 'rebellion'. --Golbez (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Most of them were proud Englishmen prior to 1760. They knew that their rebellion could be punishable by death, if not successful. They knew that declaring independence was considered treason. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I'll like to put in. The colonies were under the rule of GB at the time. If colonies start to rise against the ruler, that's considered a rebellion, and will probably called rebellious colonies. Even our founding fathers knew that. They were fighting for their freedom through rebellion. Deavenger (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, we're not really concerned with what words USED to mean, but with what they mean now. In the modern definition, the colonies certainly were rebellious; assigning a positive or negative connotation to the term speaks to the particular projection of an individual's bias, but I don't really think this is up for debate (i.e. whether the colonies were justified or not, whether they were the "good guys" or "bad guys", they were declaring their independence from and fighting their established legal government, making them rebellious.JohannVII (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

change name

i suggest that the name of the article is changed to the united states OF AMERICA, because there are many united states in the world, germany for example is made up of many states as is india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.75.90 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But no other nation currently existing is called the "united" states. --Golbez (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico's official name is literally translated as the Mexican United States or the United States of Mexico. But it seems most translate it non-literally, as the United Mexican States. Not that it matters either way... when people say United States and leave it at that, particularly in English, they are referring to the USA probably 99.99% of the time. Ben Lunsford (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, the official English name appears to be United Mexican States. And recall that, in Mexico, when they refer to "Estados Unidos", they aren't referring to Mexico. --Golbez (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see FAQ. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see "United States" refer to another country without it being mentioned first--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the FAQ that provides a compelling case for using the current abbreviated title. The title just looks like a mistake made by a bunch of amateurs, which is indeed what it is. Greg Grahame (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to change the name, because most/all of the articles on countries refer to themselves in that way. Recalling a previous point made awhile ago, the article on Germany is called Germany, not the Federal Republic of Germany... ojay123 (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison is invalid. The article is called Germany, not "Federal Republic". "United States" is used as a convenient abbreviation, but there is absolutely no need to abbreviate the title of this article. For that matter, "America" is also used as a convenient abbreviation of the full name. This article title is simply incorrect. I would be flabbergasted if any reputable published encyclopedia headlines its article on this topic, "United States". Greg Grahame (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost all enclopedias, and other written sources, use 'United States'. See the Encyclopædia Britannica's usage here. YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Change I made to "Culture" section

I deleted about 3-4 sentences that talked about subjects relating to same-sex marriage. Reason is because there is only one sentence devoted to Women rights when the history and progress of women rights is far greater than that of same-sex marriage. Same with traditional American food and some others. This is an article about the United States of America, not the progress of same-sex marriage. Therefore, "recording" cases won [relating to same-sex marriage] in the article is not appropriate.

Just as a side note: I do not have anything against same-sex marriage or homosexuals.--Rmhs15 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This is currently one of the most important issues in American society today, and certainly significant enough as both a political and cultural matter to warrant the coverage it has received. Of course, the history of women's rights is crucial, but this is not, in the end, a history article. The focus here is on what the United States is today, and what makes it distinctive. The issue of same-sex marriage is highly relevant in that context. The passage is restored.—DCGeist (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

is the debate about same sex marriage in the US markedly different from elswere?[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)]]

There are much more important, current, issues than same-sex marriage. While same-sex marriage is a recognized "issue" in the media and the political world, it isn't the most important or amongst. For example, immigration (illegal and legal). There has been talk of illegal immigration issues for a while and it has received much more political and media attention than same-sex marriage. Another one is the current economy. Yet, I don't see a paragraph devoted to these two. A couple others (in the past) have been political corruption and police corruption. --Rmhs15 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We could certainly stand to have a sentence or two on the issue of immigration--though where, exactly, do you think that would fit in best? As for the economy, that's a perennial issue--a matter of debate in virtually all countries at all times. If the focus on the direction of the country's economic priorities is unusually intense at the moment, the debate is also very diffuse. We can afford to give it some time before coming up with an appropriately summary way of addressing it.—DCGeist (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem of balancing federalism against the rights of the states is barely mentioned, and that's been and has remained controversial for the entire duration of the existence of the country (for example, same-sex marriage is at many levels a federalism issue because of full faith and credit). The issues with same-sex marriage are a modern phenomenon, and could probably be lumped in with the larger questions of civil rights. My question is: what do the following lines add to an overview article?

Between 2003 and 2009, the supreme courts of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa ruled those states' bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The California ruling was superseded by a state constitutional amendment, approved by voters in November 2008, that defines marriage as between a man and woman; the legality of the amendment is currently being contested in court. Between 2004 and 2008, voters in 13 other states approved similar constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. In 2009, Vermont became the first state to permit same-sex marriage through legislative action.

Again, this article is being crushed by minor details and specifics that are best left to the subarticles. Saying that it is currently controversial and linking an appropriate subarticle should be sufficient. There's a reason this article is massively bloated: there is ridiculous resistance to the removal of these minor details. SDY (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with recasting the passage in summary fashion. Now, just so we're clear on what you're talking about, could you please cite a recent example of "ridiculous resistance"?—DCGeist (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Every time someone proposes removing or trimming a section such as this one, it is immediately reverted and defended. This article would never qualify as a FA solely because of the problems with summary style, and removal of details, especially transient information about current events, should be encouraged rather than discouraged. SDY (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a "transient event"; it has been a major issue in American culture for much of the decade. This is easily confirmed by looking at newspaper coverage or the political history you proposed to excise wholesale. We don't need to be characterizing good-faith, temperate disagreements as "ridiculous." DocKino (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I frankly think that we should be wary of WP:UNDUE, simply because issues that have been controversial for a lot longer are given equal or lesser coverage. Like many articles on wikipedia, there's a question of WP:RECENT- is the article about "current status" or "overall history"? I'd prefer to focus on overall history for the overview. Leading on to the expected revert, what benefit does the reader get from having details on the contention? There really isn't a need to persuade the reader it's contentious, it's simply a fact that can be stated. SDY (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's agreed that the level of detail that was there was unnecessary. The detail retained in the middle ground version I aimed at demonstrates that it's not just a matter of debate, but a practical matter at the state level and, by implication, in people's daily lives. In particular and in addition, the Vermont law appears to be recognized as representing a significant historical shift.

There's something else to consider. There's an article on Star Trek: The Motion Picture up for FA right now--it's about 14,000 words long and it will almost certainly be approved. A lot of work has gone into trimming this United States article over the past year and warding off new bloat--we've held the line at about 11,000 words. That's long for sure, but evidence suggests that length would not be a problem at FAC at this point.DocKino (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it’s been around a decade does not stop it being transient, it just makes it current. In order for its inclusion it must be significantly representative of the US, this is not (see below), the debate exists in most western democracies. But at least it is now clear that we actually seem to be talking about state rights, and the relationship between state and federal governments, if this is the case, then culture does not seem the right section.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Really? Same-sex marriage is anywhere near as contentious an issue in "most western democracies" as it is in the United States? Please provide some evidence in support of that claim.DocKino (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And no, we're not talking about the relationship between state and federal governments. The issue has not been federalized at this point. The state activity points up the significant cultural differences between states.DocKino (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with SDY on this. It just seems too specific for an overview article and WP:UNDUE is floating in my mind. For example, the civil rights movement gets a total of two sentences; the moon landing gets one; the Bill of Rights gets three mentions (two of which are the same; one being in the lead, the other in the article itself). ←These are the way concepts should be covered in an overview article. Many times, reasons for additions to this page are rebutted with the fact that the page size is getting too large; this would be an easy way to trim some fat. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, under my edit we go from 104 words on the topic to 59. I don't see anything left there that could be called "fat". And its coverage is now hardly WP:UNDUE compared to the coverage given other significant contemporary issues such as abortion (64 words), capital punishment (97 words), and health care coverage (108 words). SDY's suggestion that the contentiousness of an issue is "simply a fact that can be stated" without description or contextualization is not encyclopedic; it's equivalent to replacing our literature summary with "Many Americans have written books, some highly regarded".DocKino (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that I would include a link to American Literature, probably as a piped link, and people who wanted more information could follow through. For the overview, simply stating that it is true (and citing if likely to be challenged) is sufficient. Details belong in the more focused articles. Vermont's ruling is very important for same sex marriage, but I find it very hard to believe that it was, is, or will be important in the history of the United States. That there have been legal wranglings and checks and balances over the judicial opinions that allowed it in other states is especially irrelevant since the status quo is no change. SDY (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And that would be a terrible edit. Simply having "Same-sex marriage is a contentious issue" as a completely noncontextualized claim is as silly as having "Abortion is a contentious issue" or "Health care coverage is a contentious issue" without context. That's not summary style, that's a string of banalities.

And your claim that "the status quo is no change" is simply not true. The status quo has changed and is changing significantly. Same-sex marriage has now been legalized in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and Maine. Within a few months, it is likely to be legal in New Hampshire as well. It was briefly legal in the country's largest state, California, and may be again. It is regarded as an issue that bears significantly on President Obama's choice of nominee for the Supreme Court.DocKino (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL aside, the status quo (no same-sex marriage) was maintained in California, so going into detail on the wrangling on the broad brush of this article. Perhaps limiting the comments to "Same-sex marriage is a contentious issue and is currently legal in one state but constitutionally banned in others." would be reasonable. SDY (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) You have raised WP:CRYSTAL inappropriately. There is zero crystal-balling on this issue in the article text. You've made the highly arguable claim that this a "transient" issue and the blatantly false claim that "the status quo is no change", and I have presented a variety of evidence to refute those claims.

(2) You seem to be having a very odd problem retaining information today. Same-sex marriage has now been legalized in five states. Perhaps if I name them once again, you'll be able to retain them: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and Maine. In addition, the legislature of a sixth state, New Hampshire, just passed a bill legalizing the practice; it awaits action by the state's governor.

(3) We're at a perfectly reasonable length now: 59 words as compared to 64 for abortion, 97 for capital punishment, and 108 for health care coverage.DocKino (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If it means that much to you, have it your way. I have no interest in continuing this increasingly hostile conversation. SDY (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I sense some bias coming from those who support the section as it is. Allow me to explain (will be long). Most of us have been brought up in an open-minded fashion and one that is commonly accepting of other lifestyles. Now lets apply this to our current dispute. Those with the say or the power (well, they are equal to us in power/say but they tend to be the ones reverting and arguing) seem keen to covering same-sex marriage issues as much as they can even though it is not that big of a deal compared to past and current issues. To put this into simple terms, if you go outside and ask people what they think of same-sex marriage, you have to be realistic and accept that the majority of American citizens oppose it. Yes, there will be some who will lean towards "they love each other, and that's what matters". Like it or ignore it, that is simply the way it is. With that being said, I will move on to my next point. Same-sex isn't that big of a deal to "ticket" almost a paragraph. Yes, same-sex marriage has been discussed in Congress. Yes, homosexuals/same-sex marriage exists and we all know of it. Yes, same-sex marriage & homosexuality has received an amount of media and political attention. Yes, there have been protest pro-homosexuality/same-sex marriage. To finish, same-sex marriage is something that is recognized. No-one is denying that. Another one of my major points is that homosexuality has existed ever since Man first walked the Earth. It has always being on the "peoples" mind. Back in the Middle Ages (when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as official religion), the Church (and therefore the people) declared being a homosexual a sin and something that should be looked down upon. This means, that it has always been controversial both in the media (newspapers & word-of-mouth back then) and the political world.

After all of this, it does NOT warrant an almost whole paragraph in this very popular article (after all, it is about the US of A!). Finally, reduce it to a simply sentence to "Same-sex marriage is currently a controversial issue" or something that is 1 sentence and short.--Rmhs15 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As DocKino points out, he cut the coverage of the issue by over 40%. Fifty-nine words hardly constitutes an inordinate amount of coverage, especially compared to other contemporary issues that have received widespread media attention. In fact, the coverage is arguably unduly brief, as there has been substantially more political activity involving the issue in recent years than has involved abortion or capital punishment. Finally, as for bias, I detect none in the language present in the article, which is what matters. Shall we read bias into your insistence that coverage be cut even more drastically? Let's not take the conversation any further in that direction, okay?—DCGeist (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Way to ignore everything I previously said... Yea, really not biased on your side.--Rmhs15 (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That not every council in the UK was accepting Civil partnerships within the last decade. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4493094.stm. moreover this http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/samesexmarriage/index.shtml shows that there is a debate in the UK. Sadley i will have to look for other examples at another time but (No sources as yet) New New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still only recognizes marriage rights for opposite-sex couples, Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it is still illegal to perform them within the country, In 2006, a 30 member parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage. The Canadian Parliament approved same-sex marriage by defining marriage as “between two people” in June, 2005. The Conservative Government introduced a bill proposing to repeal same-sex marriage in Canada in 2006, but it failed at its first reading in 2006, hence same sex marriage continues to be recognized throughout the nation, but there is oppoisition to it (or in other words a debate). At the federal level, Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriage, but the current Australian Labor Party government favors synchronized state and territory registered partnership legislation (as in Tasmania and Victoria). The Australian Capital Territory has civil unions with no official ceremonies, thus a situation not u8nlike that in the US.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)]]

This issue merits one sentence at most, probably none. The headlines of the day should have very little influence on the content of a general encyclopedia article. Greg Grahame (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack's photo

Jack Koruac's photo is odd. Too obscure a person to be given such weight in this article. User F203 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

He's representative of what is arguably the most important well-defined movement in American literary history. And he's hardly obscure.—DCGeist (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree with F203. Kerouac, while certainly a literary giant, is just not as well-known or as widely read as O'Neill, Miller, Hemingway, or Steinbeck. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That might be true, but none of those writers is representative of a well-defined American literary movement.—DCGeist (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The section on religion needs a consistency check-up in respect to a comparison it makes. It notes the percentage of atheists to be 16% and compares it to a supposed 44% in the UK. The source given for the latter value actually says 31-44% in the quote it uses as a base, if one reads carefully, with 44% as an estimated maximum, and just for Britain, not the UK in general. Also, the values on the source (adherents.com) don't seem very compatible with the 16% used for the US in the article. Adherents.com gives the US less than 10% atheists or agnostics in all sources used. Other WP articles, such as United Kingdom or Religion in the United Kingdom use lower values for the UK, from other sources, like 20% and 15% (the latter from an official census), which would bring the number of nonbelievers much closer to the Pew Forum survey for the US, making the statement of significantly less than in other postindustrial countries such as the United Kingdom inadequate. And, if we really want to consider the values in adherents.com, the US ends up with less, not more, than the (~12%) worldwide rate, while that does make the significantly less than sentence more meaningful. It might be wise to remove the comparisons to the UK and the world in general, and leave it to readers to check such things by comparing other parallel articles (of other countries) or or by reading articles about religious adherence in general. Otherwise, clearer or consistent info is required. Who is like God? (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the UK is a far less religious country than the United States. I suspect that in the UK, where it is so easy to ignore religion entirely, people indifferent to religion are less likely to go to the trouble of asserting themselves as atheists than people of equal indifference in the U.S. where religion is an inescapable part of society, forcing everyone to take a stance. Greg Grahame (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, although it could also be that the US simply has more vocal and radical religious groups rather than that many more religious people demographically. Their decentralized take on religion seems to encourage religious activism. My main point is that the data and references may be somewhat confusing. Who is like God? (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Britain is the U.K., do you mean England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainpat (talk • contribs)

If you check the page it says United Kingdom: Britain instead of just United Kingdom, and elsewhere the chart uses United Kingdom: Scotland. Maybe in that instance it refers only to mainland Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland and other UK territories). Who is like God? (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely what they mean. Politically when using the term Britain it would include N.Ireland. Geographically it is only the island of Great Britain. Jack forbes (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also entires for just UK, leaving out the geographical caveats. such as "Atheism and Agnostic United Kingdom - 32.00% - - 2001 Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns ", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005) "According to Froese (2001), 32% of the British are atheist or agnostic. " [Source: Froese, Paul. 2001. "Hungary for Religion: A Supply-Side Interpretation of the Hungarian Religious Revival. " Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40(2): 251-268.] "[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Civil War and Industrialisation

"High tariff protections, national infrastructure building, and new banking regulations encouraged growth."

I propose this sentence be removed. American economic growth during that period was spectacular, but "high tariff protections" and "banking regulations" especially are uncited and had historically dubious effects on growth.

Rainpat (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that.Prussian725 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence has already been edited to address the concern raised by Rainpat.—DCGeist (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any significant mention of slavery. Of course, there was slavery in other societies; however, there is a certain American exceptionalism within the philosophical and cultural views of slavery that need to be mentioned, particularly since Slavery is considered to be a large component of in the culmination of the Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen477 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hectares conversion needed for acres

Under the section "Geography and environment", the "convert|<value>|acre|ha" template (e.g., 1,000,000 acres (400,000 ha)) should be applied to provide the international standard hectare value equivalent for land areas given in acres. Could some registered user please make the fix? Thanks.... 75.44.51.105 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The United States of America

No reliable source calls The United States of America (commonly referred to as America), and thus advocating for its use here is original research and not permissible.

America has never been an entity of The United States of America and is barely a nickname for The United States of America, as America consists of the 35 American countries respectably.

The United States of America is in America, and has never been America as an entity of it's own and should be removed from the intro.

All American countries of America are referred to as America, and not just the United States of America.

America commonly refers to it's 35 American countries respectably, and is not subjected to The United States of America.

The United States of America is a country in America, and does not contain the same entity as America.

America consists of 35 independant nations of, and is not related to The United States of America.

America is not related to The United States of America directly, but an entity of.

Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That barely makes any sense at all. Based on your similarly incoherent posts as Canada, I believe what you are trying to say is that the word "America" should not be used to mean the US alone. But as the disambiguation page for America shows, and as many, many reliable sources will show, the word America is frequently used to designate the US - although this use in no way excludes the use of the word America to designate the Americas. It might be confusing, sometimes, to have one word describe two very different entities; but Wikipedia cannot change the fact that this is the case, and it is not our job to: we merely report and explain the state of affairs as it currently exists. Hadrian89 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If nonsense is all that is understood here then, Wikipedia and The United States of America is the one incoherent to the rest of the world and not making sense at all with it's ambiguous nature, you might as well call America and The United States of America the City Of Winnipeg, located in Central North America. There is no use to continue this discussion when we are dealing with a country and non-profit organizatoin on the web who has it's mind and heart set on a goal allready outside the truth. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please translate this to sane? --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Caption for religion photo

I never saw any particular reason to pick that one church for photo in the religion section. The comment that "most Americans identify as Christian" is not about the photo AND is already included in the relevant section, so is itself "redundant". If the caption is intended as a summary of the section, then restricting comment to the majority under-represents the information in the section. If we have precise numbers, they are preferable to "most", and if there is a significant trend regarding the majority, that is also worth summary mention. I propose the caption either include 'roughly 77% of Americans identify as Christian, down about 10% in the past two decades or that the selectively redundant info that most identify as Christian also be removed. --JimWae (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously insensible to duplicate fine detail that is immediately accessible in the accompanying text. As for the other suggestion, the present summary point is made in part precisely to indicate that there is nothing particularly exceptional about this church (the way there is about, say, the Texas Medical Center, whose image also appears in the article); it is representative of the demotic religious facilities of the faith to which the majority of Americans profess adherence.—DCGeist (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That caption is a bit too long too, and definitely too specific. As for the image, I'm in the process of taking a few photos that could possibly replace it. wadester 16 05:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument about redundancy could be applied also to the lede, yet we do not delete the lede. Yes, that caption is long-er, but what criteria make it "too long"? Newspapers and Encyclopedias often have captions that repeat info in the article - in that way the caption can serve as a summary for the section. "Most" is itself also redundant of the article text - AND more vague than "77%". It is unfair and unbalanced that the only summary comment is about Christianity. The longer comment is meant to indicate that there is no hegemony. --JimWae (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Webster's: "hegemony": "preponderant influence." On what WP:V-standard basis have you determined that we should go out of our way to indicate that "there is no hegemony"?—DCGeist (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WWII

"Participation in the war boosted the American economy, spurring capital investment and job creation."

This sentence has problems. Some economists (mainly Keynesians) would agree with this, but many others would not. While it is true that the US achieved a very strong economic position after the war, the US was not in great shape during the war. During the war goods were rationed and soldiers died - definitely a hindrance to the consumption of goods (the primary definition of a good or "boosted" economy).

The US produced a lot during the war, but this was production for the war effort. Life simply was not improved during the war because of material benefits. And because of loss of life and leisure(most in civilian population worked 80-hours a week), living standards were not high and therefore the economy was definitely not "strong" during the war.

It was the end of the war which caused the economic boom with the return of the Greatest Generation, the US's dominant political/economic position, their ability to help Europe with rebuilding, and their advantage of not having had their country physically destroyed by war. It is important not to confuse the concepts of war-boom and post-war-boom.

20:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Any sources for this?[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Hmm I don't have a source, but I agree with what he says. I think it would be more accurate to say that the war drastically cut unemployment and spurred investment in heavy industry (ie factories to make war machines) as well as other industries and leaving it at that. Saying that it "boosted the economy" certainly seems disputable to me, does North Korea have a strong economy because it maintains the industrial complex to produce lots of weapons? I think not. A tank, for example, is not productive, it is not adding to the economic well being of a nation in the way that a car, tractor or commercial airplane would. So I would agree, the sentence should just read "Participation in the war reduced unemployment after the great depression and spurred capital investment in many industries". TastyCakes (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But the US did not only produce, it sold and in vast amounts. How do you cut unemployment without creating jobs, so that part of the statemnt is accurate and does not need to be alterd. Tyhe economy was boosted by investment and sales of war materials. The US became the first aliance leader to make a proifit from its allies.[[Slatersteven (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)]]

We sure as heck were not making a profit from our allies when we were handing the supplies out for free. By 1944 the US government was bankrupt which is why the government was encouraging people to by war bonds. This is also why Americans were rationed food, most people had no money to feed themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This article contains the following sentence

"On December 7, 1941, the United States joined the Allies against the Axis powers after a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan."

This may lead a reader to suppose that the United States declared war on Germany as a result of being attacked by Japan - but this is NOT the case. A better statement of events is contained in the article on the "Attack on Pearl Harbour", wherein it states

"Germany's prompt declaration of war, unforced by any treaty commitment to Japan, quickly brought the US into the European Theater as well."

Therefore, it would be better if the sentence in this article was amended to read

"On December 7, 1941, after a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, the United States declared war on that country and Germany's prompt declaration of war on the United States, unforced by any treaty commitment to Japan, quickly brought the US into the European Theater as well."

Fredquint (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

whoever wrote the first part is absolutely right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn

Can we just go to ANI with this guy? He's taken his anti-American pap from the Proposals village pump (where he proposed that people have the option to omit articles on American topics when viewing the Main Page) to here. Just see his talk page on how obsessed he is over DYK having American topics. Maybe two out of his 50 edits have stuck. He's engaging in edit warring without actually reverting (most of the time). Multiple editors here have reverted him. We don't have to put up with this. --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Just looked at his edits. The guy is clearly an idiot (if the bizarre story on his user page is true, he clearly has long-term neurological effects from his injuries). He doesn't even know the difference between a shopping mall and a strip mall, which most 14-year-olds understand (it's much easier to get lost in the former than the latter). If he keeps up his nonsense he should be summarily banned. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Golbez, could you link to the village pump site/thread. At first blush, his edits appear to be in good faith, although misguided. To me it seems, he just needs to familiarize himself with some of our guidelines, like WP:UNDUE, WP:WEASEL, WP:BRD & WP:NPOV. However, if he is, as you suggest, pursuing an agenda, that's a whole different ballgame. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the VPP discussion:[2] (That's the last revision before it was manually archived) And FYI, I [admittedly rudely, in response to his note on my talk page] suggested he come to the talk page before his next edits. He did not.[3] --Golbez (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the context. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me but this is the USA talk page, so unless B. Fairbairn is the USA what relevance does talk about a editor (which I belive is against the rules) have to the USA page. There are places to talk about editors, and this is not it.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Because he's been engaging in edit-warring on the article United States, of which this is the talk page? It's very much within the rules to discuss an editor's edits in an article on a talk page of said article. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But you are talkinig about him, not his edits. :::::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks A number of the coments above breach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines states that "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." B. Fairbairn is not the subject of the article. it also says "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:

No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.

Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.

Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page.

Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely." Also "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

Be precise in quoting others.

When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.

As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section.

DO NOT ask for another's personal details." He proposed that Articles (on America) can be omited one day a year, so he was not fully qouted (a feature of that discusion). Laslty "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

"Exceptions are granted in the next section" For someone copy-pasting some rules, you should also familiarize yourself with WP:DTTR. --Golbez (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, perhaps instead of berating us for trying to prevent damage to the article from an individual, perhaps you could put your effort into convincing him to come here? Oh, and he DID in fact suggest that there be an ability to ignore American-centric entries on the Main Page, along with his proposition that they be omitted one day a year; both are bad ideas. And it's not an ad hom to say so. --Golbez (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Im was not aware I had placed such a template, butI suspect you meant that I should not say "did you know we had a rule against this", as you said that this page did discusion was not against the rules I felt that perhaps you were not aware of the applicable rules. the "Exceptions are described in the next section" refers to editing others comments, not the rule about insults. its ad hominem to call him (debatlably) anti-American, it is defianantly ad hominem to call him an idiot. By the way I have sugested he come here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:B._Fairbairn&diff=prev&oldid=295379250. I would also ask you not to shout. There are places to discuse his actions, this is not that place. Discuse his edits fine, but not him or his actions elsewere. This is skating close to (and has crossed over into) personel attacks (and perhaps threats) and that is neither usefull nor constructive.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I disagree. You're welcome to report us. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What you disagree he's an idiot, or that it is wrong to call him that?[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I love Americans. I love America. It's a great place. There are many good people living there. Millions of them. But after a while I get sick of America being rubbed in my face everytime I visit wiki, and many times when I turn on the television, watch a movie at the cinema, and so on. I know it may be difficult for some people to believe, and sorry to shock some of you, but there are other countries on our planet. Our, not your. And these other countries are important too.
What I do find increasingly tedious is the number of immature and emotional children out there who believe that anybody who does not love ALL things American must be Anti-American. What a bunch of crap! Come on little boys, grow up and act your age, please. B. Fairbairn Talk 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is in no way the place for you to fight that "fight." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would again ask to please take this off page. It is not about the article but about B. Fairbairn and his views.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I am going to assume you will inform B. Fairbairn of the rules against insults? Because "immature and emotional children", "little boys", etc. Also, if this is about the article and not the people, then why did B. Fairbairn get a pass on insulting us instead of discussing the reasons for the reverts? In fact, OuroborosCobra's remark was by far the most about the article so far! Why do you attack it? No, we will NOT be removing this from this page. It is entirely relevant to preventing damage to the article. --Golbez (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, I hit a sensitive spot there, and The Truth Hurts. B. Fairbairn Talk 12:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC) :-)

Sorry I should have made it more clear that I meant the last comment for everyone, B. Fairbairn included. I felt taht as I was askiing this to be taken off page that it would have been clear that I was not targeting a particcular side.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I suggest to any available administrator monitoring this talk page that you temporarily block B. Fairbairn to get the situation under control and consider a permanent block if necessary. B. Fairbairn just openly expressed his/her contempt for Wikipedia's rules (specifically, the neutral point of view policy). As Jimbo Wales and ArbCom have reaffirmed many times, NPOV is one of Wikipedia's most important core principles and is non-negotiable.

Turning to the content issues, anyone who does not understand what is a strip mall is either very young or just not very bright. Strip malls are one of the most ubiquitous forms of commercial development in the industrialized world. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit summary written by OuroborosCobra threatening to report B. Fairbairn to an administrator so I figured I'd swing by and take a look. After reviewing his edits, I came to the conclusion that, while the edits are a bit dicey, some of them are at least arguably in good faith and possibly even worth keeping. The problem, IMO, is that the quality of the edits is inconsistent: some are possibly useful, others are not. I left a note to this effect on his Talk Page and indicated that I thought his edits were disruptive. I suggested strongly that he discuss any future edits here before proceeding. I also warned him that the next edit/revert cycle would result in him being blocked. He deleted the section that held Golbez's message and mine. He's been warned... if he continues, feel free to report him to WP:ANI if I'm not around. --Richard (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay boys, I have made my point. United States will now only keep a couple of earlier changes that I made - changes that were made before Golbez and DCGeist turned into watchdogs. No more attempted changes from now on from this user.

Unfortunately the two aforementioned users (and occasionally, abusers) wanted a fight. And if I had more sense I would not have tried to help them achieve their aim. Unfortunately we all wasted our time. I know better now, and they may do too.

For any other readers out there, if Golbez and DCGeist ever try to insult you, here are some words of wisdom: "If someone speaks ill of you, say: he obviously does not know me well, since there are so many other faults he could have mentioned." Epictetus B. Fairbairn Talk 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias in history section

Two sentences on the entire history of America before white people showed up?? Come on, this isn't the 1950s. --Helenalex (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the country, not the land or the Americas. The United States did not exist sans "white people." --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Secular nation

I strongly believe the line that says in the wikipedia article about the US stating that "the Us is a secular nation" is GROSSLY inaccurate, given that a predominant number of Americans identify with basic Christian beliefs, and consider themselves Christian. I have brought up this issue but as yet nothing has been done about it. I would like this page to be reviewed and edited to adjust for factuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinthinker76 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Officially, it is a secular nation, to set it apart from officially theocratic states such as the United Kingdom and Iran. It has nothing to do with the citizens, and everything to do with the government. See also: Turkey, which is officially secular. --Golbez (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, and I cannot stress this enough, secular does not mean atheist. It doesn't matter if every single person in the US did identify themselves as Christian, if they are run as a secular state (which we are) the meaning is that we keep religion out of our government, i.e. we are not a theocratic state, we do not have clerics running the country based on religious laws (Iran) and we do not establish a state religion and church (United Kingdom). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

Is it really needed in the Fact Box? I mean let's try and keep all FB's for countries uniform here. Despite order of presidential succession, the position Speaker of the House isn't really needed here, as it has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch. It would be the same as the UK Fact Box saying 'Prime Minister' and their head of the Commons or Lords, but NOT the same as Spain's FB saying 'Prime Minister' and 'President' as two separate entries. And if the only argument is presidential succession, then why not list the president all the way down each cabinet member to the Homeland Security secretary?65.215.94.13 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Call me kooky, but the imposition of uniformity on infoboxes in defiance of accuracy and precision doesn't strike me as a great way to support our mission. Please familiarize yourself with America's constitutional system of government, which has three branches. Not all countries have the same system, so until we establish the United States of Earth, I'm afraid your quest for uniformity will remain thwarted by reality. Please also familiarize yourself with the infobox itself—read the pertinent field header: It doesn't say "Executive branch", but "Government". Finally, please familiarize yourself with the United States presidential line of succession. If you were familiar with it (or, if you are and had applied the least bit of logic to the situation), you would have seen that the infobox data has nothing to do with the line of succession: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not part of the line.—DCGeist (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a PhD in American Politics and a law degree are enough familiarization with constitutional system of government, which is exactly why I fail to see your point. You're basically saying info boxes can say whatever and only the 'tidbit' information about a country, with no across-the-board uniformity among the entries for countries. Additionally, Peolsi is NOT the head of the legislative branch of government. Thanks. That is a titel shared by the Senate and House, of which she is only the head of one. If you want to go so far as to insert an entry for the head/s of the legislative body then you would have to include Biden's dual title as president of the senate. Go back to 4th grade politics.65.215.94.13 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Get back to us when you get a Ph.D. and a law degree—or even a proper elementary school education—in an English-speaking country, sport. You're welcome.—DCGeist (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He's an academic; you're an evident amateur. He's actually right. And by the way, there is no 'leader' of the judicial branch of US government. 'Chief Justice' is only titular and traditional and has no real precedence over the associate justices other than as someone who guides the other justices or presides over cases as a 'head', so to speak. Thanks for trying to prove you know something beyond a 4th grader.s knowledge of US government.69.204.225.103 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that all of the leaders of the 3 government branches are listed. Obama as leader of the executive, Biden as leader of the Senate but who's main official title is still Vice President of the US, Pelosi who is leader of the equally important 2nd half of Congress, and Roberts leader of the Judicial branch. All are important and need to be listed as the leaders of each part of the 3 equal branches of the US Government. Also, there's no reason to list that Biden is leader of the Senate, as they are all listed by their normal official titles...it would look silly to list him as Vice President/President of the Senate while everyone else is listed simply. OptimumPx (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, gotta agree with the law prof here. Seems like his argument, solid as it may be, isn't as much as the way things are listed as much as uniformity among the fact boxes for countries- may as well have the leader for each branch of government for each country, no?69.204.225.103 (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please make an effort to phrase that grammatically, so we know what you're talking about? Thanks much.—DCGeist (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd kind of respect[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]]

It's ok, Slater. Geist is upset because the arguments made by me and the other user are pretty solid, but the chances of editing the article are slim to none. These only perpetuate just how poor of a source Wiki is becoming (case in point: the fact that my years of teaching this stuff is stonewalled by some amateurs with editing privileges). Did you hear about the liberal arts schools in the northeast are banning the Wiki domain from campus networks for fear that students are getting poor information?69.204.225.103 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

please see your talk page[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Secession source needed

Under Political Divisions, the claim is made that, "the states do not have a right to secede." A source for this is needed. It should be in the constitution somewhere. The ninth or tenth amendment, I think. Mobley1184 (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)mobley1184

This sort of fact does not require its own citation, per our policies. Please see the link on the phrase do not have the right in the article (or right here) for more information.—DCGeist (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Which policy?[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Wikipedia:Verifiability.—DCGeist (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this removes the requirment for a source for a claim. Indead a source has been requested and as per the rules one should be provided.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]]

While I agree with DC in that things that are dealt with in depth on another article (As this one is) don't require full sourcing in the parent article (because that's duplicating effort), I agree that I don't see where this is outlined on WP:V. The best I can find is "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation," but this is a deeper subject than things that sentence was written for (like "The United States is a country" or "is in North America" don't require citations). --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that this is like "the United states is a country". Its more like "that killing is illegal", and that depends on context. Moreover Wikipedia is not a reliable source "Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources. In addition, sources that present information known to originate from Wikipedia should not be used for that information, as this may create circular sourcing." as such it cannot be used as an reliable source (which seems to be the case at the moment). So a single inline source would not duplicate overly much, and would remo9ve the doubt that this fact is not propely sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Has the material actually been challenged? If it has I note that it is "expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." As there is no indication that Mobley1184 has made any such effort, I had not perceived an actual challenge here. In the absence of a challenge, again, there is clearly nothing in our policy that compels the inclusion of an inline citation. This is exactly the sort of thing that our internal linking system is ideal for handling. Slatersteven, you are confusing explication and amplification (provided via the link) with direct citation of sourcing (which is far from necessary here unless there is a viable challenge).—DCGeist (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wll not speak for another useer other then pointing out that a source has been asked for. Please point out the rule that states that a given statement does not require a source if it links to another wikipedia article. by the way http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html seems to imply the statemnt is not wholey accurate.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was pointing out that secession, in these united States, would be a power for a people to do from a state, which is in the constitution (Article IV, section 3), or for a state to do from the Union. Seeing as how the compact is only binding by the states so ratifying (Article VII), if a state should choose to withdraw from the union, it would seem that the right would remain to that state and is expressly stated in the ninth and tenth amendments. Mobley1184 (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)mobley1184

sports

under the topic sports it says "The United States has won 2,301 medals at the Summer Olympic Games, more than any other country."

I think the above quotation is giving the impression that the united states is filled with more than its fair share of gifted athletes, When seen on a Gold medals per million population basis the united states comes in at 33rd most successful country for the 2008 Olympic games. And when seen on a total medals per million population the united states are ranked 45th.

I think changing this would give a accurate reflection of how the united states compares to the rest of the Olympic nations in terms of gifted athletes.

verifiable references are http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html

another good article is http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121883421021145439.html --Maban1 (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the article makes very clear that the United States is one of the most populous countries in the world, I believe your fears are unfounded. DocKino (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for editing of this page

The wiki page :United States is semiprotected, so I couldn't edit the vandalism in #7 of this article. Someone please do so. If this isn't the place to make those requests, then I apologize, but I've spent too long looking for the place to request edits for semiprotected articles and to no avail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeppr (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You can tell us what the vandalism is, but if it was the vandalism contributed at 12:49 UTC, it was fixed seconds later. --Golbez (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to the vandelism of the section 7 header by Thepebble3. 98.185.221.34 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So was I. It was fixed seconds later. Literally: The vandalism was done as 12:49, and so was the revert. --Golbez (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC

I think this article should/can go to FAC soon. GeometryGirl (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is now a FAC. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link that should follow to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedKingdom in this paragraph directs to the Oregon Country article.

In the 19th century, the United States acquired land from France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Russia, and annexed the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii.

This has made finding Mornington Crescent with only clicks more difficult.

I agree, that's kind of a surprise link. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci or Richard Americk?

A recent episode of QI cast doubt on Amerigo Vespuci being the source of 'America', and instead claimed that it was named after Richard Americk, the man who sponsored John Cabot's second voyage, this is supported by other sources - does it deserve mention? FOARP (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - but not here. Alternate theories go on the article about the name. --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But the Richard Ameryk theory is actually just as valid as the Amerigo Vespucci. There is no more reason to believe Vespucci as the source than there is Ameryk. In fact, since the etymology section deals with the root of the US's name you can argue that the Vepucci theory can be left to the naming page also. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You can argue that, but you'll almost certainly lose (dig into the archives of this Talk page for evidence). You may be of the opinion that there "is no more reason to believe Vespucci as [sic] the source than there is Ameryk", but virtually all standard histories of the United States refer to Vespucci ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&action=edit&section=2nd do not mention Ameryk. Per WP:V and WP:UNDUE, the former bears mentioning in this overview article; the latter does not. DocKino (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

But merely mentioning the Ameryk theory, equally valid and accepted as the Amerigo theory, you are not giving it undue weight, you are merely giving it some weight. At least the fact that the theory is disputed ought to be mentioned. I guess I should also mention that editing this page is not a game which some people 'win' and others 'lose'. FOARP (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation please on it being "as accepted" as the Amerigo theory. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that sources of equal weight and validity (such as G.C. Hurlbut in the Journal of the American Geographical Society http://www.jstor.org/pss/196759 , and the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/americaname_03.shtml ) carry alternate claims. None of this is claiming that the Vespucci origin is 'wrong', and I would not dream of making such a claim. I have had a look through the talk pages, and although the QI reference has been referred to a couple of times, it was from the point of view that the Vespucci theory was incorrect, not from the position that it was disputed. FOARP (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording

Extracted from FAC:

"In the 1960s, Bob Dylan emerged from the folk revival to become one of America's greatest songwriters" is a personal opinion. Plenty of people can't stand him. You can say "bestselling", "multiple award winning" etc with sources to back it up, but "greatest" is a meaningless peacock term in the Wikipedia context;

"The Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of the United States, has nine members, who serve for life" is untrue; they serve until death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment;

What do people suggest? GeometryGirl (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The president serves a four year term - unless he dies, resigns, or is convicted upon impeachment. Representatives 2 years, senators 6 years, under the same caveats. Yet we don't specify these. Since we don't say they're required to stay for life, I think it's possibly assumed they can leave when they want to; we don't have to spell everything out in this overview article.

"American"

This isn't officially the demonym, can we at least put a "See this page:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_U.S._citizens 76.20.25.207 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? 76.20.25.207 (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From your linked article:

All forms of English refer to these people as "Americans"

So I don't see the need for anything else. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Names for U.S. citizens is pretty unambiguous about this. I also agree with 76.20.25.207 that it would be useful for this article to contain the information that the other article exists; so I've added {{See also|Names for U.S. citizens}} in the History section. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree 'American' isn't really the appropriate demonym. Did you know most non-English countries do not refer to it like that, but rather as a translated version of 'United States citizen (ie- the Romance languages, Spanish 'estado unidense' translates to 'United States citizen' or loosely as 'united stasian'.) It's actually insulting to Central and South Americans because they , too, are 'Americans' and prefer 'norte americano' (north American) as a term for US peoples. But alas, chances are the Wiki geeks will win, your suggestion will be ignored, and yet another false bit of information will be on Wikipedia.69.204.225.103 (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You were doing so well until that last sentence, too. As for insulting, isn't it equally insulting to Canadians to call people from the United States "norte americano"? Since Canadians are, too, "North Americans". --Golbez (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mexicans as well, for that matter. In fact, you'll probably be hard pressed to find any Brazilian, Mexican, Canadian, Argentine, etc., that just wants to be called "American" or "North American" or "South American." This seems to me to be a new twist on the classic mistake, where people say "America is the whole continent" when in fact there is no continent of America (there are two continents where that is part of their name). I've never heard of an Argentine call themselves an "American" unless they also had US citizenship. I've also never seen a "Pan-Americas nationalism" that would lead to believe the many countries of the two continents share a feeling of unity and want to be called the same thing, where we DO see pan-European movements, pan-Arab movements, etc. Lastly, this is the English language edition of Wikipedia, and as the other article states, all English speakers refer to US citizens as "Americans." If the Spanish or the Romanian editions need a different denonym, so be it. The fact is that the articles on Wikipedia seem to stick with the English denonyms. Russia has "Russian," which is English language, not a transliteration of the Russian language term. Mexico has "Mexican," which certainly isn't a Spanish pronunciation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget the two champions: German and Japanese, both of which have no local analogue. --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"American" is the only commonly used demonym available. Many other languages have something roughly analagous to "United Statesian", but we're not speaking other languages, we're speaking English, and in English there's really only one word available with that meaning, albeit one whose etymology carries unfortunate implications. 24.5.193.228 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, what would cause a demonym to be "official"? It seems unlikely there would be an Act of Congress settling the issue on the books, but I suppose there may be. 24.5.193.228 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There might be an official action. There is for Massachusetts. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted next to American to read that article, as it is not the official demonym - there is one. American can also mean Mexican or Canadian, so we need to be specific here. In addition, it would only be official were it passed by Congress, such as the official language of California being english, etc. 76.215.211.250 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. In the English language, "American" means neither Mexican nor Canadian.DocKino (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Webster says you are wrong. Prove it ,please. 76.215.211.250 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are helpful, but there's a catch. It's all about context. A good dictionary will give you all the possible meanings of a word: it means A in one context, B in another, C in another, and so on. For example, "intercourse" is usually taken to refer to sexual activity, but in a particular context it can simply refer to "an interchange of thoughts or feelings" or "dealings or communications between people". Countries can engage in intercourse, i.e. trade and diplomatic relations. They're certainly not fucking. It's up to the reader to know or work out which context is relevant so they can find the correct meaning. So, a decent dictionary will tell you what "American" might mean, depending on the context. When we're talking about a citizen of the United States of America, it's normal to refer to them as "American". Some people might not like it, but that's what most people say. This is by far the most predominant usage of the word "American". By far. Which is why when we hear the word "American" before we know what the context is, the usual assumption is that they're talking about someone from the United States of America, not to someone from any of the other countries of North or South America. If a radio/TV announcer says "In breaking news, the American actor ..." - what do you immediately think of? I know what I'd be thinking of: someone from Hollywood, not someone from Uruguay or Toronto - " ...<name> has died." -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Even the Webster definition doesn't support you. The only citizens (and the demonym is referring to citizenship, in this context) is for those of the United States. Others are listed as inhabitants. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

All forms of English refer to these people as "Americans"

Not true. In English (as in English as spoken by the English), the term "Yank" is common. Markb (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah... "English as spoken by the English". That brings this past discussion to mind, particularly the part relying on a misquote from Fowler's Modern English Usage. What a yuck. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

EITHER WAY, it is not "Official" and this should be mentioned! 76.215.211.250 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is any demonym "official"? You're asking for a solution to a problem that didn't exist until... *scrolls up* 6:35 on June 20. --Golbez (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DocKino edit-warring over same-sex marriage content

GeometryGirl made a request at the LGBT project for help with the FAC same-sex marriage content and this was offered for approval. DocKino is suggesting prior concensus oopposes any changes and a new concensus should be reached but only on this talkpage. I don't care and refuse to get caught in some turf battle. I'll leave it to the editors here to debate what wording they wish and when there is any consensus I'm willing to hunt down the references.

“

Same-sex marriage has been legalized in six of the 50 states but remains politically divisive in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, and is prohibited from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act. Since 2003, four states have legalized same-sex marriage as a result of a court ruling, while three others have done so through a vote in their respective state legislatures. Concurrently voters in more than a dozen states approved constitutional bans on the practice. Several states permit civil unions in lieu of marriage. In 2009, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire became the first states to permit same-sex marriage through legislative action.

”

The above text is wonky and I'm sure will be debated so have at it and good luck. -- Banjeboi 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DocKino has posted a reply to my talkpage for anyone interested. -- Banjeboi 18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

a see the discussion is good thinks for the info god bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.174.221 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Civil War sectionalism

I realize the true causes and motivations of the Civil War will always be muddled and somewhat divisive, I'm a northern a apologist myself, and it is frequently oversimplified for clarity, but the fourth paragraph states it was "between the agrarian South and industrial North". While it's a fact the north had a majority of the country's infant industry in its mushrooming landscape, it simply doesn't fit the objective fact that the Mid-west and West were far removed from the mill towns of the Northeast (which were still mostly agrarian anyway) and in fact provided the first volunteers (Minnesota) and suffered more deaths per-capita (Iowa) despite having a lifestyle more similar to the people they were shooting.

Naturally I'm not insisting all this be delved into during the opening paragraphs but I'd like others' thoughts to my idea of adding "burgeoning industrial North", indicating population pressure and immigration into new lands not yet cultured to and therefore presumably hostile to slave ownership, and changing the language to one of correlation rather than causation. Levelistchampion (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link

The first of the References, the one that links to the CIA World factbook, does not work because part of the address is in the wrong case; the address link should end US.html rather than us.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. OptimumPx (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Who controls our government?

Why is the Majority Leader of the Senate not permitted on the list of leaders of the US? The Speaker is not the "leader" of the entire Legislative Branch. Nowhere in Article I does it say this. Article III doesn't even MENTION a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and John Roberts certainly doesn't boss the other 8 justices around. In terms of REAL PRACTICAL POLICY, the majority leader of the Senate is as deserving to be listed as the others, except probably the President. Don't think so? See how far Pelosi can boss around the Senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochamanita (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The leader of the Senate is not the majority leader, but rather the Vice President. This way, the infobox lists the head of the executive, and the two heads of the legislative; it just happens that the Vice President is in both the executive and legislative. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Golbez, the Vice President is only a titular head of the Senate. Biden does not make policy. He only breaks ties, which we're not going to see very many of. John Adams tried to make policy as the 1st Vice President and President of the Senate and got nowhere. If the purpose of this site is to educate people, shouldn't the Majority Leader, who is the practical leader of the Senate, be listed? Kochamanita (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Kochamanita

Yet he remains the "President of the Senate." Both that position and the Speaker are noted in the Constitution; majority leader is not, and has no special powers. Either we keep it as it is, or we remove the Speaker, but there's no way Majority Leader is going up there. Heck, the next ranking officer in the senate past the Vice President is not the majority leader, but rather the President pro tempore. Also, please calm down a little, turn off the caps lock. And perhaps we could remove the chief justice as well. --Golbez (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Golbez, I DID turn off my caps lock in the 2nd passage. And since you read my 1st one so thoroughly, you should see I DID mention that maybe the Chief Justice should be removed from the list. He is not listed in the Constitution. Could you answer the question? If Biden's not the one who controls the Senate, what does it teach users of this website? Article I only says the House will choose a speaker. It doesn't say the speaker has any special powers either. The Senate only chooses "other officers" according to Article I. Isn't the Majority Leader another "officer?" The President pro tempore has the exact same powers as the VP, and Sen. Byrd doesn't even have that power when Biden is in the chamber. President pro tempore literally means he acts in the ABSENCE of the VP, so when Biden's there, Byrd's meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochamanita (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I read it, that's why I said it. As for the rest of it, I have nothing further to add. There's no way the majority leader should be up there, but perhaps the speaker and chief justice shouldn't be either. --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Why so politicall charged??

Why does anything about the USA have to be so ladened with political commentary? Entire sections devoted to poverty, crime, native Amerians, slavery.... Why not discuss that about any nation? Why is there no section about native people in the Canada or Mexico articles? Do they not have crime in those countries too? Canada has a huge crime rate. Mexico's murder rate is 4x higher than in the US. Why is everything so anti-American? If you care about issues, then you'd discuss them fairly and equally. Wiki is a joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbiedowner (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And you were doing so well, too, until that last sentence. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed replacement of church image

I would like to propose that the current image in the Religion section (File:Pisgah.jpg) be replaced. For one, the image is taken during winter, at Christmas time. It also has visible power lines in the foreground. The church building itself is cut off (it seems, to gain the sign, which really isn't necessary), and a bit distorted. The lighting is poor (very yellow) due to timing. The three replacement possibilities are Protestant sects, which goes with the population of the US, are both taken on nice (nondescript) days during the summer, and, I think, representative of typical suburban churches. None of the church buildings themselves are cut off and there are no annoying foreground objects to take the eye away from the main item. Image #1 is on the NRHP.

Current image
Image #1
Image #2
Image #3

For more info on either church, see the respective image page, each of which is complete with information, and coordinated. The current is not. Comments? wadester 16 03:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Addendum Just added Image #3, which I forgot I took. wadester 16 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be sad to lose the "Jesus Is the Reason for the Season" sign (s-o-o-o American), but these two are unquestionably superior images. In this case, I'd go for the classic, demotic look of #2 rather than the standout architecture of #1. #2 is also a bit bolder visually. Thank you for providing these.

Playing devil's advocate, it is true that there are seven times as many Baptists (the current image is of a Baptist church) as there are Presbyterians (proposed image #2 is of a Presbyterian church) in the U.S. But the image is not intended to represent the primary Christian denomination in the country. (If it were, it would arguably have to be of a Roman Catholic church. The argument would be whether the most populous single denomination--Roman Catholic--was more representative than the most populous denomination--Baptist--within the more populous American Protestant movement. That's an argument that could go on forever.) I believe the point here is to provide a high-quality image of a representative, classically American church. Of the three images in the gallery Wadester has presented, two strike me as architecturally representative (the current image and option #2) and two strike me as high-quality photographs (options #1 and #2). Thus one image meets both criteria: option #2. DocKino (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'm going for Protestant > Roman Catholic rather than Roman Catholic > Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, etc. (in population of course!). wadester 16 04:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the change for the moment. I believe this image choice calls for more discussion--and I do apologize for not noticing the thread before. There is another, very significant rationale for showing an image of a Southern Baptist church. It is easily the largest religious denomination founded and based in the United States. On that objective basis alone, an inclusion of an image relating to it is the most appropriate for an overview article on the country.—DCGeist (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that but we're lacking on image quality for a really picky rationale. Every option I posted is a sect of Protestantism. As DocKino mentions above, if you're looking at it as sects of Christianity, the image really should be a Catholic church, but because of that, I don't think we should be arguing sects. Besides, they all came from Europe: Baptists traveled here from Europe, just like almost every other sect out there. While Souther Baptists may have evolved here, they're just a break-off of the original Baptists that came here from Europe. IRC, the only legitimate Christian sect that was actually founded here were the Mormons. If somebody can come up with a better SBC image, fine, replace what I offer, but any identifiable Protestant sect should be perfectly fine in my eyes (plus, you give this rationale, but it's not at all explained in the caption or article anyway; you can't expect a random reader to just "come up" with the reason if they wonder "hmm, why did they pick this picture?"). wadester 16 15:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wadester here. If the point is population by specific denomination, it's Roman Catholic by far. If the point is population by specific denomination originating in the U.S., then there's another one of those irresolvable arguments between Southern Baptist (arguably not really of U.S. origin) and Mormon. (By the way, Wadester, two other substantial Christian sects were founded in the U.S.: Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science). As stated above, I believe the least argumentative choice is a high-quality image of a representative, classically American, Protestant church. DocKino (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just use the National Cathedral in DC? Yongbyong38 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a common religious experience for the typical American. Something local and homey is preferable. wadester 16 04:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So if there's no further discussion, I'm placing image #2 back into the article. wadester 16 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

United States v. United States of America

One should not confuse one with another. http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

"United States" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/3002.html U.S.C. TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A >§ 3002. Definitions (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

One is a union of 50 states - republics, and one is a corporation which operates under Uniform Commercial Code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.150.50 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

At least this one's a little more original than the typical "you're insulting Mexicans" stance. It'd probably work better if your only source for this interpretation weren't someone whose entire life is built around tax evasion. --Golbez (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the "United States of America" as simply the "United States" is an acceptable and the most common short form. "America" on the otherhand, is often misused when negligently referring to the United States. America as it is, widely emcompasses all of the Americas-- North, Central, and South. America is not one single nation, culture, or people.

However, if any nation has the right to use the form "United States," then it would definitely be the United States of America since in fact, Mexico which often refers to its country as the "United Mexican States", achieved independence and became a sovereign nation in 1810, long after the USA had done so in 1776.

These united States are the United States of America, a federal union of 50 states that forms a constitutional republic. This is globally understood and universally recognized. And likewise, both are correct names for the nation as well as the abbreviations U.S. or U.S.A. --74.47.102.79 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirection from America

I would like to see a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_%28disambiguation%29 along with the other disambiguation links at the very top of this article. I wanted the band America! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.4.102 (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

23% of World Nominal GDP

The truth is that the U.S. has kept that percentage of World GDP (at nominal prices) since 1970, 40 years, after falling to 21% in 1980...

Now it is more used the GDP at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), but even on PPP terms the U.S. GDP is still over 20% of the World. For how long? It depends basically on China.--83.63.181.171 (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The European Union has 30% of World GDP at nominal prices, so just between the U.S. and the E.U. we have 54% of the World GDP. If we add Canada and Australia, that means almost 60% of GDP at nominal prices...not much change from 40 years ago.--83.63.181.171 (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical economy size

In the lead it states "By the 1870s, the national economy was the world's largest". It was at least post-1913 when the US became the largest economy in the world if Chinese and British empires are considered List of regions by past GDP (PPP). I think empires should be considered here, as unlike the EU, the central government had significant control over economies of all states. Perhaps this should be reworded with a later date, clarified that empires are not considered or removed altogether. Rf.89 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you did not read what the sentence says.

"By 1870, the NATIONAL economy was the world's largest."

NATIONAL, being the key word here. It is a fact that the United States as aa sovereign nation in 1870 had the world's largest national economy in the world, disregarding all empires at the time. The British Empire was not a NATION but an empire. The United States however, was and is a NATION. Thus, the United States had and still has the world's largest NATIONAL economy. --74.47.102.79 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends how you define national. "of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country" [4] Rf.89 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where the info to differentiate figures for a nation from figures for empires is available, it would seem useful to include info on both. Drawing the line between Nation and Empire would seem a bit dodgy, though. Would the Philippines add to U.S. figures in an "American empire" figure during 1898-1946? Puerto Rico 1898-present? Would pre-statehood U.S. territories (Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, etc.) be included in the nation or the empire figure? How about England/Scotland/Wales?Ireland?india?etc.? USSR? Warsaw Pact countries? Is it clear from (cited?) sources of article data how those sources made such judgements? (Dreaming up questions like this is a lot easier than answering them)

Getting off-point a bit but hoping to add a useful citeable source, take a look at Angus Maddison, (2003), The World Economy: Historical Statistics, OECD Publishing, ISBN 9789264104129{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) (fully previewable online via Google Books), which I stumbled across after seeing this discussion in passing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To rebuke, the United States only had 38 states in 1870. Therefore as the world's largest NATIONAL economy in 1870, the USA would exclude all territories in North America or overseas. Today, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam are not included into the GDP figures of the USA. And so it goes to say, neither were territories when we even had more of them back in 1870, configured into the GDP of the USA. --173.87.177.216 (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro too long

Is a four-paragraph comprehensive intro really necessary? Like, as far as indicating the constitutional origins of the country and the specific dates documents were signed? This may appear important to Americans but I think it is being given undue weight in the intro. Colipon+(T) 04:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you might as well tell the editors of the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, etc to make their intro paragraphs smaller since they are equally as large as the USA's intro paragraph.

The Constitution of the United States is the basis and foundation for the American Republic's entire existence. And since the USA was developed from the first successful war of colonial independence in the world, its Constitution should have extensive reference in the introduction. But nevertheless, you probably are not even American nor would you understand what a democracy is. --173.87.177.216 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And you've managed to invalidate any defense of the current lead by coming off as an idiot buffoon capable of nothing but attacking foreigners with no basis. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Name of this Country

The country I live in is called America. The United States of America is its extended name intended to describe the nature of its organization. The United States is not this country; that phrase could be used in reference to many things. I am sure most truly patriotic Americans agree with me. I will not play semantics and attempt at defining the governmental authority of this country. America is where I live. The phrase the Americas is used to refer to North and South America, including the sovereign nation of America. Wikipedia is just wrong about this, it is un-American, unpatriotic, idiotic, insulting, disgusting, incorrect, wrong.

Cosprings (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd say "And you were doing so well until that last sentence" but in this situation not so much. --Golbez (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with Cosprings, I do have issues with the USA taking over the name "United States", because several other nations use similar full-names. But sadly, according to WP:COMMONNAME, we have to abide by this convention. But WP:NPOV almost certainly makes the name "United States of America" more appropriate. Colipon+(T) 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To Cosprings, even George Washington himself referred to the country as the 'United States.' For example in his Farewell Address.

To Colipon, What other country used the term 'United States' to describe itself? The closest I can think of is the United Mexican States, but not only is it different, it chooses to go by Mexico so it's a moot point. OptimumPx (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. I don't think we should be changing names. But here is the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_(disambiguation). Most of them historical entities, given. Colipon+(T) 03:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, only Mexico still comes close...and also note that all of the historical ones formed after the United States did in 1781. OptimumPx (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The title of this page should be United States of America. The current name is an abbreviation. The beginning of the articles states it best: "commonly referred to as the United States", but properly referred to as the USoA. Cosprings (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of the opposite of what you originally said, but eh. Anyway, yes, we use the short form on Wikipedia. Just as articles are not located at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Russian Federation, or United Mexican States, this one is not located at United States of America. "United States" is the generally used short form of the country. --Golbez (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess its all here. Talk:United_States/Frequently_asked_questions#Why_is_the_article.27s_name_.22United_States.22_and_not_.22United_States_of_America.22.3F Colipon+(T) 14:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still wrong. Being pedantic is too often an excuse for being misled. Cosprings (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not wrong. It's the short form. Read the FAQ linked there. You're highly unlikely to gain consensus for a move, especially with your attitude so far. (Also, why should Wikipedia care about being "un-American"?) --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the U.S., almost alone among countries in the world, chose to use, as its name, a political and geographic description, (Republic of South Africa, Central African Republic, Soviet Union are two current and one recent example I can think of) and within that geographic description ("of America") it cannot lay sole claim. Indeed, when one looks at the term "American," one finds that that term was originally used to describe the Native populations, then those of European descent. By the War of American Independence, there was still multiple uses where non USA possessions of Britain and Spain were referred to as "American." In English, it is widely understood that "American" refers to citizens or otherwise connected to the USA, but in other languages, in particular Spanish and to a lesser extent Portuguese, "American" refers to people or otherwise in the Americas. Which is not surprising, since they settled the Americas before the English colonists did.

Brazil was officially known as "The Republic of the United States of Brazil," and one could see that these "United States" were also "of America," owing to the geographic reality.

So, to suggest someone is being "un-American" for "pedantically" noting that that term is not strictly accurate, you'd have to ask the many millions of Spanish-speaking people in the Americas as to whether it is "un-American" to suggest THEY are also "Americans." I'd wager that since a) the Spanish have been here longer and b) they outnumber English-speakers in the Americas by something like 2 to 1, you'd have a bit of a debate on your hand... Canada Jack (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

sings* Read the FAQ SGGH ^ping! 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

By all definitions on this page and a dozen others in this ?encyclopedia?, citizens of the USA are 'Americans'. And that's true whether people on this page or on a dozen others or in any language in this****this thing like it or not.

Race vs Ethnicity

There is a statement under the culture section which reads, "there is no American ethnicity aside from the now relatively small Native Americans." First of all, I find this to be debatable considering most Americans would be considered foreigners and ethnic aliens if they returned to the country from which their ancestors emmigrated from. I'm a Dutch American, but I cannot speak Dutch, I've never been to the Netherlands, I don't know very much at all about Dutch culture, ect. Why, you ask? Well, my family has been in this country for two centuries and is now fully American. I seriously doubt any Dutch person would claim me as his/her ethnic brethren. Indeed, the only people on this planet that I share a common history, language, culture, and tradition with are Americans. Ethnicity should not be confused with race. A person can be of any race but still belong to a certain ethnic group. Hispanics are a good example of this. So while I may not be racially American, I am most definately an ethnic American. Also, the US census bureau recognizes the American ethnicity. So I propose to change the original sentence to state, "there is no American 'race' aside from the now relatively small Native Americans. Yongbyong38 (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is tehr any sources you would like to provide to back up your rquest?Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest clicking American ethnicity. Even the US census bureau recognizes it. You can't get any more official than that.Yongbyong38 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Some other race" in the U.S. Census

Those Latinos, almost 50%, who answer "Some Other Race" to the U.S. Census basically mean "mixed race" or "Multiracial", so the U.S. Census Bureau should join together that 7% with the 1,6% who answer "Multiracial". The real percentage of "mixed race" Americans then is about 10% right now, taking into account the Latinos. Meanwhile, another 8% of Latinos answer "White" to the U.S. Census and these, it is right, are just part of the 74% White Americans.--88.26.56.108 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism on this article! Article destroyed! (cur) (prev) 08:26, 25 July 2009 ClueBot (talk | contribs) m (159,919 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by Contra10 to version by DCGeist. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (743512) (Bot)) Bot did not work, so vandalism still present. I am not an established registered user, so it seems I cannot revert the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics Race/Ethnicity

This table is misleading because different classifications are mixed in a single table making the sum exceeding 100%.

One is the race, White/African American/Asian/AIAN/NHPI and another is Hispanic or not.

So, I changed the table using the same classification "Non-Hispanic whites/Hispanic/ African American/Asian..." as Demographics of the United States#Projections before.

However it is reverted by User:DCGeist.

So I changed the table less problematic way, splitting the table and added "Not Hispanic" Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The eccentricities of the "Hispanic origin" in the census are, I think, adequately explained in the text. Them being listed at the end of the table, with the note, is sufficient without having to design new tables and criteria. --Golbez (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I already have changed the table. Please review it again.

Also the name of "Hispanic or Latino"[5] has changed to "Hispanic"[6] in the classification from 2007.

The name of source is "Annual Estimates of the Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (NC-EST2007-03)"[7] not "Annual Estimates of the Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (NC-EST2006-03)". Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Hispanics who answer "Some Other Race" in the U.S. Census are in fact "Multiracial"...but we can say the same about most "Hawaiians", "Native Americans" and even 25% of "African Americans", all them MULTIRACIAL.--83.53.111.180 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

DocKino reverted my edit by explaining "restore proper formatting of table per official sourcing"[8].

However, official source[9] classifies "NOT HISPANIC" and "HISPANIC" under "BOTH SEXES".

I reverted to "proper formatting of table".

Also you should not cite the source in 2008. Figures in 2008 has been changed from 2007. If you would like to use 2008 version, you should update whole descriptions related to the source. In addition, your citation is inconsistent, citing 2007 source with the name of 2008.

Please read above discussions carefully. —— Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Space and coding weight is at a premium here. The addition of the "NOT HISPANIC" line is completely supererogatory (and mathematically obvious). As for being careful, you be careful in the future not to revert unargued edits--as you just did--simply because you have a particular point to contest. DocKino (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Does anyone notice that the entire article was deleted and vandalized? It now says "You have been F10wed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.77.38 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

MMA in USA

Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is very popular in the USA with big promotions such as Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) and Strikeforce. It has actually become more popular in pay-per-view sales than Boxing and Wrestling and should be included in USA sports section.

Hendo92 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling isn't mentioned in the article, and boxing is only mentioned because it was once one of the most popular individual sports. I'm not sure I see how being more popular than those two sports warrants inclusion in the article... TastyCakes (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

People of the United States of America

There is no article about the (current) people of the United States of America, please make one and include to article. This as amlost every other country has such an article. refer to the people as US Americans (see the naming of US people article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.181 (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean an article like this one? TastyCakes (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Demonym / gentilic (United States is of America, not America)

I personally believe that the actual Demonym or gentilic for a United States person should be unitedstatean or something similar, due to the fact that people in other american countries are also american, as for europeans are europens despite of being from France, Italy, Spain, GB and so on. So for instance a venezuelan, cuban, argentinian, mexican, canadian, aruban, brazilean, jamaican, etc. etc., are also american citizens. If you should go and check the gentilic in other languages it actually is unitedstatean (check Wikipwdia in other languages). Why in english and french (I don't know other languages) should be any different? I know this sounds more of a personal thought or personal believe, but in fact being an american person, I feel pretty much obliged to ask for this change. I don't deny that the United States people are in fact american citizens, but they are primarily from the United States that is IN(of) America, not America (as a whole). It actually represents some form of abuse and discrimination (in the generalized way that is spoken of america, refering to the United States as a whole), being the fact that I, as an american citizen, don't live in the United States and wasn't born in there and haven't experienced the United States way of life. Just for an example, the generalization of american dream, and native american is completely narrowed, as it does not represent, for the case of the latter mentioned, the incan and mayan comunities (just to name another mayor native american comunities). If you want to use any distinction there is Anglo-Saxon America and Latin America, to use Language distinction (there are others languages, and other distinctions) Most of all being in a politically correct world, this should be changed. Thank you

Javaplana (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What you personally think doesn't matter, is highly flawed (there is no continent called just "America"), and flies flat in the face of reality (Brazilians want to be called Brazilian, not American). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra, I am afraid you are misinformed: I am Brazilian, and I am also an American as I was born in the Americas (América in Portuguese). And BTW, I want to be called an American, and I am, when speaking Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, German and Dutch. It's only in English that this meaning has, over the years, become less and less common. That said, I don't agree with Javaplana in asking for the English speakers to change the most current meaning of the words America and American, it doesn't make sense (see my other comments below). 75.34.100.20 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets just follow your line of thought, because what you think also doesn't matter and yours is highly flawed as well (because of your generalizing). I am venezuelan and want to be called venezuelan, but that does not affect the fact that I don't what the american name(demonym) to be generalized by the things that the United States do (and this is a concern among a lot of latin and non latin american, but still american, countries). Let me put it this way, a cat and a tiger are felines, so they share common things but at the end they have their differences, so it would be a mistake to say that all felines can be domesticated and are small because you are a cat and export your main features as the characteristics of the feline family. (it can be explained with pine and cedars, just to put another example). That takes us to the division of America in two (by the way America is still one continent, and that is how is taught in a lot of countries, so you cannot argue that as a reason, but that is not the discussion here). If you divide it then there is no chance that you'd be called THE americans, you will then be called north americans, but that will also be generalizing the things for mexicans, canadians, belizeans, salvadoreans, cubans, etc., don't you?

Javaplana (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is, in English, the demonym is "American". We don't really care how it's done in other languages. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, even if "American" also means in a less common sense anyone born in the Americas.75.34.100.20 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it "American" and not another more accurate(in the sense of proper and politically correct) one?? like for example unitedstatean

Javaplana (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A Venezuelan would be South American, not American, because there is no continent of "America." There are two continents where that is part of the name. As national denonyms go, the Venezuelan would not want to be called that, because it is not a national identity for them. It does not separate them from Columbians (who they don't get along with), Brazilians, etc. What I think is based on the reality of usage in the world, meaning it is based on the facts. It is the job of Wikipedia to report the facts, not to make up new ones, not to try and change them. There is no common use of "unitedstatean," period. That is the end of the story, right there, because to use it would be Wikipedia trying to change the facts of the world, which is not its job. The English language denonym is American, flat out. If in Spanish they say something different, they are free to report it on their language edition of Wikiepdia. We say "Russian" on this version of Wikipedia, it is most definitely spelled and pronounced differently by native Russian speakers. It does not change what is written here. All of this has been rehashed many times on this talk page, all with the same result. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder, this discussion does not make sense as both are mixing concepts in English with other languages such as Spanish and Portuguese. America also means The Americas in English. For instance, see Daniel Defoe's books, written before the USA was created: the coast of Brazil is described as "America", and more recently, the English disambiguation page for America in Wikipedia - it clearly states that America means The Americas as well. What matters here is that The Americas form is the common one in English today, but the same concept still is "América" in Spanish and Portuguese (and for that matter, in Italian as well, French has Amérique, German and Dutch have Amerika), and in those languages other than English, americano or its corresponding form means born in America, the continent (see my next comment below). 75.34.100.20 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides the (in my opinion definitive) "common use" argument against using "united statean" or something similarly made up, and the fact that "America" refers to the US in all English speaking countries (and so should, in my view, be so on English Wikipedia) I do not believe the demonym has to be mutually exclusive to a country. For example, you will see on the European Union article that its demonym is given as "European", despite the fact that there are Europeans (like Norwegians and Swiss) that are not EU citizens. TastyCakes (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. However you just put the finger on the issue at hand, as most Americans (United State citizens, to be clear) do not accept that the term also applies to others in the American continent. Ask Norwegians 200 years from now (in case they are still not part of the EU) if they like the fact that those born in the EU argue that only them can be called "European". That is exactly what has happened in the English language. In Spanish (and most other languages except English, as mentioned above), their equivalents of the work "American" keep the original meaning as primary, and citizen of the United States as the second one. But I am not going to argue that the English primary meanings should be changed because someone in another language is upset, that doesn't make sense as languages are organic, they change on their own. I would however expect that educated English speakers would at least acknowledge the original meanings of America and American as valid but less common use of the terms. 75.34.100.20 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

dude or chic . . . Ex. Germany is in Europe, you can still refer to a German as a "European." Or some guy's from South Africa, you wouldn't be wrong calling him an "African." It doesn't have to be that complicated. It's a "term used" . . . "to coin a . . ?!" . . ."thats hot." etc. `0_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.248.163 (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that "Yankee" should be a demonym for the U.S. Sure, in other countries such as the U.K., Yankee or Yank may be used commonly, but most of the time, Yankee has a derogatory meaning. You would rarely hear someone from the U.S. say, "Hey, I'm a Yankee!" Australia can have "Aussie" as a demonym on its wikipedia page, because that is one way Australians call themselves. New Zealand can have "Kiwi" as a demonym on its wikipedia page because that is one way of how they call themselves. People from the U.S. call themselves, American. Not Yankee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickinthemud25 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, in the US a "Yankee" is the name (sometimes derogatory) applied to someone from the North East (or any state that fought in the Union), so clearly there would be confusion saying it applied to all Americans. But I don't think anyone suggested changing the demonym to "Yankee". TastyCakes (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, the person who actually made the change. Check the article. --Golbez (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sorry I hadn't realized that. I thought it was a little random... I have removed it as per the reasons above. On top of those reasons, it doesn't seem right to have "informal" demonyms. Where do we stop? Limeys? Frogs? Square heads? TastyCakes (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, I'm familiar with "yankee," "limey," and "frog" as nationalistic nicknames/insults but who are the "square heads"? (Sounds like a great cartoon, Yankee Limey and Frog meet the square heads...) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As with most things that fall outside of Wikipedia's forte, this one can be answered by the urban dictionary... (the German one, I can't vouch for any of the other definitions) TastyCakes (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Flag

The Flag of the United States Was first adopted in 1777 and has endured many revision including the 1959 revision of Hawaii and Alaska.The flag of the United States of America (more commonly known simply as the American Flag) consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars. The thirteen stripes signifying the thirteen original colonies, and the fifty stars representing the fifty states (originally thirteen as well). The flag requires specific dimensions, as well as special care; including display, position, and disposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyllama (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What is there to add? All needed information is on the article on the flag. No other country article, that I'm aware of, goes into any detail about the country's flag. yes there is. the usa does it Flag of the United States.

... right, every country's flag has its own article. They don't talk about it in the country article. --Golbez (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Endured" many revisions? Canada Jack (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinda like this article... zing! TastyCakes (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama.

it says that Obama is the first African-American, when infact he is half african-american, half white. It's kinda like saying he's full african-american. giving too much credit to the african american part if u ask me-.- I demand it be changed to half-white or half- something! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.218.194.174 (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Demand" denied. --Golbez (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For further insight as to why your request was denied (apart from it being obnoxiously presented as a demand) see Question 2 in the Obama FAQ page. TastyCakes (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just the fact, ma'am

There is a lot of brainwashing in this article. Just the facts.

For example, there was a comparison of crime in Poland. This is OR (original research) based on a chart somewhere. The chart is not OR but singling out Poland and the US is.

The article should not try to convince people that the US is unhealthy and crime ridden. The result is POV even if it is not intended.

Just the facts, ma'am.

User F203 (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Singling out Poland and the US" is hardly "OR". They are the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with the highest rates of incarceration--the U.S. is number 1 and Poland is number 2. It efficiently demonstrates how far out of line the incarceration rate in the U.S. is to that of comparably developed countries to note that its rate is three times that of the next highest rate.

I note also that your changes went far beyond this one datum, a fact concealed by your edit summary.—DCGeist (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, there was a comparison to crime in Poland and then you went and deleted a whole slew of things that weren't comparisons to Poland and put an edit comment as "removed comparison to Poland" or something like that. TastyCakes (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is limited in length. Blame the software developer, not me, please.

Furthermore, the reader is left to thing that the US is a police state. There are stories of petty theft in some countries yet some countries have high honesty rates. This could be a better explanation of crime rather than a corrupt justice system or police state. However, if you start to explain it, it becomes undue weight. This is why we need to stick to the facts and avoid cherry picking commentary.

If we cherry pick commentary, we are doomed. For example, the US corporate tax rate is higher than most countries. However, it would be POV to try to smear the US. Similarly, US education is poor in that few want to be engineers. Lockheed and Microsoft have to hire foreigners. Yet we don't cherry pick those facts.

Just the fact, please.User F203 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There was more than enough space to indicate you were making significant deletions from the article. If you want to make significant edits like you did on an article this commonly viewed, you should discuss it here. What exactly do you think isn't appropriate? The high incarceration rate? The racial composition of the incarceration rate? The reintroduction of the death penalty? Because that's what you deleted, and I don't think any of those are "cherry picked" - they are some of the defining characteristics of crime in the US. TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Drives on

Might be worth footnoting that US virgin islands drive on the left? Nicholas.tan (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? That's not part of this country. We don't footnote their population, area, economy, etc., so why would we include what side they drive on? --Golbez (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"The United States Virgin Islands is a group of islands in the Caribbean that are an insular area of the United States." 69.132.221.35 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. They are a possession - an insular area - of the United States. They are not part of the United States. There is a difference. It would be akin to calling the Isle of Man or Gibraltar parts of the United Kingdom. They are possessions of it, but not part of it. --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

heathcare

The healthcare section looks like it is trying to convince the reader to believe a certain thing, basically that American healthcare stinks.

This is completely wrong for the article. It should mention basic facts and not try to compare countries. It is compares countries, it should mention how deficient medical care is in Kenya, South Africa, Bolivia, Switzerland, UK, Mongolia, etc.

Another editor added things without discussing but I am starting a new discussion to set a good example. User F203 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The section does seem to be biased towards negative information, but I don't think there's anything in there that shouldn't be. All of it is relevant, notable and accurate as to the US health situation, as far as I can tell. What I think it could do better is illuminate the leading role America has in many health fields, pharmaceuticals and so on, and separate the section more logically, it seems strange that it spews out a bunch of statements, some positive and some negative, all in a row there. I disagree entirely that other countries shouldn't be compared - raw data means nothing without a point to compare it with, and it is silly to compare the US to third world countries with third world health systems (I'm not sure why you threw the UK in there, indeed a comparison to Western Europe is made and adding further data comparing the healths of the two countries wouldn't be that flattering to the US, in my opinion). TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well how about with neighbors, such as Canada and Mexico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.152.110 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think comparison to Canada would be warranted, but comparison to Mexico is similarly problematic since it is still largely considered a third world or developing nation. TastyCakes (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why no ethnic groups in the summary portion of the article?

I see that there is a table of ethnic groups further down in the article, but every other country page I've been to has an ethnic groups section in the blue summary box at the top of the page. I would be happy to add it, but wanted to make sure there wasn't a reason for it not being there. -Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.7.246.155 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because in 95%+ of other countries, there's one, maybe two, well-defined ethnic groups that make up the vast majority. In this one? There's no one that comes near the majority, and dozens that share similar numbers. It's not reasonable to try to shoehorn that into the infobox. And then there's the discussion of whether race = ethnic group (do we put white? or do we put English, Scottish, Irish, German, etc?). --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Life Expectancy

If someone could, please, consider updating the life expectancy from 77.8 years to 77.9 years. The CDC released this information. [[10]] [[11]]. ParadigmShift51 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Settled area" rankings

Why not use city names, but rank them by the size of their metropolitan region? I have to admit--in some ways, I'm biased, being from Atlanta, but seeing San Antonio and San Jose on the list in lieu of Boston seems kind of weird to me.69.94.192.147 (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this 'United States' article talking about the USA?

As everyone with half a brain knows, this article should NOT be about the USA. 'United States' is a title used in front of many countries. This article should be listing all 'United States', which should then split off to 'United States of America' and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.94.33 (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is standard for Wikipedia to use the most notable common name of something as a title (this is why London goes to London, England and not London, Ontario). As you can see there is only one country in the world other than the US that currently has "United States" in its name, and that is Mexico. It is seldom referred to as this and so I think it is absolutely valid that the USA is the default United States. Please also see the FAQ for this article, it talks some more about the naming. TastyCakes (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And to clarify, that is the "United Mexican States". Only one country uses "United States" in a row, and that's this one. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there used to be the United States of Brazil, so for a spell, there were TWO "United States" of "America".... Guess that's why they changed it in the 60s.... lotsa letters going to the wrong place... Canada Jack (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There was and is only one United States of America and the Postal Service worked just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.119.16 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. There was a second "United States" of "America" since "America" is a geographic designation, not just a political designation. Not really sure why so many Americans seem to have a problem with that fact. Since the USA was one of the first (certainly the largest) federal states, the use of the term "United States" surely, by definition, would not trace back beyond 1776, unless I have some of my history seriously wrong here. (Well, Switzerland, but I'm not sure they ever called themselves "united states".) Canada Jack (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Americans are just particularly good at handling synthetic versus proper names. If you want to start an article called "United States of Brazil, which is in America," be my guest, and you can make all the specious nationalist points you want.69.94.192.147 (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside of the United Mexican States all other countries that used the term 'United States' in their name started using after the USA was formed and have changed their name to something else before today. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying Mexico did it first, which it couldn't have. :) --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rereading it, your right it does look like I said that.....oops. Ya, Mexico didn't choose that name until the 1820s. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"As everyone with half a brain knows" is usually not a good way to start a conversation. I have at least 3/4 of a brain left, even after all the beer I've drank. These issues perrennialy come up here and at Americas and it's the same problem every time: while there are a small but vocal minority that want to take these terms away from the USA and "give them back" to everyone in North, South, and Central America, it has little to no basis in reality or reliable sources. Pony up the sources or let it go people. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you really believe there was a lot of misdirected mail, since suddenly the postal services of the world didn't know where the US, U.S., USA, U.S.A.,United States, United States of America was located. It's been years since I've actively collected stamps or covers. If someone has covers with all the postal stamps and notations showing misdirection from/to United States of Brazil to United States of America and vice versa, we might do some business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.152.110 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be unwise for Wikipedia to use full names of every country, as the United Kingdom would have to be The United Kingdom of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. And just imagine what the title of Elizabeth II's page would be:

[[Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem]]

 --Île_flottante~Floating island  ^Talk 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference to military spending in 4th paragraph.

I have a question about the sentence:

The country accounts for approximately 50% of global military spending and is a leading economic, political and cultural force in the world.

While I agree that the USA's share of military spending is relevant to the topic, the rest of the sentence is speaking much more generally about the country's status as a whole. By putting the reference to military spending and the more general statement "is a leading economic, political, and cultural force" in the same sentence separated by "and", it can lead to the impression that the two statements are equal in significance. I would argue on the other hand that the USA's economic and cultural power more than outweighs its military power on the world as a whole. For example, the USA's share of world GDP is about 25%(according to CIA Factbook), far more than any other single country(although the EU as a whole has a higher share). In my opinion, this statistic is just as relevant to America's international influence as its total military spending so the reference to the military there seems arbitrary to me. Hipppete (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox template

What's stopping us from making the infobox for this page into its own template (something like Template:United States infobox) where this template contains all the info of the Infobox Country used currently, but transcluded in? That will make the raw size of the article smaller, and allow for usage elsewhere. Specifically, I'd like to see it added to Outline of the United States which currently looks drab because of haphazard placements of images in its lead. I think an infobox is an outline itself, and would add greatly to that article. Just a thought. Others? wadester 16 04:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Single-use templates are frowned upon. --Golbez (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Frowned upon" implies that exceptions are possible. Might this be one? We could use the extra space in the article. wadester 16 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. This article is not special. --Golbez (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel this is a good place for WP:IAR. It's a high-hit article that constantly deals with being too long, as you would know being one of the regulars here. Plus, I'd add this template to Outline of the United States, which would keep it out of the single-use category and allow for an up-to-date and identical infobox in both articles. Remove the template from this page and you save 5 kilobytes (roughly π%); the transclusion will only add about 30-40 bytes. Can you think of any stronger arguments not to do this? Because I can't. wadester 16 07:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Since only a tiny percentage of users edit the page, the space savings is not terribly relevant, if we're talking about performance. Do any other outline articles include the country's template? --Golbez (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on a quick glance, no. But it seems they really should; an infobox is definitionally an outline and the current haphazard placement of flags, seals, and maps is not flattering to these outlines. wadester 16 11:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Wadester's idea is a good one. Outline of the United States specifically and the country outline articles generally would be improved--markedly improved, in many cases--by making the relevant infobox standard for the lead section. This would essentially require the template approach, as consistency would demand that the infobox in the main country article and outline article be identical. Viewed from this perspective, the single-use issue is rendered moot and the space savings is a bonus. DocKino (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you check in with the countries wikiproject first; it would be quite annoying if the infobox were moved to a template, then the addition of it to the outline article were denied by edit warring (which would mean it would have to be re-substed here). --Golbez (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias in 9/11 section

The characterization of Saddam Hussein as a "former ally" is cheesy. It indicates the author of this paragraph was interjection their political biases. During the 80's the US gave limited, mostly non-material support, to Iraq. It wasn't that they wanted Iraq to win the Iran-Iraq war, but they really didn't want Iran to win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.168.26 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion bias

There's an editor who says that atheism is not a religion so it should not be ranked with the number of people in each religion. This is not correct.

See another example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Religion which shows that atheism is #1 is North Korea. It's not hidden to the end like the US article. In the US article, less common religions, like Islam, are given more prominence.

We should list the religions according to which has the most people following the belief. As such, this edit is wrong and should be reverted back (get rid of DocKino's version) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=307408163&oldid=307407354 User F203 (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) Atheism is not a religion.
(2) Wikipedia itself does not constitute an authoritative reference, per our well-established policies.
(3) The article's section on religion comprises precisely one paragraph. It is unreasonable to claim that the content of that paragraph's final sentence--concerning those who do not profess a religion--is "hidden". DocKino (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fair. So common religious beliefs are listed first. That's why the section doesn't read "In the U.S., 2% of people practice Islam, 1% practice Hinduism. As a footnote, 35% are Catholic". When asked what their religion is, some people say "atheist". This is kooky that there is so much dispute over this straightforward point. At this rate, nobody would want to make chances to make this article really professional looking. User F203 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been no dispute over the organization of the section until you arrived. Please take a look at our primary source for the section's data: the Pew Forum's Religious Landscape Survey. Please note, the data on those professing a faith—any faith—precedes the data on those who are "unaffiliated" ("atheist", "agnostic", "nothing in particular"). OK? Do you understand now? The section's current structure does reflect the professional standard.—DocKino (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, no attacks. There was no dispute until you started to argue. We are WP, not mouthpieces of Pew. We don't take orders from Pew. We write what is the most logical and best for WP. User F203 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The section also references another important source: the CUNY Graduate Center's "American Religious Identification Survey". Take a look at it, F203: [12]. Same exact story: Self-described religious identification of those identifying with Christian religious groups listed first, followed by affiliates of "Other Religion Groups", followed by those in "No Religion Groups". The structure we currently use is backed up by multiple high-quality sources. The change you want to make is based on your personal opinion. Case closed.—DCGeist (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit popped this up on my watchlist. This comes to mind as a source refuting the unsupported assertion here that atheism is not a religion, but I'm doubtful about its relevance regarding ordering in a list. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The "assertion" that atheism is not a religion needs "support"? Really? OK, happy to oblige. My support is the primary definition of religion offered by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural". (I call this the "primary definition", though it does follow a highly technical one: "the state of a religious". Here is the example given for that usage: "a nun in her 20th year of religion".) Here's more support: Our Pew Research source brackets atheists with those "unaffiliated" with a religious faith. And here's even more support: Our CUNY Graduate Center source brackets atheists with those identifying with "No religion group". All clear? DocKino (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm presently on vacation and probably won't participate much in this discussion beyond this, which appears to be getting far afield from the question of proper list ordering. Anyhow, see A. Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation in DEREK P. APANOVITCH, "RELIGION AND REHABILITATION: THE REQUISITION OF GOD BY THE STATE", Duke Law journal, 47: 785- for more info on the case of Warne v. Orange County Department of Probation which I mentioned earlier. Also consider the argument based on Wisconsin v. Yoder, a case decided by the US Supreme court. That decision found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade, as it violated their parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion. An argument expressed under "A more satisfactory approach" in Kent Greenawalt (2006), Religion and the Constitution, Princeton University Press, pp. 149-156, ISBN 9780691125824 is that unless atheism is a religion, atheists do not have free exercise rights equal in all respects with those of religious believers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The question of proper list ordering was indeed settled above. You wanted to push the discussion further afield, for reasons only you can explain. Simple fact: In ordinary English language usage, atheism is not a religion. Rather, it is quite the opposite: "a disbelief in the existence of deity" (there's that dictionary again!). Are we done here? DocKino (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's worthless belligerence. As to the above, sources do not back the structure that data is presented; you cannot infer that Pew or CUNY are arguing in favor of the way their data is structured merely by presenting data. All said, I don't think there's a serious problem with the religion section, but it's a bad point to say that because it is not a religion, it does not deserve equal regard to religious beliefs as relevant. If 35% of Americans were atheists, I would hope this section would read a little differently. As it stands, it's not as big of a deal, but we don't have to be pedantic on the immaterial point of what is or is not a religion.69.94.192.147 (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of a god or goddess or multiple gods. But those who identify themselves as "None or Atheist" should be included in the % breakdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.32.185 (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe instead of saying "Official religion", we should say "Official philosophy."Leo-Isaurus-Rex (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

Under the 'History Heading', subheading 'Native American and European Settlers', we find the following phrase seemingly tossed in: "All [13 colonies] legalized the African slave trade."

1. Is this relevant to the history of native American and European settlers in America? 2. To be more precise, all 13 colonies legalized ALL slave trade, including that from the Middle East and Eastern Europe (which, while it enjoys little attention in High School History textbooks, is a notable fact).

Propose: eliminating the phrase, or amending it to read "All legalized slave trade", the former being my preferred option. -Batmanhatguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanhatguy (talk • contribs) 06:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal rejected.—DCGeist (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually like more discussion on this. I'm going to sound ignorant here but while I've heard there were non-black slaves in the colonies, I don't know if I ever read it as solid fact. If that's the case, then perhaps the word "African" is indeed causing an inaccuracy. --Golbez (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

US Code: "Federal corporation"

U.S. Code defines the United States as a "Federal corporation", corporation meaning here a "body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members" created "for the purpose of government", the latter a definition coming from British common law. Found here. Since this is an official definition from US law, it should be included in the article. Proposal: "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal corporation[insert footnote with link to USCode] comprising fifty states and a federal district. Its form of government is that of a constitutional republic. The country is situated…". —85.178.104.254 (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see title of preceding thread.—DCGeist (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the editor at 85.178.104.254 clearly has no understanding of how to read a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 3002's scope is expressly limited to that particular chapter (which in turn deals with the relatively limited subject of federal debt collection procedure), and the section quoted defines "United States" by using the logical disjunctive "or" to link three different categories of federal entities. Citing that narrowly drawn statute for the broad general proposition that the U.S. is a "federal corporation" is total nonsense. Pro se litigants make stupid assertions like that in court all the time. Which is why lawyers like myself get to bill hundreds of dollars per hour to run them over like a dump truck. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's even more interesting. The US is referred to as a "corporation" in the context of "debt collection". But okay, it's not suited for inclusion in the way I proposed above. (PS: You should work on your attitude, Mr. Lawyer.) —85.178.116.64 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And you should read the preamble to the blueprints for US government. I believe it starts with "We the people..."Prussian725 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gun/Violent Crime in the United States

The article here claims that violent crime is higher in the US than most developed nations, and it contributes it to guns. However, the figures cited in the article are from 2001-2002 and are severely outdated. The newest United Nations figures don't even place the United States among the top 10 developed western nations in terms of violent crime rate, and they also show a direct correlation between gun control and an increase in violent crime. This section of the article really needs to be updated. —DuckFerret

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Would you please link us to the "newest United Nations figures" (or, if they're not online, provide a comprehensive citation)? Specifically, please point us to the UN data revealing the very important discovery that there is a "direct correlation between gun control and an increase in violent crime". Thanks very much. DocKino (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on finding the actual UN documents, but there were a number of news articles published on the matter. Here's a couple:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Hopefully I can find the primary source documents, but I am not sure where to find it, which is why I didn't just make the edits myself. —DuckFerret

Religions

The demography of religions should not be based on one source or survey, for each religious group there should be a different source that is reliable, the survey does not represent the country-wide population, it is only based on a few thousand people, most of these statistics are in fact wrong or biased, for example Islam is the largest religion after Christianity and Judaism (excluding non-religious), according to the White House there are 7 million Muslims in the United States which accounts to around 2% of the population, these statistics need to be neutral and fixed. Dimario (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The surveys should represent a country-wide population, if they have been done correctly (a random sampling of the nation). Is there a reason you think they weren't done correctly? This website suggests that the 7 million figure floated around before was vastly overstated and that the actual number is under 3 million. TastyCakes (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article makes the confusion clear. I also suspect the inclusion of Nation of Islam members confuses the matter, I'm not sure if they should be considered Muslims for the sake of this article. TastyCakes (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Healthcare" is it a common good in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.160.108 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812

The war of 1812 was fought to a draw ? That is the extremely bias and definitly not a "neutral" point of view. The US lost the war of 1812. by all accounts and measures. The White house was burned to the ground and the US did not meets its objections, as the opposition successfully defended their territory.

Calling this war a draw would only ever be said by the US and its a distorted way of looking at it.

Very far from neutral 24.38.156.102 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The result of the war, however, was the status quo ante bellum. The U.S. gained no territory; the British gained no territorial concessions, though they had wanted to. Perhaps it's incorrect to call it a "draw" but no one really gained. Though, your point is kind of distorted by your obvious lack of good faith in addressing the content. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I for one am satisfied with the terming "draw" as neither side lost any territory and things went back to the way they were before the war, the so called Status quo ante bellum. If I HAD to pick a winner I would disagree completely with your assessment and give the victory to the US as the war solidified the US' position as an independent country.

As far as the White House being burned down being a cause for a declaration of victory, that is akin to saying Napoleon beat Russia because he sacked Moscow. Those starving, frostbitten French marching back across frozen Russia probably did not have any thoughts of "victory" in their heads. (EDIT: rats, beaten to the punch)--Phil5329 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it'd be a bit biased to call this a "draw," as that is the American point of view. The British point of view is that America tried to seize Canada while Britain was distracted with the Napoleonic wars, Britain and Canada however resisted, beat America back, burned the capital and returned the situation as to what it was before. Britain's "goal" was simply to resist American expansion into British North America and therefore draw a line in terms of "Manifest Destiny." There was no serious consideration of seizing America for Britain. Therefore, in their eyes, they won. A better argument to make is that America's goals post-war were probably better realized so they "won" the peace. Canada Jack (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if Americans say they won and Brits say they won, I say that is the perfect reason to call it a draw. Let's call the whole thing off!--Phil5329 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's more like most Americans said it was a draw and Britain/Canada said they won. Therefore, to claim on the page that the war was a "draw" is a POV assertion as there are others who say otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm some good points above, and partly as a result I'm not sure the war should be mentioned in the "Independence and expansion" section at all. It notably didn't lead to expansion and although you could argue that it fostered greater feelings of nationalism and independence in the US, these are not hard facts that can be demonstrated objectively, and indeed I'm sure there are conflicting opinions over the effect it had on "the national ego" or whatever you want to call it. TastyCakes (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as far as expansion is concerned, the Battle of New Orleans was very significant in that it finally determined that the United States alone would control New Orleans and hence the Mississippi River. Without this control the farm states of the midwest would never have prospered as much as they did.--Phil5329 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A major outcome of the war was it ended any serious notion that America would absorb Canada. IOW, Britain's influence in North America was extended into, arguably, the 1930s instead of ending in the 1810s. And the fact that we have two largely English-speaking countries in North America instead of one is in large respect a consequence of the outcome of that war. Canada Jack (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps these things should be said about it then, rather than the current line: "The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism" ? TastyCakes (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(A) Obviously, the war needs to be mentioned.

(B) One sentence is sufficient in this overview article.

(C) No single sentence is likely to be perfect.

(D) The existing sentence is perfectly adequate—a return to the status quo ante bellum is, in ordinary, summary language, a draw.

Conclusion: Leave it be, or propose an equally terse improvement.—DCGeist (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances, was fought to a draw, but strengthened the U.S. hold on New Orleans and the rest of the territory claimed through the Louisiana Purchase and arguably prevented the possibility of union with what is now Canada". That seems to me the gist from looking at the Battle of New Orleans and the above, but I'm by no means an expert on the matter. In any case, I would argue that something a little less nebulous than "strengthened US Nationalism" should be said about the war. I'm not adamantly opposed to leaving it as it is, it just seems odd that the things people identify as being most important in the war are not mentioned in the single sentence about the war. TastyCakes (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That proposed sentence looks good to me--Phil5329 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The existing sentence is perfectly adequate—a return to the status quo ante bellum is, in ordinary, summary language, a draw.

Uh, no. Iraq's borders were reverted to their former place after the 1991 war - can Saddam therefore be said to have fought America to a draw?

In the end, it matters not what my opinion or other various editors' opinions are on whether the war was a "draw" or not, the main issue is whether the language reflects mainstream opinion. In its current state, it does not. Because that opinion is divided between a largely American view that the war was a "draw", though they felt they "won" back then, and the British/Canadian view that they "won".

Here would be some text to sidestep this debate and which, not incidentally, is in agreement with the War of 1812 page itself:

The original text: The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism.

How about: The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and brought to a conclusion from which both sides declared victory, strengthened U.S. nationalism and ended the aboriginal threat from the south and the west.

As noted on the page on the war, the outcome of the war indeed did strengthen US nationalism. This is no "nebulous" claim - The Battle of New Orleans, even though it was fought AFTER the war ended, unquestionably was a point of pride and nationalism, and the outcome of the Treaty of Ghent meant many questions about the ability of America to expand within the continent were resolved in America's favour. Andrew Jackson's electoral success in years following was in no small measure due to his defeat of the British at New Orleans. Canada Jack (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can get behind that too. (All about compromise)--Phil5329 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)