Talk:United States/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Trying again with largest cities

I mentioned this earlier but only one person responded. Am I to take this that no one cares if this horrible table stays? --Golbez 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Jleon cares only if you remove the table.--Ryz05 _t 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people are opposed to all tables. I prefer them to long paragraphs that contain mostly the same info. I would not be opposed to dropping the 2 density columns though --JimWae 00:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Columbia to refer to the US?

I don't think the name Columbia should be appearing in the parenthesis next to United States of America in the lead. Those names are some of the most common names to refer to the United States of America in writing (excluding U.S. of A. and U.S. and A. etc.) and most people don't refer to America as Columbia anymore. If you search Columbia on Google, none of the websites that turned up has Columbia refering to the United States, with many refering to Columbia University[1]. Also, the name Columbia has the same pronounciation and should not be confused with the country Colombia. There's already a link to Historical Columbia in the See also section anyways.--Ryz05 _t 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Columbia" seems to be a rather dated term for the US. It deserves a mention, but not as an alternative name. — TheKMan^talk 13:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's a very outdated usage, and I'm glad it's no longer in the opening paragraph of the article. Moncrief 09:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush vs. Kerry

Hello! Í am from Chicago. Is it true that Kerry was more popular that Bush to win the elections? If so, why did not he win?

The short answer is taht the most popular candidate does not always win American presidential elections. Further, this page is for talking about changes to the article, and not debate about the specific issues covered by the article. Bjsiders 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that this page is not for debate but since you answered, you may as well give an answer that informs the asker. Kerry did not win the popular vote in 2004. Gore did win the popular vote in 2000 but lost in the Electoral College due to losing a dispute in the courts over the results of the Florida election. The popular vote does not determine American presidential elections. The vote of the Electoral College does.

Is this not explained in the Government section? If it isn't, it should be. (not the details of the 2000 and 2004 elections but the explanation of popular vote vs. Electoral College)

--Richard 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Big problem with United States featured article nomination

People keep objecting because the article is too long, but I'm afraid that if we cut down on the information, then people like User:Bwithh and User:Golbez are going to object because the article is not comprehensive. Also, can we not have a permanent semi-protection to stop people from objecting because they think the article is not stable? Now I'm beginning to doubt if this article will ever get featured, unless more people come in support for this article.--Ryz05 _t 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I don't think it's not comprehensive - I think it's comprehensive about the wrong things. Like that horrible cities table. --Golbez 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a poll Talk:United_States/Archive_15#Largest_cities_table, which seems to indicate that most people supported the table. We can have another poll if you want. Besides the table, what other "wrong things" do you want to omit?--Ryz05 _t 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not required to obey a poll - if they wanted the largest cities table, that's fine, but that will not change my vote against the article. --Golbez 07:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that the largest cities table is deleted, will you change your vote or at least offer a different explanation to your objection as opposed to just agreeing with User:Bwithh?--Ryz05 _t 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support of the United States article nomination.--Ryz05 _t 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this objection related to 'the article is not stable'? No article is rock stable here, featured or not. The stability criterion states '"stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.' It would seem that semi-protection would work in favor of this criterion by tacitly stating 'we know that this is a target of vandalism and we are doing something to address that'. Edit wars between regular editors are not blocked by semi-protection ... and semi-protection is not the proper recourse for resolution of an edit war between regular editors (as opposed to 'irregular' = 'sporadic' = 'episodic' editors, by which I characterize anonymous and new editors). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an objection raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States and I think User:AndyZ answered it pretty well with the link Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?#Stability.--Ryz05 _t 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

DEMOGRAPHICS 2

America is 81% White. According to the US census, Saddam Hussain, Zacharios Masssaoui, Osama Bin Laden and Hamid Kharzai are classsed as `White' In the Census. The U.S. is approximately 67% European and between 61-65% non-Mediterranean European. unsigned (posted by 58.169.1.246 at 10:42, June 2, 2006)

Technically that is all true and scientifically true as well. The Arab people's are from the same sub-race of the human race - ie. Caucasians as are most of the Northern Africans - people of Europe and Russia - the Persians (Iranians), Afghanistanis, and the non-Dravidian Indian's of India who originally called themselves Aryans and brought Hinduism (some think this was the original religion of the Caucasian sub-race) to India when they moved into the Indus Valley region. Hispanics are mostly European or native or a mixture of the two; some are African or a mixture of African and European; and a few are natives - they have a distinct European-type culture rooted in their ties to Spain. We are all Homo Sapiens, however, and genetic differences caused by climate, and geographic isolation dissipate over time when different sub-races integrate and become one ( as in the case of Russia ie. the mongols, the vikings, the Slavs) - essentially given enough time, America will have a distinct American race. - The real differences between people's is language and culture which make up a nationality- and despite some minor differences Americans have a unique common culture unified by language, historic memory, common service to country, and other factors of time and history - including an overwhelming belief in God, Democracy, the American Dream, Equal opportunity, liberty, and our special place among nations represented often as "Manifest Destiny", "City upon a Hill", "Promised Land" etc. which is not a notion of superiority but rather special purpose to show the way by being that "Bright beacon of hope" to all nations by how we relate to one another and govern ourselves, and that "Shining City" through our material efforts at building our nation and extending material benefit to our citizens through the American Dream. --Northmeister 03:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, you are one of the most patriotic Americans I've ever known.--Ryz05 _t 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

External links format

I thought the external links format before it was reverted [2] was pretty creative and a nice style change for this article. I suggest that it be kept that way, but I'm asking for more opinions because it was reverted due to it being "done without consensus."--Ryz05 _t 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I to take this lack of response to mean yes that the creative format should be kept?--Ryz05 _t 18:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. While it's pretty, it means External Links doesn't show up in the table of contents. Furthermore, I don't think it's big enough that we need to hide it. So I suggest it remain as is, simple and utilitarian. I do, however, disagree with the editor's implication that all actions require consensus. --Golbez 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

American Dream section

I don't mind having a section on American Dream, but it does need references and a copyedit. There should also be a section on American Dream in the article Immigration to the United States. I recommend moving it to the bottom of the Economy section, since it's almost stand-alone.--Ryz05 _t 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The American Dream is that great story of rags to riches of getting ahead by hardwork, courage, determination, and sacrifice for the family. --Northmeister 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The American Dream is a concept that belongs in United States culture and can and should be mentioned in a culture section or such. A specific section for the concept is giving undue weight, especially at a time when many people are opposing the FAC of this article for its current size. Pepsidrinka 02:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One sentence mention should be included as it is at the core of what America means to so many. I agree that a main section under culture is better. --Northmeister 02:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the American Dream section to Culture as suggested.--Ryz05 _t 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Testing unprotection

As of 12:30pm EDT: Since the article was unprotected by King of Hearts, there have been eight IP edits, 7 of which were reverted as vandalism.

I figured it's time to keep a real-time log to see if there's any hope for the idealists who think there can ever be an unprotection of this article. It has nothing to do with article quality, either, Ryz05. --Golbez 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you see what those "vandalisms" were about? They are just people testing out the formats or people adding comments without references or adding political rants. It doesn't nearly get as much vandalism as the article on Elias Ashmole history, which is far less prominent.--Ryz05 _t 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it; I just semiprotected it. Also, the vandals don't yet know that we're unprotected here. Give it a day. --Golbez 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just went to that article and I did not find it semi-protected.--Ryz05 _t 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Duh, of course it's being vandalized, Ryz - It's on the front page. That always happens. Unprotecting it, this is what we deal with every day. At least the vandalism wave on the Ashmole article will last exactly 24 hours. The vandalism of this article is forever. At the moment, the Ashmole article is far MORE prominent, because it's on the front page. STOP MAKING TINY EDITS TO YOUR ENTRY SO I CAN RESPOND, sheesh. :P --Golbez 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ryz05, how is "adding political rants" not specifically what we are trying to prevent here? That's as much vandalism as adding a penis picture. Your standards are far too high. --Golbez 16:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the article on Pakistan history, which gets many vandalisms and is not semi-protected. Also, I don't mind adding a semi-protection for keeping out political rants, but they don't occur too often in themselves.--Ryz05 _t 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, the vandals found out. Since 12:30pm EDT, as of 4:30am EDT, 12 IP edits, 9 reverted as vandalism. --Golbez 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since 4:30am EDT, as of 2:30pm EDT, 11 IP edits, all 11 reverted as vandalism. We're up to 31 IP edits, 27 (87%) reverted as vandalism - in the first 24 hours or so. --Golbez 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Language

Was English made the official language yet? Dudtz 5/26/06 9:09 PM EST

No. The Senate passed a bill containing two statements on the matter, but it next goes to the conference committee, then has to be passed bu both houses again, then signed by the president. At that point, if the measure is still in th bill, English will become either the "national" language or the "common" language. Stay tuned. -Will Beback 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No language is in the Senate bill calling it the "official" language. "National" and "common" are a bit different, and largely symbolic. Moncrief 09:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Consider what actual differences having a language be official means. At least part of, if not all of, being an official language is that it be a language used in official documents & in courts of law - and that citizens are guaranteed to receive services in that language. (This does not mean that services in other languages will never be offered, just that they are not guaranteed.) If all services are available in English, but nowhere is that codified, then it is de facto official - there is no need to say 'none' official, just say "English (de facto)" --JimWae 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Saying "none" is very misleading.--Cruzian 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

but, under current laws, at least in some states (was this a national court decision, or a state level decision?) it is required by law to provide certain services in multiple languages. E.g. in several states, the public schools must accomodate non-English speakers. Doesn't this remove English's status as our "de facto official language"?MikeNM 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Official language 2

Hello folks! I studied official languages of some major countries and found out that none of the countries actually states "official language of our country is...". Instead, there are generally three cases..

1. France constitution says "Language of France is...", Ireland constitution says "The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.". Switzerland and Spain constitutions have similar statements.
2. Netherlands, Finland and Canada express in constitution or bylaws "National languages are...".
3. UK, Italy, Sweden and Norway do not claim any language, although it's safe to say that they have de facto official languages.

To make this article comparable to other country articles, can we really state "no official language in federal level"? The U.S. case is case type 3, and if the national language bill is approved, it will be type 2.

According to the article, official language is "a language that is given a privileged legal status in a state, or other legally-defined territory". Well, English is absolutely the only language you can expect to be serviced by federal institutions. New citizens have been mandated to demonstrate English reading, writing and speking skills for decades. All this is to the degree it's not different from any other country.

Thus, I believe it would very misleading to include statement "None at federal level". If existence of official language is defined by whether there's a law that defines such with the word "official", likely a majority of world's countries do not have official languages.--Cruzian 18:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The "national language bill" is not law yet!! The Senate passed it, but it still has to be reconciled with the House bill and then signed by the president. Please review your understanding of the legislative process in the United States. Moreover, I don't believe that the Senate version of that bill says anything about an "official language." It strikes me as a symbolic statement about English being a unifying language without the provisions of official-language bills (e.g., all government information to be printed in English only etc). At any rate, that bill IS NOT YET LAW, so wait. Moncrief 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but see - independent from whether the bill is approved - use of English at U.S. federal level seems to be in line what is generally understood as official language (type 3 countries). Many or most countries do not have "official" (or "national") language, but instead, it's just a practice similar to how English is has been used at federal level in U.S.--Cruzian 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting the source for these "three types" of official languages? I don't think it's a widely-held belief that the de facto majority language of a country is its official language. The two are separate things. An official language has to be declared. Moncrief 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But what is the point of explaining that "the term official language is not used for language X and in country Y", when we could just explain the status? The article should deliver information, not local vocabulary. There seems to be an official language at federal level in Germany, for example, but the role of language is equilevant to English in the United States. I'm only saying that we should say "Official language: English de facto." instead of "Official language: None at federal level. English de facto".--Cruzian 21:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting the source for these "three types" of official languages? Moncrief 22:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Both statements are true, however. There is no official language at the federal level. Despite your unsourced assertion about the "three types" of official languages, a language isn't really official until it's been declared so by a government. That's why a number of U.S. states have held referenda about making English their official state language, and supporters have put time and money behind those referenda. New Mexico has declared both Spanish and English as official languages; this is an official act that state took and differentiates it from other states that may have similar-sized populations of Spanish speakers. Spanish speakers in New Mexico therefore have specific, state-legislated language rights that Spanish-speakers in, say, Arizona don't; this is a reflection of official-language status, whether or not the "de facto" presence is greater in either state. At this point, there is no official language at the federal level in the U.S. (or for that matter in the UK, the birthplace of the language) - TRUE. It's also true that English is the de facto language of the country, which is different from having an official English-language policy. ALSO TRUE. So we mention both statements. I don't get the problem, and continuing to talk about the "three types" of official language without sourcing or futher information (who thinks this? Are all three types considered equal?), isn't going to move forward the discussion, in my opinion. There can't be any "de facto official languages" by definition. It's a bit like saying there are de facto laws against theft. You either have the laws on the books or you don't. There isn't a middle ground. (In fact, de facto actually means, by definition, something that isn't "official" -- i.e., legally passed, which would be de jure).) So I'd like to know who, apart from yourself, promulgates the "de facto official language" theory you cite above. Moncrief 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What about changing the template to read "Language" rather than "Official language"? Then I think it would be appropriate to say "English (de facto)". An "official language" is a pretty specific thing and term, and isn't a very useful descriptor on a template for countries that don't have an official language, such as the U.S. Moncrief 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea.--Cruzian 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a little depressing that so many people are editing the article on United States without any knowledge of how things become law here. And I disagree with changing the template, because then you would have every country adding minority languages. Spanish in America, Basque in Spain, et.al. --Golbez 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the template would let us to define status ("official"/"national"/"de facto"/"bureacratic"/etc.) of each language (or not define, if we don't find information). Now, it seems that many countries have incorrect information (they are actually type 2, type 3, or unknown type countries).--Cruzian 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like something to bring up on the template's talk page. --Golbez 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem we're seeing is that the quality of civics education and legal training in most other countries isn't very good. That's why a lot of foreign editors don't seem to understand how the American legislative process works (in that bills must be signed by the President or the President's veto must be overridden by a supermajority vote). --Coolcaesar 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are off topic. Our American and foreign editors do know the legislative process. We are not talking about the pending national language act, but about that's there's an overwhelming non-codified (and partly codified, such as immigration laws) laws that clearly give "a privileged legal status in a state", which again, seems to be the definition of official language.

Who wrote the above? Could you PLEASE sign your posts? Thanks. Moncrief 23:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Moncrief that that person should have signed their post. Turning to its substance, it is clear that the editor is not a lawyer. The fact that the United States has a variety of disconnected laws and regulations that refer to English does not make English an official language. In American law, the term "official language" is primarily used to refer to laws that specifically mandate that the government shall perform official acts in English as much as possible (with obvious exceptions for public health and safety since there are always going to be recent immigrants and tourists present who do not speak English). See, e.g, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (dismissed for lack of a justiciable case or controversy). --Coolcaesar 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither the USA article nor the Politics of the United States article mention presidential veto, btw --JimWae 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving sections to the demographics article

This article is too long and filled with things that don’t necessarily belong to this article. I therefore propose that we move the sections "Public health", "Largest cities" and "Population migration and growth" to Demographics of the United States, which is an underdeveloped article. These sections do in my opinion more belong to the demographics article than the main article. If you look at other featured articles about countries you will find that don't have the equivalent sections either. Remember that this article is only an overview article and can't possible hold all information related to the United States. --Maitch 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Public health" section is important enough to mention, as well as the "Population migration and growth" section. We can move the "Largest cities" section to Demographics article. The Public health section can be shortened a bit I guess, but let's hear more opinions. User:Jleon seems to be objecting the removal of the Largest cities section, but it'll be good for him to discuss it here.--Ryz05 _t 19:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Public health is important. Adding information such as:

The death rate for strokes decreased by 59 percent during the same period.[75] Between 1991 and 1995, the death rate for cancer fell by nearly three percent, the first sustained decline since national record-keeping began in the 1930s.[76] And today more than 70 percent of children who get cancer are cured.[77] Since 1964, when the US surgeon general first warned Americans about the dangers of smoking, the percentage of smokers has declined from almost 50 percent to approximately 25 percent.[74]

can be done without, atleast in this article. Rather, it would be more approrpriate in a daugther article about Public health in the United States. Pepsidrinka 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That passage you quoted is important to show the progress that the U.S. made in improving public health, how can you remove that when the second paragraph has much to criticize? It's there to maintain a neutral point-of-view at least. However, some of the criticisms can be removed.--Ryz05 _t 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I was just selecting a paragraph and explaining how much superfluous information is in this article that can be moved. I didn't read the other paragraph, and well, I guess that is my mistake. However, these statistics, whether good or bad, can be moved, and a good summary of the good and a good summary of the bad can be presented in just a few sentences. Pepsidrinka 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The statistics in the Public health section is important. Removing those is equivalent to removing the whole section. I think a good reduction of it is to remove some of the criticisms, like the international rankings for example, which is unnecessary in my opinion.--Ryz05 _t 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole section needs to go. It has no business in a summary article. Being bold. --Golbez 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not right to remove the whole section. Instead, you should trim it if you think it's too long.--Ryz05 _t 02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Largest cities table 2

I don't mind its inclusion, but it has to be important and informative. For one thing, the population density statistics is important to any city, and a table of population for the various cities is best kept with the density statistics. Removing them also makes the table a lot smaller - leaving a white space next to the pictures, which doesn't look good.--Ryz05 _t 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point out one of the several featured country articles that have a chart of the population densities of their largest cities? --Golbez 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here: PRC#Urbanization. Also, population densities are always listed on sources like the Census - to find how crowded a city is.--Ryz05 _t 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly the worst example you could have chosen, since the table wasn't there when that article became featured, *two years ago*, with *three votes*. Not exactly an extensive review. --Golbez 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: In terms of gauging the importance and influence of a city, the size of the metropolitan area is a better indicator than the size of the incorporated city limits. Administrative city limits are somewhat arbitrary. The cities chosen should be the central cities of the ten largest metropolitan areas instead of the ten largest cities per se. This will cause Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio, and San Jose to be excluded but we add Miami, Washington DC, Atlanta, and Detroit. Polaron | Talk 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As many others have noted, this article is extremely long. By replacing the table with a link to the in-depth article about the largest cities in the US, you cut 3kb. — TheKMan^talk 20:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest supporter of the table is User:Jleon, because he always adds it back each time it's taken out, but he's not discussing about its inclusion on this page. Another vote on whether to keep the table should be wise. Also, I think the many references led to a longer article size, but people should not object because of that. I still don't understand why some are still objecting about its comprehensiveness when so many others are complaining about the size.--Ryz05 _t 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

United States vs. United States of America

This article should be moved to United States of America as that is the offical name for our country. Who came up with this? MilesToGo 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a vote to change the title to United States of America, but there was no concensus. The argument for keeping that name is how it's more common to refer to the country as simply the United States.--Ryz05 _t 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

MilesToGo, see Talk:United_States/Archive_14#Vote - Should this article be moved to United States of America? and a subsequent one at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/United_States. With the question "Who came up with this?" you are essentially implying that anyone who does not support the move is an idiot. Read the discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

MilesToGo, first you must go to Mexico and try to get it moved to United Mexican States. It is, after all, the official name. --Golbez 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If a nation has an official title, why would WP prefer its unofficial name? That should be a standardized naming convention. I realize it's been discussed, but it's quite bizarre. Fearwig 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We await your attempts to get United Kingdom moved to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Golbez 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy has always been to use commonly used names for things, in line with all other major encyclopedias. As has been pointed out many times (at least eight times last year and this is the third time this year), Encarta, Britannica, and World Book all use "United States" for their corresponding article title. Switching to an official title policy would be extremely problematic where the official title is not well known, as in United Mexican States, and hopeless in cases where there is no official title. Furthermore, the usage of the term "United States" as synonymous with "United States of America" goes back to the U.S. Constitution itself (please read the Constitution's full text). --Coolcaesar 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

More to point, on Wikipedia, we use the short form name if it's unambiguous, and in this situation, that means United States. Yes, "United States" is unambiguous. Deal with it, y'all. --Golbez 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Coolceasar, fyi, the latest print edition of Britannica that I looked at uses "United States of America".

Golbez, please consider taking a break. You've done a wonderful job with editing this article, but your comments about Mexico, United Kingdom, and "deal with it y'all" aren't constructive. Besides, if you really believed what you are implying then you would be fighting at the Hillary Rodham Clinton article to get it changed to the more commonly used Hillary Clinton. --JonathanFreed 02:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll on the largest cities table

Since apparently the proponents and opponents keep crossing in the dark and never chatting, how about this.

1. No table.
2. Table without densities.
3. Table with densities.
4. Old table with >10 cities and densities and functions.

Vote please, as much as I abhor votes. --Golbez 02:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1 No table.

1. --Maitch 13:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. No table but mention the top 3 in the text. --Polaron | Talk 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Polaron also has a good idea there. — TheKMan^talk 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Voting is evil. Pepsidrinka 00:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Voting is the most evil way to determine consensus except for all the other means of determining consensus. Consensus means everybody agrees. Wikpedis is not a democracy. BTW, one reason that voting is evil is I vote for "no table" but I disagree with Polaron about mentioning the top three. It's the top ten or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. --Richard 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
   • I think the appeal behind mentioning only the top 3 is that they are absolutely unambiguous. The #1 city is the #1 metro area, the #2 city is the #2 metro area, the #3 city is the #3 metro area. Then you get to the #4 city, which is the #7 metro area. Whoops. And the #4 metro area is the #5 city. --Golbez 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
6. No table, but mention top ten in text (no numbers needed), should use metro areas. −Woodstone 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
7. No table. Moncrief 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
8. No table! —RJN 04:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

2 Table without densities

1. I prefer the table without densities. But I agree that voting is evil.--Coolcaesar 18:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

3 Table with densities

4 Old table with >10 cities and densities and functions

1. I prefer a smaller table and maybe have a larger table (or the whole thing, if removed from here) at Demographics of the United States article.—MJCdetroit 19:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Largest Cities table has been removed with note marks until a concensus is reached on whether to reinstate it or not. By the looks of it, the majority of the vote is to remove it.--Ryz05 _t 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Largest cities

New York City

Los Angeles

Chicago

The United States has dozens of major cities, including several important global cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. In 2004, 251 incorporated places had populations of at least 100,000, the table below shows the ten most populous cities according to U.S. Census Bureau 2004 estimates. The ranking is different for metropolitan areas, although the top three are the same.

City	City proper				Metropolitan area		Region
	Rank	Population	density (per mi²)	density (per sq km)	Rank	Population
New York City, New York	1	8,104,079	26,403	10,194	1	18,323,002	Northeast
Los Angeles, California	2	3,845,541	7,877	3,041	2	12,365,627	West
Chicago, Illinois	3	2,862,244	12,750	4,923	3	9,098,316	Midwest
Houston, Texas	4	2,012,626	3,372	1,302	7	4,715,407	South
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	5	1,470,151	11,234	4,337	4	5,687,147	Northeast
Phoenix, Arizona	6	1,418,041	2,782	1,074	14	3,251,876	West
San Diego, California	7	1,263,756	3,772	1,456	17	2,813,833	West
San Antonio, Texas	8	1,236,249	2,809	1,085	29	1,711,703	South
Dallas, Texas	9	1,210,393	3,470	1,340	5	5,161,544	South
San Jose, California	10	904,522	5,118	1,976	30	1,735,819	West

We need a "Frequently asked questions" page

I am sick and tired of WP newbies asking the same damned question every two months, on average, about why this article is called "United States" v. "United States of America." We really need a FAQ as the first link on this talk page, so that newbies can be appropriately referred to the Manual of Style and the "Naming conventions" guideline. What does everyone else think?--Coolcaesar 17:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though it will remove one of my favorite activities, being snarky towards them. :P --Golbez 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Add it then. In my opinion, "newbies" is an overly pejorative term. You could just say "new people." Moncrief 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. There, I did the hard part (i.e., linking to it, now you fill it with "frequently asked questions". Pepsidrinka 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides an answer to the question about why this article is "United States" instead of "United States of America," what other things could you add?--Ryz05 _t 00:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Is Jamestown the first settlement in the U.S.?

2. Is the U.S. really the oldest constitutional republic.

I have created the FAQ page and added these questions to it. If you have more questions to suggest, please add them. Hopefully, you will agree with the format that I have used to create the page.

--Richard 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the archive infobox at the top of this page, you will see that there are four topical archives of discussions that recur frequently. If you wish to nominate another topic to be archived in a topical archive, please do so or be bold and create it yourself.

I will document the topical archives on the Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions page.

--Richard 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

Why are the naming conventions and MoS such that this article is called "United States" rather than "United States of America"? -Splash - tk 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That will be answered in the FAQ. :) Long story short: We prefer the most common name, principle of least surprise, we almost always use the short form on Wikipedia except where disambiguation absolutely required, etc. --Golbez 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I hate to sound rude, but the reason why it stays at United States is absolutely nothing more or less than inertia. The recent vote to move the page ended at a fifty-fifty split, which means that if the page had originally been at United States of America, that's where it would be right now. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's just because there was a wave of new editors ignorant of naming standards. --Golbez 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Capita Income

How can the USA Per Capita Income be $43,555 when the majority of the big cities (over 100,000 inhab.) have Per Capita Income lower than $30,000? I'm telling this because USA's richest counties are small ones in term of population.

Moreover, the richest state of the country is the Connecticut at approx. $45,506/inhab. The majority are states are between $25,000 and $30,000 (maybe up to $35,000 - I haven't looked all the states). I just don't know how can the country's average be that high.

--Slimkay 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Slimkay

$43,555 sounds very high to me. You're right, there's something fishy going on, I think. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really simple. You take GDP and divide it by population. Yes, it's true that MOST families of four aren't taking in $174,220 per year (that's $43,555 × 4)—but that's how this mean average is computed. If the U.S. had a total estimated GDP of $12,490,000,000,000 in 2005, and if the U.S. had a population of 296,410,404 in 2005, then you just divide the 12.49 trillion by the 296,410,404—which gives you $42,137.52 per person.

Keep in mind that mean averages can be quite misleading. If I walk into a tiny graveyard and see on the tombstones that one person died at age 2, another at age 10, a third at age 70, and a fourth at age 78, then I conclude that the average life expectancy for those four persons was 40—even though, in fact, the closest anyone got to dying at age 40 was dying 30 years too early or 30 years too late.

All it takes is one extreme to throw things way off. The mean of 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, for example, is about 3.7—but the mean of 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 200 is 28.25, which is more than four times as large as the second-biggest number (7) in the set. So, very rich people in small-population counties could, when you average the whole country, raise the average income for poor people in densely populated ones.

It's nothing sinister. It's just math. ... This is also why GDP and GDP per capita are, according to many, poor indicators of how an economy is really doing.

President Lethe 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. I just realized that the numbers shown in the states' own pages are not updated, if compared to this list: List Of US States by GDP per capita (nominal). With this list, I can understand a little bit more the high average.

It seems like the USA is a rather poor country. I mean, there may be a bigger and richer-than-average rich class but there is a lot of poverty spread out everywhere. Am I right?

Also, on the California page it says that the Per Capita Personal Income is $33k while the GDP/capita is $10k more. Ugh?

EDIT: " California is the thirteenth-richest state in the United States of America, with a per capita income of $22,711 (2000) and a personal per capita income of $33,749 (2003). " Taken from California locations by per capita income.

I'm totally confused. I've read the articles about the PCI and the PPCI but I just don't understand the difference between them. Can you please explain me this?

--Slimkay 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about GDP per capita, you are calculating things correctly, but if you are looking at per capita income, I believe your method of calculation is incorrect. The GDP includes money that never makes it into an individual's salary. I thought that the average single income was 20-something thousand, and the average family income was in the high 30 thousands, though I might be wrong.MikeNM 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the "see also" at the end of the American Dream section

What are those "see also" references doing at the end of the American Dream section? What's the point of having them there rather than in the "See also" section?

--Richard 08:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The See also is to allow readers to read more about American culture that the section missed out on. Basically, you can't cover everything on American culture in one section, so those are improvised instead.--Ryz05 _t 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I see the problem now. The problem is that the "American Dream" is a subsection of "Culture" and so the "See also" stuff looks like it's a "See also" for the "American Dream" subsection which makes no sense at all. The "See also" stuff needs to be moved to be right under the "Culture" section title before any text begins.

--Richard 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. It has now been moved.--Ryz05 _t 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the point about "overseas territories"?

Aside from Alaska and Hawaii, what's the point about overseas territories? Why are they worth mentioning in the intro?

It's to say that the U.S. controls other territories outside the continental U.S.--Ryz05 _t 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh, I got that. The point is that those territories, with the possible exception of Puerto Rico, are largely unimportant in the grander scheme of things. Yes, I know that the Phillipines were a valuable strategic asset at one time and so, I suppose, were Guam and American Samoa. But, at the end of the day, these are sidenotes and don't belong in the intro. Look at it this way, you don't expand on this idea in the History section at all. Nor, as far as I can remember, is it accorded even a sentence elsewhere in the article. How important could it be?

Thus, inserting the phrase "acquired overseas territories" in the intro serves to distract the reader rather than communicate anything important.

I suppose User:JimWae would disagree with me on this one.

--Richard 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to the History section

Ryz05, have you decided that, since this article isn't going to get FAC status anyway, that you don't care about the multiple criticisms of the article being too long? My recent edits tried to take out stuff that wasn't really critical. The History section has been criticized as too long.

And your inflexible defense of bad writing without discussion of why you think yours is superior is likely to cause some editors (well, me, at least) to give up trying to improve this article.

--Richard 15:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, bud. After reviewing your reversion of most of my work last night, I've decided that you're on your own. Don't complain to me about the FAC failing. You're your own worst enemy.

--Richard 15:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I also reviewed the reverted edits and some of them looked like they'd be tough to justify. Some of Richard's changes seemed perfectly fine to me, they added some needed brevity to certain areas of the article and the grammar was no worse, and in some cases, an improvement in readability. Bjsiders 15:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I simply refilled some key information that were blatantly removed, and agree with edits that aim to improve the article without cutting key information or divide paragraphs when there's no need to. --Ryz05 _t 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bjsiders. I'm not claiming that every word I write is perfect or that every edit I make makes sense. However, I put a lot of thought and effort into my edits last night and having them reverted wholesale without discussion is really annoying to the point of being uncivil. I've been trying to help this article towards FAC status and there have been some comments about the quality of the prose. Reverting people's edits without discussion does not move the ball forward.

It's really tempting to revert to my last version but that would violate WP:POINT. I try, though I don't always succeed, to observe WP:0RR. Failing that, I go for WP:1RR. So, I will let Ryz05's reverts stand but I am clearly not a happy camper.

--Richard 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, calm down. I am just trying to improve the article without cutting out key information that people will simply object to for "lacking comprehensiveness." Also, the paragraphs that I replaced were edited by others, which I consider to be fair and good. Finally, I'm happy that there are editors who understand the dilemma of people objecting because the article is simply too long or lacking comprehensiveness. I'm also happy that many prominent editors and even administrators come in support of this article in becoming featured. Therefore, I try to keep the original quality of the article that they support when they voted. So, do not accuse me of "defending my bad writing," because that is false.--Ryz05 _t 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. Perhaps I was rash in my response. However, in my defense, there is a guideline to use "neutral edit summaries" when reverting. I hope that my outburst gives you a sense for how arbitrary your edits and reverts can seem at times. This is not the first time that I have had this reaction to your actions.

And, yes, I suppose we should not make major changes as that, itself, can put a FAC in jeopardy. Would you entertain a point-by-point discussion of my edits from last night or should we just leave things alone until after the FAC closes?

--Richard 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually hate to revert other's people's edits when they were just trying to improve the article, but what bothers me more are those illogical edits which seem to make more of a mess than actually helping the article improve. Here are the reasons why I reverted some of your edits:

1. Removed the information about the Civil War, which some were objecting to.
2. Added a paragraph explaining the Spanish established the first colony in Florida, which is misleading since Florida did not become a state until after the original 13 colonies had won the American Revolutionary War.
3. A long continuous paragraph was broken up into three small ones, which appeared choppy.
4. A nice, flowing passage was separated into two, and a new (otherwise unnecessary) sentence was added.
5. Removed key information about why the U.S. joined World War I.
6. Removed key information about why the U.S. did not ratify the treaty after WWI.
7. Split a nice paragraph into two (one being only two sentences long), and adding another (otherwise unnecessary) sentence to the second part.
8. Divided another interrelated paragraph into two.
9. Removed information about the mentioning of the relatedness of the American Dream to that of "city upon a hill, a light unto the nations," which I thought is interesting and deserve a mention.--Ryz05 _t 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why no "also known as"?

What on earth is wrong with putting some kind of phrasing like "also known as" in the parenthesis in the first sentence of the article? You have the name of the country in full and then parentheses with alternate names but without any kind of description of what those names are. We can assume they're alternate names, but why not say so? That's common practice in Wikipedia articles.

If I can offer a more general observation: It seems that some of you have been working on this article for a long time, which is great, but I also think that such closeness can create a kind of fear of change. People are awfully quick to revert in full, to dismiss new editors here as "newbies", and to express frustration at any change to this article. Just a thought to keep in mind; sometimes a fresh perspective can be great. Moncrief 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that a "fresh perspective can be great," but adding "also known as" into parenthesis is redundant, since the parenthesis already implies other possible (common) ways of writing or refering to the United States of America.--Ryz05 _t 16:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't imply that. A parenthesis merely implies a parenthetical comment. What we are supposed to infer from that comment is not altogether clear. Are these names equivalents to the full name? Are they all appropriate to use? None of that is clear without additional phrasing of some kind to explain what these other terms are. That's common throughout Wikipedia. Moncrief 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I get no response to my message here, I'll go ahead and add "also known as", though I'm open to suggestions for other ways to explain what these parenthetical names are. I also challenge anyone to find one significant article in Wikipedia that has parenthetical "other names" next to the full name of the subject with no description at all of what these secondary names are supposed to mean or what they're for. Note, for example, how United Kingdom deals with it: the reader is given information about what to make of the parenthetical names. Moncrief 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond and thank you for patiently waiting. You can check on a featured country article like the People's Republic of China, which has more common names of the country in parenthesis. Same with the U.S. article; those names in parenthesis are some of the most common ways to refer to the country in writing (excluding U.S. of A. and U.S. and A. etc.).--Ryz05 _t 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In the PRC example, it clearly states in the parenthesis that those other words -- which don't show up on my screen, but I'm sure they're Chinese characters -- are the ways in which the name of the country is represented in traditional and simplified Chinese. The terms "Simplified Chinese" and "Traditional Chinese" give the reader a sense of why these Chinese characters are in parentheses. In the United States article, the reader is not told why these secondary terms are here because there's no other information, as there is in the PRC article. It also helps that "China", which is a separate article from the PRC article, is linked in the parantheses. Nothing is linked in the parantheses here. Moncrief 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In the PRC article, the words in the parenthesis tell which is simplfied and which is traditional so that people will understand why there are two translations of the same name. I seriously don't think it's necessary to explain that the names in parenthesis are more common ways to refer to the United States of America. If you still disagree, I recommend on hearing more opinions.--Ryz05 _t 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with this sentence

"Before the European colonization of the Americas at the end of the 15th century, the present-day U.S. was inhabited by Native Americans, who arrived on the continent by crossing the Bering land bridge between 50,000 and 11,000 years ago.[5]"

Inaccuracies with that phrasing:

1) The European colonization of the Americas was not a finite event that occurred at the end of the 15th century. It was a process that you could argue lasted to about 1900, and certainly into the 19th century. The phrasing above makes it sound like a one-time event at the end of the 15th century, when that was only the very, very beginning.

2) The present-day U.S. is STILL inhabited by Native Americans. Saying that it was only inhabited by Native Americans before the end of the 15th century, and then somehow not so after that time, which is what the above phrasing implies, is grosssly inaccurate.

3) It's not conclusively proven that Native Americans arrived by crossing the Bering land bridge. While I personally believe that they did, and so am not going to edit that part, it's fair enough to insert "most anthropologists believe" in there.

a) how they got here can probably go entirely (to an anthropological article). That they were here a long time is what is relevant to an article on the US.--J Clear 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

b) Not relevant to article, but FYI: from something I saw recently on the Discovery or History Channel, it seems like there is more evidence in favor of the land bridge theory.--J Clear 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to (again) change that sentence to better reflect the first two facts above. If you decide to change it back, I'd appreciate it if you could explain here why you're doing so. Thanks. Moncrief 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The edits looked fine. Those words were deleted because they were considered unnecessary.--Ryz05 _t 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "North American Indians" or "aboriginal population" be better? -- Centrx 06:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Neither of those terms are in popular use. What is your reasoning? Moncrief 17:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

American Indian is certainly in popular use. On a Google search it does have less results than "native American", but both are still in the tens of millions, and Google is only useful for indicating a general magnitude of usage, not specific relative use. American Indian is the far older term with broader usage whereas Native American is mostly recent and politically correct. "Aboriginal" or "indigenous" are also far more accurate terms. —Centrx→talk 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there's also the old argument about "Native": they, too, were immigrants; they've just been here longer. And a non-American recently pointed out to me the flip side of this: aren't all persons born in the Americas native Americans?

Anyway, another point is that the U.S. Census, which certainly has been making strides in inclusiveness, does say "American Indian"—and most members of the tribes in the U.S., except when talking about a specific tribe by name, actually use "Indian" more than they use "Amerindian", "American Indian", or "Native American".

I myself like "Amerindian": it's one word, doesn't have the "native" question attached to it, and clearly doesn't mean people from India. But, of course, there's the old argument about Columbus's mistake—and it's just not as common as "(American) Indian" and "Native American".

Anyway, every one of these terms has its flaws. (Actually, the Canadians seem to have worked around this with "First Nations", because there's no using "Indian" and there's no claim of nativity—and the "firstness" is basically without question.) Still, the present-day facts are that "Indian" (and the more specific "American Indian" (to differentiate from "West Indian" (in the Caribbean) and "East Indian" (can mean both the Indies (the Caribbean area) and India)) ... as I was saying, the facts are that "Indian" has been in use for hundreds of years and is still the most popular choice among the people themselves—and that "Native American" has been being ingrained in many Americans' heads for at least 20 years now and is unlikely to go away.

Despite the respective flaws of "Native American" and "American Indian", one basic point remains: just about all native users of English who are reading Wikipedia, and indeed most non-native users of English who are reading Wikipedia, know exactly what we mean by either term. Sure, there will always be someone to reject whatever term is used, for somewhat sensible reasons (just as the reasons supporting the term will be somewhat sensible): but the reason for rejection has almost 0 chance of being "I reject it because I don't know what you mean by this term".

"North American Indians" seems a little superfluous: obviously, those in Argentina aren't the same as those in Greenland, who aren't the same as those in New Mexico. It may also be inaccurate or misleading, in the sense that we are talking about at least ten thousand years here and the ancestors of, say, the Chilean ones were probably, at one time, living in what became Canada and the U.S. and Mexico and plenty of the other countries on the way to Chile.

President Lethe 06:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Military

Does an article on the US as a whole really need to discuss the nature of the Marine Corps and the dual roles of the Coast Guard? Especially since the present text leaves the reader wondering about the Corps. And since the creation of the non-branch MAJCOMsCOCOMs (e.g. USCENTCOM, STRATCOM), you really can't use just the 3 or 4 service branches to describe the entire military. The MAJCOMsCOCOMs and the civilian termination of the chain of command should be mentioned. The trick would be to do it without significantly growing that section. Tightening the second military paragraph seems possible. Must sleep, be bold tomorrow.--J Clear 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you can't "use just the 3 or 4 service branches to describe the entire military." See United States military.--Ryz05 _t 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See United States military#Unified Combatant Commands. The point being that the chain of command for combat operations does not flow down through the service branches. Everything is Joint these days. The 1990 Gulf War and present conflict are not fought by the Army or Navy, they are fought by CENTCOM. Looked at one way, the purpose of the traditional branches it so train and equip units for the UCCs to use. The UCCs are outside the traditional service branches, orthogonal to it in a way. I'm not proposing deleting the service branch info. Better yet, look at Military of the United States#National Command organizational chart where you see the UCC are on par with the services and JCS(who also go unmentioned). When I can set aside a block of time, I'll write it up and you can poke at it.--J Clear 23:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are detailed information of how the U.S. military is structured. I don't think the information should be included in the summary section of this article because it'll risk confusing the reader unless some graph or chart is added.--Ryz05 _t 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that going into the more intricate details of the military command structure is too in depth for the summary article on the United States. It should, however, be fully described in the article on the US Military.MikeNM 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"European plurality"

I don't think this sentence is accurate: "The majority of Americans descend from European immigrants who arrived after either the establishment of the first English colonies or the Reconstruction period in 1863–1877. This majority is expected to be reduced to only a plurality by 2050"

Are not most Hispanics descended fully or partially from Europe and speaking a European langauge? This sounds a little like the 19th cent. argument against the Italians, who are today considered white. The sentence at least needs to be more specific, that the anglo/germanic/southern europe majority will be a plurality. Brando03 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the distinction is that Hispanics are a mix of European (mostly Spanish and Portuguese) and Native Ammericans (mostly Central and South American. Their herritage differs markedly from their European ansestors. Jaxad0127 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning a European-descended majority, but the "first English colonies"/Reconstruction references are bizzare. Citation needed! Reconstruction begain in 1865 for one thing. For another, a huge wave of immigration began after 1877, in the 1880-1910 period. (Not to mention the enormous 1840s German/Irish immigration that doesn't seem to be covered by this description.) Is this craptastic sentence still in the article? I'll have to check. Moncrief 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, of the European immigration waves, the one that came in the early 20th century, before the immigration quotas were passed, is very large, and unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe that their desendants are at least near in number to those who came during colonization and Reconstruction. Secondly, unless a more detailed overview of US immigration is going to be included, which I believe would be too detailed for the US summary article, I don't believe that discussion of when these Europeans came is necessary. Finally, that those of European descent will be reduced to a plurality by 2050 is a disputable projection. While I think that it is highly likely, I don't believe that that statement should be included in this article. MikeNM 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

European immigrants are just that-- immigrants that came, physically, from Europe. The overwhelming majority of Hispanic immigrants to the US did not come from Spain or Portugal, but from Mexico and central America. The majority of Americans are no doubt descended from immigrants who came to America from Europe.TexxasFinn 10:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights section

This section has problems. It needs to be focused on the present. There is no earthly reason to mention something that happened to the Choctaws 175 years ago! Details about the history of human rights should be located in the main Human rights in the United States article. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I made some changes [3]. And also moved some sections out of this section and into the Military and Foreign relations sections. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC failed

The nomination failed again unfortunately. It seems like most people who objected want the article to be summarized even further, despite how some still want more to be mentioned. In any case, it's not possible to satisfy everyone so I suggest we cut down on the article size instead of attempting to expand it. Not everyone will be happy with the change, but I think it is for the best.--Ryz05 _t 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I messaged user:Raul654 about why he failed the nomination even though most were in support, but so far, he has made no reply.--Ryz05 _t 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC is not a vote; he looked at the issues expressed and decided it did not pass FAC. --Golbez 23:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response about what he thinks how the article can be improved.--Ryz05 _t 23:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this decision doesn't surprise me at all. I did a cursory reading of just the History section last week, and I found obvious errors and creaky writing. Somebody needs to read this entire article, and check it for errors. Frankly, it's not up to FA snuff. Moncrief 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than cut back on meaningful content in this article, I think you should attempt to cut back on some of the less important, more innane facts that are included in some sections. For example, the transporation section states that Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is the country's busiest airport. Facts like that can be cut out, making the article shorter, more concise, and without removing anything that provides a deeper view of the country.MikeNM 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved information from article

As an attempt to reduce the size of the article (with a goal of 70-75 kb), information that are removed will be placed under this section so they are not lost, because many did spent a lot of time working on this article.--Ryz05 _t 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

-Well I'll be restoring the cities table on account that this has been discussed and voted on many times in the past. I agree the article could use some trimming, but this is the wrong place to start. --Jleon 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

JLeon, did you miss the vote we had above that said no table? That supercedes the previous votes, I'd think. --Golbez 03:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

-Yes I did indeed miss it, as I've been on a bit of a wiki-break. OK, so you take it down if you want. I does seem strange that this vote turned out so differently from the previous ones though. --Jleon 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of the additions to the sections of this article are inserted as people identify things that are missing or could be provided in greater detail. Although we all want to improve the article, the excessive addition of information in many sections has caused them to become bloated and sometimes difficult to read. It would be good for editors to remember that this article is intended solely a summary of the many articles that are specifically related to the section subjects. As such, it is strongly advised that extra additions for the sections in this article be added to those respective subject articles instead.--User:Ryz05 03:57, April 22, 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: Do NOT vandalize this article! Vandalism will be dealt with and persistent vandals may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Lind, Michael: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism...The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods...The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century."

Richardson, Heather Cox: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes that reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded..."Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes...for ordinary expenses of Government."

Boritt, Gabor S: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leornard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate cariety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'"

"By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed England as industrial leader of the world."

"[They say] if you had not had the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man."

Largest cities

New York City

Los Angeles

Chicago

The United States has dozens of major cities, including several important global cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. In 2004, 251 incorporated places had populations of at least 100,000, the table below shows the ten most populous cities according to U.S. Census Bureau 2004 estimates. The ranking is different for metropolitan areas, although the top three are the same.

City	City proper				Metropolitan area		Region
	Rank	Population	density (per mi²)	density (per sq km)	Rank	Population
New York City, New York	1	8,104,079	26,403	10,194	1	18,323,002	Northeast
Los Angeles, California	2	3,845,541	7,877	3,041	2	12,365,627	West
Chicago, Illinois	3	2,862,244	12,750	4,923	3	9,098,316	Midwest
Houston, Texas	4	2,012,626	3,372	1,302	7	4,715,407	South
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	5	1,470,151	11,234	4,337	4	5,687,147	Northeast
Phoenix, Arizona	6	1,418,041	2,782	1,074	14	3,251,876	West
San Diego, California	7	1,263,756	3,772	1,456	17	2,813,833	West
San Antonio, Texas	8	1,236,249	2,809	1,085	29	1,711,703	South
Dallas, Texas	9	1,210,393	3,470	1,340	5	5,161,544	South
San Jose, California	10	904,522	5,118	1,976	30	1,735,819	West

The United States Capitol building, serving as the legislative branch of the United States federal government.

The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to defense, foreign affairs, the issuing and management of currency, the management of trade and relations between the states, as well as the protection of human rights.

A unique phenomenon in the First World as opposed to continental Europe and the British Isles, the United States has a relatively high birthrate as well as active religious affiliations. It is currently the world's largest Christian-majority nation (52% Protestants, 24% Roman Catholics, 1% Mormon), as well as boasting the largest Protestant Christian population in the world.

The contiguous U.S. is bounded by the North Atlantic Ocean to the east, the North Pacific Ocean to the west, Canada to the north, and Mexico to the south. Alaska is bounded by the Pacific to the south, the Arctic Ocean to the north, and Canada to the east. The island state of Hawaii is situated in the Pacific, southwest of the North American mainland.

The climate of the U.S. is as varied as its landscape. Along the northern reaches of Alaska, tundra and arctic conditions can be found. Here, the temperature has been recorded as low as minus 80 °F (−62 °C). On the other end of the spectrum, Death Valley once posted the second highest temperture ever recorded on Earth at 134 °F (56.7 °C). The northern states near the Canadian border receive the most snowfall with the greatest quantities in the northeast, the Cascade Range in Washington and on the highest peaks of the northern Rocky Mountains. Generally, the east is moist and the west is dry with quantities of rainfall diminishing significantly in the great plains. Along the northwestern Pacific coast, moisture levels are higher than anywhere else in the continental U.S., but Hawaii receives even more, with 250 inches (635 cm) measured annually on some islands. Some areas of the southwestern deserts receive less than 10 inches (25 cm) annually. In the central portions of the U.S., tornadoes are more common than anywhere else on Earth, with the spring and summer being the most likely seasons for them. Deadly and destructive Hurricanes occur almost every year along the Atlantic seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico. The Appalachian region and midwest experience the worst floods, though virtually no area is immune to them.

This is quite an awkward sentence

In the first paragraph, even:

>>>Buoyed by victories in World War I and World War II as the only major power not devastated, and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union following the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower.[3] <<<<<

While obviously a sentence can lead with a modifying clause, or even two if it flows well, this sentence has two weighty modifying clauses in the front, with the "main" idea at the very end. I suppose it's gramatically viable (just barely), but it's a clumsy, cumbersome sentence to lead into the article with. Ideas for fixing it? Moncrief 19:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution is simple. Changing now. If people have objections, let's discuss here. Moncrief 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree that sentence was awkward. I've suggested changes on a couple of occasions but the text wound up the way it was despite my comments so I gave up trying. Since you've been bold enough to fix it, I've taken it one step further.

Somewhere along the line, the intent of all this got lost. The idea is really quite simple until you try to cram it all into one sentence and then split it into two again.

Hopefully, my text communicates the point lucidly. In case it doesn't, the point is this... Because the U.S. economy and infrastructure were not wiped out as happened to France, Germany and the U.K. during WWI and WWII, its economy outgrew theirs. Now, this glosses over the point that the U.S. had vast undeveloped natural resources and wide open territory to expand agriculturally. Hey, there's only so much you can cram into a three-paragraph intro.

We don't explain why the Soviet Union became the other world superpower. It DID get devastated by WWII but let's ignore that point also for now since this is about the United States and not about the Soviet Union.

So, as you correctly pointed out, it wasn't until after the Soviet Union collapsed that the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower/hyperpower.

--Richard 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Grrrr... ok, fine, if you think my version is too long then let's go with yours. However, for reasons that I can't put into words, saying "As the only major power not devastated by WWI and WWII" sounds fine whereas "The U.S. was buoyed by victories in World War I and World War II as the only major power not devastated." sounds awkward.

I think the problem is that the first sentence adds a bit to the meaning of "not devastated" whereas the second sentence leaves the reader hanging as to the meaning of "not devastated".

I think my most recent edit addresses this problem.

--Richard 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when does "buoyed" come from "not devastated"? Jaxad0127 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer just the word "buoyed," which sort of implies that the U.S.'s economy was not devastated, but others at the time wanted it to include "not devastated." I think I'll delete the mentioning of its economy being not devastated, which seems excessive.--Ryz05 _t 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with: "The U.S. was buoyed by victories in World War I and World War II and was the only major power whose economy was not devastated. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union after the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower" personally. Moncrief 22:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, especially after you made those edits. But, since "buoyed" is implying that the U.S.'s economy was not devastated, don't you think it's excessive to state "(it) was the only major power whose economy was not devastated?"--Ryz05 _t 23:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the problems with "Buoyed by victories in World War I and World War II, and especially following the collapse of the Soviet Union after the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower":

1) What does "and especially following the collapse..." modify? It's joined by a conjunction to an independent clause specifically about the effects of victories in World War I and World War II. The "and especially" therefore seems to kind of float alone, and it's unclear how the collapse of the Soviet Union relates to a clause about WWI and WWII.

2) The US didn't emerge as the world's sole superpower "especially after the Cold War." It emerged as the world's sole superpower ENTIRELY after the Cold War. During the Cold War, post-WW2, there were two superpowers. That's why there was a Cold War.

3) There are two separate events occurring here, and you're trying to cram them into one sentence, for reasons unknown. a) The US is bouyed by winning two world wars without a devastated economy (this last bit is important). b) Forty-five years later, after a simmering era of conflict with another superpower, the US emerges as the world's sole superpower. Those two events deserve two separate sentences. Moncrief 23:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

>>>don't you think it's excessive to state "(it) was the only major power whose economy was not devastated?<<<<

No, I don't think this is excessive, but it doesn't really matter what I think. This is what actually happened in history. Which other major power's economy was not devastated after the world wars? I suppose you could make the case that Britain's economy wasn't exactly "devastated" after WWI. I'm more interested in keeping the two sentences separate than I am in including the information about devastated economies, to be honest. Moncrief 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It can just say "buoyed by victories," instead of adding the excess stuff about the country's economy escaping devastation. This will help shorten that paragraph, without having two sentences (don't know why you want to have two when one setence is more concise).--Ryz05 _t 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm unsure how to make my reasons any clearer. Having one sentence is not more "concise" when the information isn't properly conveyed and rules of grammar and syntax are ignored. Moncrief 23:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trolling. Why do you want to have two sentences when you can just have one. Saying "buoyed by victories" implies that the U.S.'s economy is not damaged.--Ryz05 _t 23:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think he's "trolling". Someone on the FAC discussion (I don't think it was Moncrief) complained about snakes. The original sentence was a snake.

Ryz05, you don't seem to get that many people think some of the sentences in the U.S. article are way too long and connect up ideas that are only tangentially related. You like long sentences and consider shorter ones (including my edits from last week) too short and choppy.

That is why I wrote "You are your own worst enemy." Your perception of what is good writing style is not gospel. You did not write Strunk & White. Neither did I. I am willing to believe that other people can write sentences as good as or better than the ones I write. Listen to Moncrief, he's not standing alone on this one. I may not like his sentence but it's better than what was there before. What do you need, a vote on every sentence?

Eventually, I will return to my edits of last week and take on your criticisms one by one. In the meantime, consider that your opinion of what is "good writing" is not gospel.

--Richard 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the point about "buoyed" and "not devastated" is that it's not clear what it means for a country to be buoyed by a victory. It's trying to pack too much meaning into one word which is metaphorical in this context anyway. If you had said, the "U.S. economy was buoyed", then the "only country whose economy was not devastated" stuff would definitely be redundant.

--Richard 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't add back the edits you made to that sentence last week. I think Moncrief likes the way it is for now, since he changed it according to my suggestion.--Ryz05 _t 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I add back the edits that I made to the sentence last week. Do you own the article? What right do you have to tell me what I can edit or not edit?

Besides, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that I would list each edit and provide a detailed explanation of why I felt they were superior to the text that went before. Perhaps by now you may start to have an inkling that your sense of a well-put-together sentence or a logical flow of a sentence or paragraph may not be God's gift to Wikipedia. I've looked over your explanation for your reverts. I don't agree with all of them but it will take me some time to explain the rationale for my edits since they don't seem to be obvious to you.

--Richard 05:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The United States was hardly "buoyed" by its victory in WW1. The war was expensive, the US largely withdrew from international affairs in the 20's, and deficit spending contributed to the stock market collapse and Depression of the 1930s. In fact, the US economy was in recession twice after WW1 BEFORE the Geat Depression hit, and the "Roaring Twenties" really only applies to the latter part of the decade before the crash. It was only the Second World War that finally pulled the US out of the Depression-era for good and made us a "Superpower;" and it was only the Soviet Union's collapse that gave us "sole" status.TexxasFinn 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim Crow laws

The phrase "causing the abolishment of the Jim Crow laws" is more concise than "the movement led to the abolition of the Jim Crow laws that legalized racial segregation in the South." So I'm not sure why you changed that. What's wrong with the word "abolishment" as opposed to "abolition?"--Ryz05 _t 23:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be trolling? Am I meant to take that as a personal attack? The problem with the word "abolishment" is that it is less commonly used than the word "abolition" (which, actually, has a long context with legal matters, especially around ending discrimination and knocking down racial barriers -- i.e., the "abolition of slavery.") While "abolishment" is an acceptable variant of "abolition," it is less frequently used and seems more awkward.

I think it's appropriate to give a little context about Jim Crow laws in this article. Also, it was literally Congress and the courts that caused the Jim Crow laws to be abolished. That's why I changed the wording. The Civil Rights Movement certainly led to their abolition, but I'm not sure the movement exactly caused it. (New laws and court rulings had a cause and effect relationship with the end of those laws.) Is there another editor here who maybe has a bit more syntactic and historical sense who wants to offer an informed opinion? Moncrief 23:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything more about the Jim Crow laws can be found in that article. Just the mention of it and how it legalized segregation in the South is enough.--Ryz05 _t 23:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough about that. Glad you agreed with the rest of what I wrote. Moncrief 15:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, what's magic about 75kb?

Ryz05 reverted Jleon's edit about the largest cities. Just eyeballing it, the edit probably was significantly less than 1kb. Even if you could get the article down to 75kb, what difference would it make? The Wikipedia guideline is 30-50kb. 75kb is just a number pulled out of someone's ass. You could get it down to 70kb and that probably wouldn't appease the people who complained that it was "too long" on the FAC discussion. To appese them, you'd probably have to go for 60kb.

Now, it's beyond me how you're going to rip out 20% of the article but that's what you need to do, at a minimum. So, complaining about Jleon's measly 500 bytes or so of text is just silly.

What you need to do is be honest and assess whether Jleon's insertion is worth having in the article given that "we" have "decided" to keep the article short. (I haven't seen any consensus built up around that question.)

Personally, I happen to dislike Jleon's recently inserted text and would prefer that it not be inserted into the article but let's be honest with each other. Either it's worth having or it's not worth having. Holding off on adding stuff until we get down to 75kb doesn't make sense.

If you don't want the text now, you won't want it at 75kb. If you do want it now, then insert it now and pull something else out.

If you really want to cut down this article, try creating section budgets. Here's how it works... Start with an overall goal for total article length. Let's say it's 60kb. Then divide that 60kb into so many kb for History, so many kb for culture, so many kb for economy, etc. The total of the section budgets should add up to 60kb. Then decide which sections are too long and which sections are too short. If necessary, take the budgets down an extra level. That will help you focus on which sections and subsections to expand and which to cut.

--Richard 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize what reducing the article down to 65 kb means; it's like removing entire sections. The People's Republic of China article is about 70 kb, and it has a shorter history section. 75 kb for the United States article is a more realistic goal.--Ryz05 _t 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By now, you should have had a chance to read Jeff3000's suggestions. We can try to do it or we can give up on the FA status. I'm going to copy the current article into United States/Long. Then, let's choose a goal using the vote options below. Using Jeff3000's suggestions, let's create United States/Short using the goal selected by the vote. If that mollifies the "too long" gang, great. If not, we can just give up and go back to United States/Long if you prefer.

--Richard 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now created two sandbox articles: United States/79kb and United States/60kb. United States/79kb holds the 79kb version of the article before Northmeister's recent edits down to 73kb. I'm going to copy the current 73kb version to United States/60kb. The problem that I foresee is "What happens if Northmeister implements Jeff3000's suggestions but other editors don't agree?" Wouldn't it be better to do the edits in a sandbox version and then ask people to compare the long and short versions?

--Richard 04:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Call for consensus vote

If you followed the FAC discussion, you will know that there were three major categories of objection:

1. Didn't include topic X, Y or Z
2. Article is too long
3. Prose is flabby

Ironically, objections 1 & 2 seem to contradict each other. How do cover more topics and make the article shorter at the same time? Some people argued that you could shorten the article by tightening up the prose. They're dreaming. I don't think you can shorten the article more than 5% by tightening up prose.

Anyway, if we want to achieve FAC status, we probably need to get the article into the 60kb - 70kb range. Question is: what should our goal be? We're close to 79kb right now. Seems to me that the obvious choices are 50kb (the top of the Wikipedia guideline range), 60kb or 70kb.

We should pick one of these numbers and, assuming we can get down to that number, just say "Hey, that's the number we picked. The Wikipedia guideline of 30-50kb is for your average article. The United States article ain't no average article."

If you read my comment in the section immediately above this one, you'll see that I propose setting a page bhudget on the total length of the article. With this tool, we can hit any goal we set. Now, all we have to do is set the goal.

So, what are your thoughts?

--Richard 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what number to pick, but it's way too long now and there's already an American History article. Cut at least five of the six pictures from the American History section and reduce the text by more than half. The picture of George Bush signing the PATRIOT ACT isn't so important either. -Barry- 02:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cut article down to 60kb (25% reduction)

1. --Richard 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to make this win FA for a few months and just concentrate on writing a good article

1. Sandboxes for different sizes? This is pure insanity. --Golbez 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2. MikeNM 14:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve this article

Hello all, I know a lot of people have put in a lot of work to make this article and get it to featured article status. I applaud your work. As someone who worked on the Canada article, and got it to featured article status, I would like to make some suggestions. The biggest problem with this article is it's length, and it doesn't subscribe to the summary style. What we did with Canada was completely remove some sections to daughter articles, and considerably shorten other sections. This is difficult, as we all know there is lots of important information that needs to be given, but we have to be a little discerning, and let the daughter articles do their work instead. So here is some more specific suggestions and comments. I'm sure that a lot of you will not be happy with them, but I think they will improve the article.

1. History section is ok, if not a bit too long. One too many images though.
2. Politics main section is ok
3. Move foreign relations and military to a top level section, combine the two, and shorten considerably (examples, remove territorial disputes, remove consulates, and countries that don't have relations, remember summary not detail)
4. Remove Human Rights section, make it a See also at the end of another section or move it directly to the See Also section.
5. Political Subdivisions is great.
6. Geography section is good, but too many images, remove two of the ones on the right, and make the remaining one bigger. All images removed can be put in the daughter article.
7. Economy section is too long. Remove the last paragraph, and remove most of the detailed information in the second paragraph; just state that it varies, and give a list of stuff, and then merge the third paragraph into it.
8. Remove the Transportation section completely, it doesn't need to be in the main article. As for the Science section, I can see a reason for it. Either remove it, or make it a top level section, and move it lower down in the article.
9. All subsections in the Demographics should be merged into the demographics section (no subsection headings).
   1. Considerably shorten the language, stating that English in the main language, but that there are other languges with a list. Reasons can be in the daughter articles.
   2. For the education paragraphs, remove the sentences on trade schools, homeschooling, and the last paragraph.
   3. For the religion paragraphs remove the comparison of religiosity. Combine and shorten into a summary the last sentences of the second paragraph and the third paragraph regarding regional differences. Remove the fourth paragraph.
   4. Remove the public health section completely. Make it a link in a See also at the end of the demographics section.
   5. Remove the Population migration and growth, this level of detail really needs to be in a daughter article, the main demographics section takes care of the numbers of different races.
10. Culture section is good
11. Make the Sports section it's own section, or shorten considerably, and just state interests and move into the culture section
12. Make the American Dream subsection its own section.
13. Images: There are 26 images in the article, while images help the article, too many distract the flow, and hurt smaller resolutions. I would suggest no more than 15 images.

Please don't take any of the above comments as devaluing anyone's work. The article is very good, but we must take advantage of internet medium (links) to make the page have summary content for those who want some quick info, and allow for more detailed analysis in the daughter articles. -- Jeff3000 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Another comment, is look to Australia as the ideal featured country article. It's well written, well sectioned, and has just the right amount of detail. -- Jeff3000 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, just took a look, well done. America deserves a little more however, because of our large role in the world compared to Australia. I've looked at Japan, Germany, etc. and they run about 80 kilobytes in Germany's case, and less in Japan's case. What this article lacks is flow, and it severely misses on many markers. I tried to rectify this in my reduction attempt just now, like mentioning the Pilgrims for example in History, very important to American identity; not even mentioned previously. The opening needs real work to be presentable and needs expansion; the rest needs some reduction and should flow like the Australian article to a large degree. --Northmeister 04:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several recently promoted featured articles that exceed 70kb...I think to be descriptive, much less than 80kbs is going to be tough with this article. I just greatly expanded the geography section since IMO, that section was in need of more detail. I am infavor of removing some images, but we need some that show what at leasta couple of sections of the country look like. Bush signing any bill is simply not needed. Why not a picture of George Washington instead?...he's supposed to be the father of the country. I see no reason to have a section on the American Dream at all...what for? That section seems parochial and prone to POV. Well, I didn't add any refs to the geography section so I'll try and get those in later.--MONGO 11:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The American Dream deserves at least a sentence and a link though. —Centrx→talk 12:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember everyone, no one is talking about deleting information or not describing the United States in detail, we're just talking about putting information in the appropriate place, which to meet the summary style article, is in the daughter articles. -- Jeff3000 12:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should all work together to reduce the size a bit, including the American Dream section, which deserves a paragrpah summary. We should also clean-up the grammar in places. I agree with removing some photos. We should use another article like Canada to go by. --Northmeister 14:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources. Strangely, for the importance of the article, this is one of the least-sourced major articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. DO NOT put factual/statistical information into this article if you just "think it's about right." Provide a source, and link the source to the article. There's a major point of improvement right there. Moncrief 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has been reduced to 73kb

This is a significant improvement from the original 85-95kb. I think what the article needs now are some copyedits and references. After that, it's ready to become FAC again.--Ryz05 _t 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of working against my edits, with odd citations needed for common fact, like the Pilgrims and civilian control over the military - lets discuss your objections here. I want to work with you to reduce the size of the article and make it presentable. My header changes were in line with other article on nations like Canada and Germany and Japan, it is standard wiki practice to have such headers as "Government" and "States and territories" rather than simply "Politics" - Further the intro is much better I think the way it presently is, it sums America up quite well. Let's work, now paragraph to paragraph on any disputed points to reduce the size to appropriate levels and clean-up the text. --Northmeister 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind on cutting down the information, but the version before the changes is a lot more organized and better looking. It'll be interesting to see what you guys come up with, but I hope the article will become featured in the near future. I have to say that this article changed a lot since April 10, 2006 [4].--Ryz05 _t 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's work on organization then. I wanted to organize the article like other national articles are organizated to be wiki-standard. There is still room for improvement; however. --Northmeister 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What is with the new intro?

Who added all that relgious stuff? Perhaps there are too many cooks in the kitchen. I wish we could protect it again until this FAC process gets sorted out. It's almost not worth the bother to try and improve the article. Moncrief 15:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment, don't give up. We are all out to improve this article, which is dear to my heart because I am an American and wish to see a good wikipedia article - well-written and accurate. There will be debates about things, but we can work them out to make the article flow well and be precise. The religious stuff might work, as it is true America is more spiritual than most nations, with a high percentage of weekly church attendance - which defines the American character as Kennedy noted in 1948 as a young man America is: Patriotic, Idealistic, Religious, and Pioneering in its character and I think that still applies today. --Northmeister 16:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

While it's relevant to mention religion, I don't know why it should be focused on IN THE INTRODUCTION (complete with a breakdown of religious denominations??) This is very silly. Your Kennedy comment is creepily POV. Help! Moncrief 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, why did you re-add that religious/birthrate cruft to the intro? Moncrief 15:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, I deleted the religious stuff and then saw that a huge chunk of the old intro was missing. I thought I had deleted more than just the religious stuff by accident so I reverted my own deletion of the religion stuff, intending to find the "right" version of the intro. I was trying to figure out how to restore the intro when I realized that somebody else (Moncrief) had deleted the last bit (about WWI and WWII) on purpose several edits back.

I disagree strongly with Moncrief's deletions from the intro. The intent of the old intro was to synopsize American history from the formation as a tiny two-bit rabble of insurrectionist colonists to the world's hyperpower. The old intro explained that the nation expanded and grew economically especially after the Civil War and was further advantaged by coming out of two world wars not only victorious but without the infrastructure damage inflicted on the other nations. That's how we wound up being one of the two superpowers in 1945. The current intro assumes the reader doesn't care about this.

Go ahead and delete the religious stuff if you like. I'm going back to my apathetic "I don't care, nobody wants to write the intro the way I want to so go ahead and write whatever intro suits you guys" stance.

--Richard 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I don't agree with your premise -- I see value in telling the story of the past 100 years of American history in an abbreviated way -- but there is no way to salvage the sentence as it was written. The overarching theme should be "evolution towards superpower and later emergence as sole hyperpower" rather than "emerged as sole hyperpower," a conclusion to which, without further clauses, it is very difficult to tie into victory in WW2, let alone WW1. Moncrief 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it'd be slightly more palatable, a compromise rather than an ideal, to substitute "After" for "With" in the sentence "With After victories in World War I and World War II, and following the collapse of the Soviet Union after the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower." OK? Moncrief 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (Actually on second thought, ick. We can do better. What is the underlying message we want to convey with this sentence? Isn't it more than just "emergence as hyperpower" circa 1990? If so, let's say what we're looking to convey, and work back from there to add clauses. Moncrief 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I took out the WW1 and WW2 references. I know they are relics of the earlier form of the sentence, but I think we need to stay focused on what the sentence is meant to convey. The point of the sentence (at least to me) is that the U.S. is now in a unique role as the world's only hyperpower. While victories in WW2 (and much less so, WW1) set the stage a bit for an event that occurred in the early 1990s, I don't think they're relevant enough to keep in the intro. Lots of countries were victorious in those wars. We can provide greater context in the History section for the events prior to the end of the Cold War; for the intro, isn't it enough to say that the U.S. is the world's hyperpower and the immediate reason why? Moncrief 16:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think your right in your reasoning. Superpower is however the standard usage. I think however that we are more a Great Power, alongside China, Russia, and Japan or will be that in the future - which is only reasonable considering history. Our superpower status was due to no other large power being able to challenge our economic might which is the source of our military might (especially tech wise) - that is changing now especially with China if trends continue to decimate American manufacturing. --Northmeister 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Source needed

"The majority of Americans descend from European immigrants; this majority, which in 1965 was 90% and today is closer to 81%," in the Demographics section needs to be sourced.

I've consistently seen figures closer to 70-75% for the percentage of European-descended Americans today. In fact, 81% couldn't possibly be true because 12% of Americans are black and about 13% are Hispanic, which adds up right there to 24%. Not to mention the 2% or so who are Asian, which takes it to 26% non-white just from the most widely-accepted (and somewhat outdated) census figures. 100- 26 = 74.

Please fix or source, if you're somehow including some Hispanics because of their part-Spanish ancestry, and please do so quickly.

Moreover, the 11-12% figure for African Americans has been pretty consistent in the last 50 years, so how do you come to 90% European in 1965, considering that fact and that perhaps 2% of the population was Hispanic at that point (rough estimate)? 100 - 13 = 87, which is not 90%. Source these things! You can't just make stuff up out of thin air or guess at something, and put it in a major Wikipedia article. Moncrief 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hispanics are not monolithic as a group and most are descended straight from Spanish ancestry (European) or mixed Spanish and Native ancestry (many who are from Mexico for example). There are also African Hispanics and Asian Hispanics, plus there are Hispanics who are from Portugal originally (Brazil) or other European destinations. The prime difference besides language between America and for that matter Canada and the rest of the New World, is that the rest was settled primarily by Spanish, French, and Portuguese people and there was in some areas a larger percentage of natives as in Mexico. The Dutch also settled there on the Islands. Thus, Hispanic is not a race, it is a geographic destination. Most Hispanics in the USA are either Mexican or Cuban, and they can be classified as European by culture and by race predominantly as the US Census has a tendency to do, especially if they intermarry European American citizens their offspring have a large percentage of European genetics and thus may be classified essentially as European. The 90% figure is accurate and the black population in 1965 was 8% not 12% - Asians have remained about steady at 1-2% along with Natives and Hispanics have grown due to a shift in immigration from Europe to Latin America since the 1990's and due also to illegal immigration. Much of the demographic shift is happening due to the 1965 Immigration Act repealing national quotas, and Americans like today, were promised such a shift in policy would not alter their national identity - they were promised this in 1986 as well. Regardless all Americans are human beings and American by nationality - since language and culture matter most in the end to determine a nation and the melting pot will continue to work its magic. I for example can call myself an English-Dutch-French-Native-Irish American or simply an American - I prefer the later as less cumbersome. The figures are straight from the book Alien Nation, which I don't have in front of me, but I will get the source. --Northmeister 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alien Nation is not an unbiased book. (I'm bypassing many of the other irrelevancies in your post. Heard of paragraph breaks?) The appropriate data to cite in a factual article comes from the U.S. Census, not Michael Savage's anti-immigration book. Moncrief 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alien Nation wasn't written by Michael Savage. I will get the source, and I also agree that the US Census figures for 1965 and beyond are what should be used. If I am wrong or I remember wrong, I stand corrected. Feel free to remove that slice of the sentence about 1965 etc. and just state the year 2000 census figure, until I pull the book from the shelf offer a source. --Northmeister 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alien Nation was written by Peter Brimelow, head of VDARE and a leader in the anti-immigration/immigration reduction movement. -Will Beback 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The above editor is correct and despite controversy, Brimelow's book is well referenced concerning the demographic changes since 1965 and what existed in 1965. I however support the present sentence as it was edited as fine. --Northmeister 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

references

I added seven references to the geography section...is there any other factoid in that section that needs a reference?--MONGO 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

this is not a featured article why............?

I mean when mariah cary is on the front page of this web site, and THE UNITED STATES is not, then u know we have a problem. U know?

I beg your pardon? Moncrief 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, contrary to Ceyockey's surmise, this is not "obvious trolling". When you see some of the articles that have become FA (e.g. Mariah Carey, Phil Collins, Acorn Computers and Caulfield Grammar School) and then consider that United States is not a featured article, you have to wonder "Huh? What the hey?".

Yes, those articles are well written but maybe it's easier to write a medium-length article about a small topic than it is to write a medium-length article about a big topic.

--Richard 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is "obvious trolling" ... the proposition is placed without a single shred of information on why the contributor is surprised at the present situation. I ask the anonymous contributor to this discussion to say why we are to wonder 'what the hey?' User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies. Assume good faith. The writer either has weak English skills or weak keyboarding skills. I agree with the sentiment although you're right that just expressing it isn't very constructive.

--Richard 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for opening paragraphs

Looking at other nations (Canada and Australia) that have passed their FAC's; I feel the opening is inadequate to meet our needs. I also feel we should use those countries pages to organize this article or use it as a standard. As far as the Opening, I suggest each editor concerned offer their Version of the now existing paragraph (or one entirely new) and that once we have several versions from interested editors we work to combine the best elements from all into one for the page - until then the original stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northmeister (talk • contribs)

Yes, somehow, along the way the intro got truncated to being too short. Ryz05 was trying mightily to keep it short but as Montcrief and Northmeister were whacking away at WWI and WWII, it slipped into a coma.  ;^)

It might be useful to read through Talk:United States/Introduction to get some perspective on which blocks we've already gone around.

For your reference, I'm adding in the intro as of April 12th. No particular reason for that date or that version. This is just the intro that I saved when I created the topical archive Talk:United States/Introduction. I figured it would provide a point of reference for what used to be in the intro at an earlier point in time.

--Richard 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, it wasn't my intention to gut your article. I agree the intro is too short as it stands now. But this business about conflating World War I, World II, and the end of the Cold War all together as the cause of the U.S.'s hyperpower status just does not work. It also isn't true that all other victorious countries had "devastated" economies after WW1. "Devastated" is a subjective word, and there are people who would argue even that Britain, never invaded, wasn't exactly "devastated" even by WW2. Sure, it took years to recover fully and great swaths of London were bombed, but is discussion of wartime devasation of other countries (never precisely defined) the best use of the intro? I believe your purpose is to encapsulate in perhaps two sentences the U.S.'s rise from obscurity to superpower. OK, let's create two such sentences. The ones that existed are, in my opinion, unworkable. Moncrief 03:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate topics for inclusion in the opening

Placement of a topic in one list or another is just a tentative initial assignment. The purpose of making these lists is to stimulate a debate and ultimately form a consensus about what topics should be in each list. --Richard 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rules

You can list a topic to be included or NOT to be included. However, you may not move a topic from the "to be included" list to the "NOT to be included" list or vice versa. If you disagree with the recommendation to include or exclude a topic, please move it to the "List of topics whose inclusion is a matter of debate". Then please explain why you disagree in the discussion section. --Richard 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

List of topics to include in the opening

1. Location
2. Neighboring countries
3. pre-colonial history of Native Americans
4. Origin as 13 English colonies
5. Date and manner of becoming independent from Britain
6. Never has been a Commonwealth Realm
7. Form of government - "federal republic" or "constitutional republic"
8. oldest "presidential republic"
9. Growth through territorial acquisition
10. Currently 50 states
11. Overseas territories
12. Currently the world's sole superpower
13. capital is Washington, D.C.
14. major cities in coastal regions though some are inland
15. No official language
16. Economy
17. major trade partners

List of topics NOT to include in the opening

1. Human rights abuses e.g. slavery, Native Americans
2. Dominance of the U.S. in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological domains
3. Membership in international treaties and organizations (e.g. NATO, NAFTA, UN, etc.)
4. Never has been a Commonwealth Realm
5. No official language

List of topics whose inclusion in the opening is a matter of debate

1. Summary of American history from the Revolution to the present

Discussion

I build the initial "List of topics to include in the opening" list by listing all the topics in the current opening and adding in topics from the candidate openings based on the Australia and Canada models below. --Richard 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added "Never been a Commonwealth nation" and "No official langauge" because the first is irrelevant, and the second is not noteworthy enough for an opening - especially since the de facto official language and actual in many states official language is English. --Northmeister 10:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate introductory paragraphs

Introduction as of April 21, 2006

The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it. The former colonies proceeded to form one of the first constitutional republics in the world. Since then, the country has expanded its borders and obtained greater wealth and influence in global affairs. However, the path to development did not come without a price as American history is tainted with cruelties such as slavery, and the forced migration of millions of Native Americans out of their homelands and onto reservations.

In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands today as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower. The influence of the United States is, like any other nation, nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints.

--Richard 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Who added this? What is its purpose? SIGN YOUR POSTS. Moncrief 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"tainted with cruelties" is excessively POV language for an intro. The cruelty of slavery stands on its own without extra words like "tainted." Moncrief 03:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added it. I said so in the text above it and I signed that text but I guess I needed to sign it again after the sample intro. Yes, the language used in part of it is POV. That was a "snapshot" in time. As I said, it was an arbitrary snapshot but I think it also provides perspective on what has gone before. Rather than just throwing possible candidate introductions out for consideration, maybe we should step back and ask "What are the points we want to make?" For example, does human rights deserve mention in the intro? Some people thought it did but others shot them down.

Once we've identified a list of points to cover, we can discuss the specific wording.

--Richard 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Present opening

The United States of America (the U.S., the U.S.A., the States, the United States, or America) is a federal republic in North America. Founded in 1776, it is the oldest existing presidential republic in the world.

The U.S. originated from thirteen colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776. After winning the American Revolutionary War, it was recognized as an independent nation by the British following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Since then, the U.S. has grown from thirteen to fifty states.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union after the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower.

Northmeister proposed opening

The United States of America (the U.S., the U.S.A., the States, the United States, or America) is a federal republic in North America. Founded in 1776, it is the oldest existing presidential republic in the world.

The U.S. originated from thirteen colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776. After winning the American Revolutionary War, it was recognized as an independent nation by the British following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Since then, the U.S. has grown from thirteen to fifty states.

In the 1840s, the United States emerged as a significant "middle power" and the dominant force in its region. After its civil war in the 1860s, it experienced an accelerated rate of industrialization, emerging as a dominant economic power by 1880 surpassing the British Empire.

Following World War I, the U.S. experienced the "Roaring Twenties" continuing to grow rapidly as a world power. Following World War II, it emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers.

In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural and technological affairs. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands today as the sole global superpower.

America celebrates its founding date as July 4, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress—representing thirteen British colonies—adopted the Declaration of Independence that rejected British authority in favor of self-determination. The structure of the government was profoundly changed on September 17, 1787, when the country adopted the United States Constitution, the oldest surviving written constitution to date. --Northmeister 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That is, frankly, an absurd proposed opening. You cram it full of details about 20th century history (the "Roaring Twenties".... now there's a phrase that belongs in the introduction) when the introduction is about the subject as a whole, of which its history is only one small part. And why do you insist on calling it "America" all the time? I get that "American" is unambigious and that America defaults to the U.S., but it's still an abberviated term in some regards. Can we at least stick with "the U.S."? I could go on.... Moncrief 02:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee, Northmeister's proposed intro reminds me of what I thought the intro once said although I couldn't find a recent version of this article that had similar wording. I like the general approach but somebody (maybe Moncrief) has recently made the argument on this Talk Page that there is more to the U.S. than its history. I think we need to step back and ask "What are the key points we want to make?" Moncrief references the Australia article (see below). Canada is another possible model for us to follow.

I call it America, because that is a proper well known name in my country, America that is, for the United States of America - as Australia both a continent and nation is Australia, or France is France not the Republic of France, or Germany is Germany in English not Duestland(sp), or the United Kingdom is referenced often as Britain. America, the United States, the USA are the most common names here, Columbia is an archaic poetic alternative name for America named for Christopher Columbus who found the New World. So, it is quite proper and indeed right to call the United States what we Americans call it, America (as in America the Beautiful or God Bless America which are patriotic songs on par with the National Anthem). American, on the other hand is a term to describe the people of America, as English is a term to describe the people of England, or German of Germany, or Russian of Russia, or Canadian of Canada. Thus I feel is it perfectly fine and indeed better to refer to the United States in the article as America in context. --Northmeister 09:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Following the model of the Australia article

Australia's article is masterful in its simplicity and level of inclusion: a broad overview (population figure, names of cities) is offered, with just the right amount of geography (neighboring countriss' names), history, and politics as well. We have a long way to go to match this sort of gorgeous, fluid prose. Moncrief 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The geography and climate section for the Australia article doesn't mention the lowest points (elevation) (at Lake Eyre) or major rivers or lakes. The climate section doesn't mention amount of precipitation, highest or lowest temperatures. I read it and learned little, personally.--MONGO 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

However, I noticed that article has a section on flora and fauna and this one doesn't...this is a gross oversight.--MONGO 07:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a try.

The United States, also known as the United States of America or the U.S. or the U.S.A., is a country in the Northern Hemisphere. Neighbouring countries include Canada, Mexico and Russia.

The North American continent has been inhabited for over 15,000 years by Native Americans. After sporadic visits by Vikings from Greenland and Spanish explorers starting in the fifteenth century, territories in the eastern half of the continent was claimed by the British during the 17th century. As the population grew and new areas were explored, thirteen largely self-governing colonies were successively established over the course of the seventeenth century.

On 4 July 1776, the thirteen colonies declared independence. After a war of independence, the British were forced to recognize the new country on 3 September, 1783. Since then, the United States has tripled in size through territorial acquisitions and expanded to fifty states and a number of overseas territories.

Since independence, the United States has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system. However, unlike many other former British colonies, it has never been a Commonwealth Realm. The capital city is Washington, D.C. and the population of around 280 million is concentrated mainly in the coastal regions as well as a few large inland cities such as Chicago and Dallas which are mostly situated on major waterways.

--Richard 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I really like a lot from the above opening, which I feel is much better than many parts of my proposal or the one that exists now. The one above is the best thus far. --Northmeister 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I like that opening a lot. I'd fine tune a few things, but I think it's a great start. You may want to even still mention the sole superpower status at the end; it is what makes the country unique in the world today. But a great improvement! Moncrief 13:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the two of you agree and anyone else involved here, let's take this version and work on it as a starter for the opening paragraph. If no one objects, I will place this paragraph as the opening for now, until the final version is agree on. If there are objections, let me know. --Northmeister 14:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC) - I added the above version leaving the last sentence of the old about superpower, and adding America as one of the place names, to see how it fit in the article. That is not to indicate it will be the final version however. --Northmeister 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I love it! I'm really pleased by it now, and I'm generally a grouch. Now, just wait: it will be altered beyond recognition a day from now.  :) Moncrief 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Following the model of the Canada article

The United States occupies the central portion of North America. Extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, the United States shares land borders with Canada,Mexico and Russia.

Inhabited originally by Native Americans, Canada was founded as a union of British colonies which declared independence from Britain in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. However, the British did not recognize the independence of the colonies until 1783 after conceding defeat in the Revolutionary War.

The United States is a now a federal republic of fifty states. There is no official language although English is the de facto language of business and government. A technologically advanced and industrialized nation, its diversified economy relies heavily on an abundance of natural resources and on trade, particularly with the Canada, Mexico, Japan and China.

--Richard 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the first paragraph. I don't like the rest of it. I think the Australian version is the best to work from. Of, course what others think may help us to know where to work from. Once we have a starting point from proposals offered by others, each of us can then tweak the starting point form until it works best in our opinions as an opener. --Northmeister 09:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian version was modelled on the Australian version following comments I made to its WP:FAC. In the hope that it might assist your efforts, I'll rehash it here: Generally, good introductions to country articles contain three elements. The first paragraph of the introduction provides locational context - what its geography is, who its neighbours are. The second paragraph gives an historical overview. And finally, the third paragraph is left for societal details - what its political system is (briefly), what its social characteristics are (because this could be many things, it's important to mention something that is defining).--cj | talk 11:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Secular status

Is the US a secular country? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have a "separation of Church and State" here that both prohibits the "establishment of religion" or as Jefferson noted "an official church" or denomination like was the case with the "Church of England" and prohibits government from violating religious liberty and "free expression" of faith. Essentially, American's are overwhelmingly a Judeo-Christian people, with a majority Christian population that attends church more regularly than most developed nations. That said, anyone is free here to practice whatever faith they believe in so long as they do not break the laws of the USA or do harm. --Northmeister 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked because I couldn't find a mention in the article about the religious stance (whether secular or professing a religion) of the government. "In God we trust" and "God bless America" leads to a general assumption that America is a Christian State. Thank you for the explanation. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}15:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though America uses those phases, one is free to worship or not worship God in a manner of their choosing. A person will not be prosecuted for their religious convictions (or lack of) as they would in many other countries around the world. The founding fathers, most (if not all) of whom were Christian, did a pretty good job in 1776 to ensure that any American could worship free of government interference.—MJCdetroit 16:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, we have a lot of conservatives running around in America who insist on inserting religious references into official matters. However, as long as these references are kept relatively minor and ceremonial, the courts tolerate them. The dividing line is very vague, but probably the biggest difference is between compelled to pray (or to give the appearance of praying) and having to tolerate the presence of others praying. For example, school prayer has been repeatedly thrown out by the courts, as well as prayers at high school graduations because mere silence at such ceremonies would give the appearance of praying. But the courts have upheld the use of chaplains to give opening prayers at legislative proceedings and the use of chaplains by the military as religious counselors and to give prayers at a variety of military proceedings. The difference is that school attendance is mandatory, while participation in the legislature and the military is voluntary.

Of course, the appearance of any endorsement of religion is irritating to atheists, agnostics, deists, and religious people of all kinds who believe that it is not the business of government to become entangled in religious affairs (a view that I share), but the judiciary has generally ignored such feelings, and thereby avoided a direct confrontation with religious conservatives (most of the time). However, when it comes to direct proselytizing by government employees, the courts have made it extremely clear that no government employee should explicitly or implicitly condition access to government services upon agreement with that employee's religious beliefs. --Coolcaesar 16:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but the history would say otherwise. Freedom of religion is mentioned under Government and politics. Jaxad0127 16:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In clarity to Coolcaesar above, since 1963 the Supreme Court has prohibited mandatory school prayer, but one may pray in school if they wish to on their own. The Supreme Court's rulings on some prayer and religious issues are not shared by many Americans. As far as religious freedom, America is a very tolerant country and plural in its beliefs but the vast majority believe in God, thus the national motto "In God We Trust" which does not expect anyone to hold any particular faith, nor do any of the patriotic songs, is very fitting. No one is required under American law to believe anything, everyone is sovereign citizen with inalienable rights - namely Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness whether they are religious, agnostic, or atheist. Religious tests have never been a part of government in the USA; and are prohibited in the United States Constitution. There is no state church, our Founder's did not want one and were wise enough to leave a comfortable wall of separation to allow the Church (or religion in general) to have its place in eccelsiatical affairs according to ones personal beliefs and the state to have its place through Government in temporal affairs. --Northmeister 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A further clarification which I do not have time to expound on at length. There is a difference between being a country with a state religion and a society that has a predominant religion. At one point (say 50 or 100 years) ago, the U.S. was more clearly a Christian society although it has never had a state religion. However, it is still predominantly a Christian society, just less so than it used to be.

For the first 200 years of the nation's history, Christian morals and values were more or less assumed in government and public policy. This has changed over the last 50 years which is part of the reason for the "culture wars" in the country today.

Note: I am not passing moral judgment over these changes. At least not in this posting. I'm just saying this is what has happened.

It would be a mistake to assert that religion has had no effect on public policy in the past or that it has no effect on public policy today. One major thrust of "separation of church and state" is that the government should not establish any one religion as the "official" religion of the state. The other major thrust is that the government should not interfere in the affairs of a church or the personal religious beliefs and practices of individuals.

It is difficult to say when religious beliefs should and should not affect public policy. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. Abortion is legal in all 50 states. The debate goes on and will go on for some time to come.

--Richard 17:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

de-intending Interesting. Thanks all for taking the trouble to explain. And Jaxad0127, I was not asking about the status of religious freedom. I was asking if the government of America was professing a religion (like Nepal a couple of months back, when it was a Hindu state). My doubts are cleared now. Thanks! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

United states is either 24th or 29th in freedom of speech

Should I include this in the article? if nobody does in the next hour I will. -Dragong4

You need to have an appropriate citation for that.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 15:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see how it has any relevance to a general article. What is your point and what reference source are you using? --Northmeister 15:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

why NOT put it in? And I got it from da radio -Dragong4

What a wonderful source. Please read WP:CITE. --Golbez 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, now if u don't mind, it's time for me to add it. -Dragong4

Nope. --Golbez 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's true and citable, it probably belongs in the Human rights in the United States article.

--Richard 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Free speech cannot be quantified. Who gives this rating, HRW? Amnesty International? Is this that stupid "Free Speech in the Press" ranking that puts us at 44? I've seen that one before and highly disagree with its ratings. It considers allowing the press to slander and put people in danger a measure of free speech. Please give a source for this before even considering adding it to the article. 69.249.21.218 04:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Major problems with introduction (the new one)

Whereas the name Australia is applied to the continent and so it is appropriate to mention its aboriginal inhabitants in the introduction, the same is not true of the United States. This article must solely be about the country as nation, with the actual history of its founding being the earliest statement warranted in the introduction. Also, the introduction is missing such important things as even mentioning that the country consists of states, that it extends from sea to sea 2,500 hundred miles long and 1,200 miles wide. Also, the neighbouring countries are a problem as well; it is misleading, for example, to state that the one of the least populated regions of the U.S. 100 miles across a sea from one of the least populated regions of Russia warrants mention as a "neighboring country". Also, while it is fine for the Australia article, explaining the Continent and the wholly separate country, as being "in the Northern Hemisphere", this is pointless to say in the introduction when "North America" serves just as well, or is it expected of readers that they know what "Northern Hemisphere" means but not "North America"? (When the opposite would actually be more likely if they do not know both) —Centrx→Talk 21:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. Indigenous people lived in what is now the U.S., so we mention them. What does it matter if the English-language name "United States" applies to the whole continent or not? We're talking (or should be) specifically about the people who lived in what is specifically now the U.S. English naming conventions are irrelevant. I think your other points are pretty valid, with the exception of the Russia-as-neighbor comment. All encyclopedias and almanacs I've read note that Russia is a neighbor of the U.S. across the Bering Strait. Doesn't seem so inappropriate to mention, whether or not western Alaska is populated or not. But adding geographic distances and 50 states are a good idea, imo. Moncrief 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even in the Australia article it is out of place in the introduction, because the article is properly confined to the country, with the continent having its own separate article, but a person looking to read about the continent could at least conceivably be at that article. I am not suggesting that aboriginals be removed from the article entirely, only from the introduction, which with it is not an introduction to the United States.(The body of land was not divided in the way it is now. Anyone living in Australia lived on that continent, and its borders were determined then as they are now by the terrain of the Earth. The borders of United States were created in the last 400 years, and in some places the last 200. The aboriginal peoples in North America did not live in anything with the borders of the U.S. They may have lived East of the Mississipi, they may have lived on Cape Cod, or they may have lived on Lake Ontario, but only because those landmarks are there regardless. An Indian village may very well have straddled what we now call the U.S.-Canadian border, but when an inhabitant went across it he did not so much as notice. He did not have to get in a boat and sail 300 miles to Papua New Guinea; he did not have to cross a river or even a hedge of trees.)

The Britannica does not have Russia, but it doesn't really matter what other sources do, only whether there are good reasons that apply here for doing it. Saying that Russia is neighbor is an interesting factoid but it really does not mean much. Actual bordering countries have significant commerce, both economic and cultural, and people actually go across the border. It would be much more reasonable to say that it is bordered by Canada to the north, Mexico to the south, and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to the east and west. The introduction is not a school geography lesson, there are far more important things the space could be used for.—Centrx→Talk 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't approve of your definition of bordering countries, it is not logical nor right in any stretch. --Northmeister 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You must explain for your statement to have any weight. Why should Russia, or Cuba or The Bahamas be mentioned in the introduction as a neighboring country when it is not necessary to locate it geographically and when it is not important to the history nor present situation of the country, and why should it be mentioned instead of the many other countries that are for more important to U.S. history? —Centrx→Talk 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is misleading to state that the US and Russia share a border; they do, in fact, share a maritime border, as their 12 mile territorial zones intersect in the Bering Strait. The Diomedes are only 10,000 feet apart. --Golbez 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The importance of mentioning the border is not that parts of the nation are geographically close, but that they share some political, economic, and cultural history as neighbors. Some fisherman passing by each other—that is, if there is anyone living there at all—does not qualify as significant contact, and the United States has far closer relationships with nearly any European country, all but one of which are not mentioned in the introduction. Russia may be appropriate to mention in the introduction in the context of the twentieth century but that is not as neighbors, in fact it is in the context of distant foes and, as I said above, this is not a geography lesson. —Centrx→Talk 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, in a maritime context, why would this be more important than mentioning the bordering Atlantic and Pacific, on which Americans have lived, and on which far more Americans have sailed than have ever even lived in western Alaska and easternmost Russia? —Centrx→Talk 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but there is no assurance that a country with which another country shares a border is a "close ally," "allied in trade or commerce" or paraphrases of what else you wrote. It's just geography, not economics or commerce. If you want to infer that bordering countries share all that, that's up to you but it isn't implied in this article. Propose a new version if you'd like. As for your objections about mentioning the indigenous people, I guess you're saying that they're irrelevant for the intro because their exclusive existence on the continent predates the country's founding. Which, actually, is a valid point worth discussing (obviously they should be mentioned in the History section, but I get what you're saying re: intro). Moncrief 23:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to be a close ally, they could be the most hated enemy, and historically one of these is very likely to be true at least sometime in the history. In terms of commerce, it is not simply geography, it is humanity. It is far more likely for human beings to go some place, when it is by land, down the paved road or dusty trail, and nearby, and it is far more likely that the numerous businesses would transact to satisfy various demands. Even lowly populated borders, say China and Mongolia, have much more relationship across the border than with Russia and Alaska. Even places separated by water, say China and Japan or England and Ireland, have far more relationship across the separation than with Russia and Alaska. I am in my objection talking specifically about this border relationship, between the U.S. and Russia, but I would still be fascinated and surprised if you were to find any land border in the world that is less relevant than the one between Alaska and Chukotka, the principal town and administrative center of which has only 11,000 inhabitants and is more than 400 miles from Alaska. —Centrx→Talk 23:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the objections make sense. It is appropriate to mention neighboring countries. It is appropriate to include native Americans as they were the first to inhabit the part of NORTH AMERICA the USA became etc. etc. I am not getting the objections, they seem incoherent. --Northmeister 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In what respect? Why is it appropriate? —Centrx→Talk 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I think what people are trying to get across is that you are confusing basic geography with its more elaborate cousins in the social sciences. Geography is essentially about the relationship of physical locations to each other; a geographic fact is that the United States and Russia share a maritime border. On one side you're in the United States; sail a mile west and you're in Russia. Simple and sweet. Nothing more to it.

What you're trying to focus on is human geography or cultural geography (I studied this in college); the impact of physical location upon the people who live there. For example, a cultural geographer would study how the difficult weather at the northern latitudes discourages people from living up at the U.S./Russia border or regularly conducting large amounts of commerce across it. Or they would study the movement of Mexicans (on legal work visas) from Tijuana into San Diego every day to work for a few hours in the United States.

I agree with everyone else that for such a broad overview article like this one, basic geography is much more important. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people have no formal training in cultural geography, including, apparently, you. If they want to study it, they can always take a community college course. --Coolcaesar 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not confusing them at all. I am saying that the purpose of basic geography in the introduction is exclusively to locate the country, and that any other geographic information there is excessive and unnecessary unless it is especially relevant to the economy, politics, or culture of the country. What is the purpose of equating the border relationship with Russia as anything like that as with Canada and Mexico (formerly, it was a list: "Neighboring countries are Canada, Mexico, Russia, Cuba, The Bahamas").

This is not merely academic, unless masses of Russian immigrants go across the Bering Strait leading the government to debate sending thousands of troops there to stop them or to legalize immigrants already in the country, as with Mexico; or unless inhabitants of both countries can freely and easily cross the vast nearly unguarded border in their own automobiles to vacation or visit or do business with our friendly neighbors to the north.

What is the purpose of mentioning the proximity of two nearly unpopulated expanses as constituting "neighborhood", both far from the main country, when the capitals and major population centers are instead actually on the opposite side of the planet, 5,000 miles away across the Arctic, and the nearest population centers (though still only 10,000-20,000 people) are 600 miles apart. Is an encyclopedia article, and the introduction at that, supposed to be a jigsaw puzzle? —Centrx→talk 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I know for sure you're definitely not familiar with geography! Please look at a world map before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Several countries share very short, sparsely populated frontiers with other countries, yet those countries are still mentioned as neighbors of each other. See, e.g., Afghanistan and China, Slovenia and Hungary, Norway and Russia, Armenia and Iran, and Namibia and Zambia.

Furthermore, you are still conflating physical geography with cultural geography. Physical geography does not consider the relevance of economy, politics, or culture! It's only about land and water. That basic distinction is covered in any first-year undergraduate geography class at any decent university (as well as in many social science courses in high school). The idea is that one first studies physical geography to learn the layout of terrain, and then learns cultural geography to study how that terrain shapes the lives of the people who actually live there. Two separate fields. Not that hard.

The purpose of focusing on the physical geography of a country (in terms of its geospatial relationship with its neighbors) is for the benefit of those readers (particularly children) who are not familiar with such information at all, and for the benefit of older readers who may be vaguely familiar with the location of a country but might need to refresh their memory.

Anyway, it appears to me that you are trying to propose a large-scale change in Wikipedia country articles to focus on cultural geography rather than physical geography. Good luck. You will not be able to achieve any consensus in favor of such a switch because the majority of Wikipedia editors will recognize that physical geography is more relevant and more interesting for Wikipedia's broad audience. A full cultural geography analysis, for most country articles, is simply too much information. If people need that much depth, they'll borrow a textbook on cultural geography from the library, not read Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not conflating anything, pompous statements to the contrary notwithstanding. To make it simple for you: Russia as a "bordering" or "neighboring" country of the United States has the most tenuous connection possible. First of all, the border near Alaska and Chukotka is not a "sparsely populated frontier", it is an unpopulated waterway. But to speak solely in terms of proximity and position, Russia is as much a "neighboring country" as it is a far-flung one and the furthest reaches of Slovenia and Hungary, of Armenia and Iran, and of Namibia and Zambia, are still nearer than the conterminous states are from easternmost Russia. There is no part of China further from Afghanistan and no part of Russia further from Norway, than the distance between the conterminous states and western Russia, let alone the farthest reaches of these behemoths. No young child or forgetful elder will get an accurate impression of the location of either country from a statement that Russia and the United States are neighboring countries. —Centrx→talk 06:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose? The purpose is that it is factual, and this article aims to be factual. In a purely geographic sense, which is all that phrase was addressing, Russia is about a mile or so from US territory. There isn't any larger purpose beyond that. It's just a statement of fact, and appropriate for a list of countries that the US borders. You're the one editorializing on it; no other inferences (importance, population density, whatever) are expressed or intended in the article. That being said, I don't have a problem with the current wording: land borders and Canada and Mexico. Moncrief 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article is factual (hopefully), but that doesn't mean it belongs in the introduction. —Centrx→talk 20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Russia mentions the United States as a bordering country. -Will Beback 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It says that the Russia is "close to" the United States "across stretches of water", along with many other countries, not as "neighboring" or "bordering". This also should not be in the introduction. It also lists Canada, which is 800 miles away, through the width of Alaska, and lists Armenia which is landlocked (through another country, not water), yet does not list Turkmenistan, a former Soviet country and closer to Russia across a body of water than all of the others except Turkey and Japan. —Centrx→talk 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your inability to confront your ignorance of geography (because you never studied it) is so self-evident it is hilarious. You refuse to admit or deny whether you ever studied it, but that's okay because your uninformed statements and refusal to confront the issue allow us to draw the reasonable inference that you never did. Anyway, I will look into whether other encyclopedias mention Russia as a neighboring country the next time I visit the public library (probably next week). Then we will see who is being unencyclopedic!--Coolcaesar 05:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Climate section

This section needs a LOT of work. Plenty of high-school comp-type phrasings and overly broad statements. I'll tackle it when I have time too, but just wanted to point it out. It'll keep us from FA status. Moncrief 22:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything is cited. Nothing about the information is overly broad...it's all fact, check the references. At least now, there is a small discussion on climate. You'd be more likely to not have this become a featured article by not even talking about the weather!--MONGO 05:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to all be sourced now. It wasn't yesterday when I made my comment. Moncrief 13:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Other introduction problem

Over the course that century and the 18th century, the population grew, new areas were settled, and the British colonies became increasingly self-governing.

Centrx wrote:

One problem with this is that at the beginning they would have been totally self-governing in practical matters, though totally non-self-governing in terms of high-level legislation and sovereignty, and then both decrease and increase, respectively, with more specific on-the-ground actions by the Crown, and more legislative and attempts at control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrx (talk • contribs) (Comment moved here from the article by Richard 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

Really good intro changes overall. One question:

"On July 4, 1776, thirteen of these British colonies declared their independence"

This makes it sound as if there were British colonies in what is now the U.S. that did NOT declare their independence, which isn't the case. Is it phrased that way to differentiate the U.S. from British North America (i.e., Canada?) Is this useful to do? I'm curious why the editor chose to phrase it this way. It's true that neither "Canada" nor "the U.S." existed in 1776, so in fact it makes a kind of brilliant sense to phrase it just this way, but I'd be curious for any clarification the editor wants to offer. My only concern is that, since this is the U.S. article, someone will come away from that sentence thinking there were present-day U.S. areas that didn't declare their independence. The truth is more subtle than that (those parts of British North America that did declare independence are exactly what did become the U.S.) So I guess it's a question not of accuracy but of potential perception on the part of the reader who might not think it all through. Thoughts? Moncrief 13:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, since the paragraph is clearly talking about British colonies in North America generally, so that phrase does recognize that the present-day US and present-day Canada were equally British colonies at the time, but only present-day US declared independence. Ddye 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally get that, and it's a valid, accurate point of course, but my only concern is that the way it's phrased it could make one think there were present-day U.S. territories that didn't declare independence in 1776. Perhaps it's just because this is a US article that a reader might make that assumption, or perhaps there's a slightly more clear way to phrase it. But it's not too big a deal. Moncrief 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Florida was owned by the U.K. around the time of the American Revolution due to some treaty. However there were no British colonies there. -Will Beback 19:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Something new to consider. According to Treaty of Paris (1783), toward the end of the "Agreement section," the British did not actualy officially recognize the treaty (acknowledging independence) until 1784 ("The American Continental Congress ratified the treaty on January 14, 1784. Britain ratification occurred on April 9, 1784 and ratifications exchanged on 12 May 1784. Although Britain's ratification and the exchange were not within the six-month deadline specified by the treaty, this had no effect on the honoring of the treaty. The delay was partly caused by transportation difficulties">, although the treaty itself is dated 1783. I think we may need to change the date in the intro then. Thoughts? Edit: I suppose that since it was signed in 1783, it's okay to keep that year. But we shouldn't use words like "ratified" or "recognized by King George III" for that year; it was merely signed by British representatives then. Moncrief 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say, reading it over again, that the Introduction is just beautiful -- really almost perfect. It could hardly be improved. Great job, everyone! What a difference a few days make. Wikipedia at its best. Moncrief 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC

united states of america and what else?

i wonder if the "united states of america" have a real name. i mean, (because you are not the only ones) in america there are lots of united states: brazil, canada, mexico. my question is if there is a denomination that refers exclusively to the country with the 13 times striped flag.

The United States of America is the United States of America's real name. — TheKMan^talk 23:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The official name of America is the United States of America; but here we refer to ourselves as Americans and as America - thus the songs "America the Beautiful" etc. Latin Americans, I am told, have a problem with this, although they are not Americans and never were - they are Brazilians or Argentines or whatever. America is our single name - and is different from North America/n which is for the entire continent and South America/n or Latin America/n for the whole continent. I don't call myself a United States citizen, I call myself an American citizen, I honor the American flag, I respect American heros like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone or icons like John Wayne and Elvis Presley- Our name - yes like the United Kingdom has its British, the United States has its Americans - or as the UK is Britain for short, so is America for short for us. Anyway, hope that answers your question. --Northmeister 23:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We refer to ourselves as Americans, of course, but actually most Americans, when they name the country outright, say "the U.S." or "the U.S.A." The word "America" tends to be used more often in particular contexts and, ironically considering the whole international "you're not the only America" debate, in my experience more often by non-Americans (usu Europeans) as a stand-alone noun for the country (i.e., "Barry thinks the food in America is great" -- a sentence much more likely to be spoken by a non-American than an American, who would more likely say "the States" or "the U.S.".) None of this has anything to do with the original question, which was already answered by Golbez below, but I need to clarify the point above from my perspective. If you disagree, it's hardly worth debating. Just giving my two cents. Moncrief 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is only one United States in America. Mexico is the United Mexican States; Canada is simply Canada; Brazil is the Federative Republic of Brazil. There is, in name, only one "United States" in the western hemisphere, though Mexico comes close. --Golbez 00:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the World Factbook, we are actually just "The United States," but either names are officially recognized as referring to our country. When it's translated, though, I'm pretty sure the "America" is usually dropped, like, in French, we're Les Etats-Unis (with some accent marks in there.) 69.249.21.218 04:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Factbook lists states in its titles by the short form. As stated in section "Government", part "Country name", the "conventional long form" is "United States of America". —Centrx→talk 04:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

all these explanations didn´t reach to a real answer (in fact, there are some fascist points of view). I think it´s quite accurate what golbez said, but that´s not my point. perhaps i haven´t put it across very well. my question is if there is some term exclusively referential, the fact of having a number of states united is not enough , because there are other countries that also have that characteristic (thats why i include brazil, mexico and canada). finally, i can not admit comments like Northmeister´s ones, i AM american and i am uruguayan (country that you might not know), argentinians are american, maradona is american. i´m quite sure there´s not an exclusive adjective for "united staters", but in my perspective, it´s a very graphic example of how USA citizens feel about and in regards to their "backyard". i don´t think the british example has the size of the US one. the megalomaniac spirit, a society that accepts that a priori, as a truth, that is not that true.—The following statment (with a completely NPOV and excellent grammar) was UNSIGNED at 13:42, June 22, 2006 by 200.126.150.75

One might say it's partly a question of who was first. In the English language, nobody before the U.S.A. snatched up the name United States—so that country gets it. All the other countries that might have called themselves united kingdoms didn't make a claim on those English words before some people in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales did. Similarly, if some other emirates in the Arab world decide to unite themselves, but separately from the U.A.E., they'll have to come up with some other name than United Arab Emirates. And any other Dutch-speaking country that decides to call itself a translation of "the Lowlands" / "the Low Country" will have to come up with something other than Nederlands / Netherlands / Pays-Bas.

Anyway, this argument is decades, if not centuries, old—and I think people should get over it. Great Britain is properly the island with England, Scotland, and Wales, but not the one next door with Ireland and Northern Ireland. Yet, for an adjective for a country called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we just cut off "and Northern Ireland", cut off all the beginning words, and take what's left ("Britain") and turn it into an adjective—even if not every British person lives on the island of Great Britain. We don't call such a person a "Kingdomer"—and we don't call a person from the U.S. a "Stateser" or "Statesian".

Lots of countries have something like "Democratic Republic of x", "xian Republic", "People's Republic of x", in their names. But the peoples in those countries don't all wake up in the morning saying "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Peoplean": they say "I'm Congolese", "I'm French", "I'm Chinese". So, when you come from the United States of America, you say "I'm American".

Sure, Uruguay is in a part of the world called South America and Latin America. But a Uruguayan wakes up and says "I'm a Uruguayan", not "I'm an American / a Latin American / a South American". Sure, Hawaii isn't in the Americas. But a Hawaiian, asked his or her nationality, says "American"—because it's about the name of the country, not the geography.

Canadians know they live in North America. But most seem quite happy to say "I'm Canadian; the people in the country next door are Americans", rather than going on about how one country stole the "American" monicker from the rest of two whole continents.

Most of us acknowledge that it's not entirely the most sensible arrangement. But it's probably going to be around for the rest of all our lives—so let's spend our time on something else.

President Lethe 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, in the future, when some newbie brings up this dumb question again, let's have everyone PLEASE point the newbie in the direction of Talk:United States/Name! --Coolcaesar 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If they still want another name, they can figure it out and propose it to Congress. Jaxad0127 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done, Lethe. Another similar one: When is someone in Botswana, Namibia, Leostho or Swaziland going to complain that they can't call themselves South Africans? ;) --Golbez 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately, i consider this argument closed because of the fascism and the despise. two things at last: first, i have remark that i wake up and i say "i´m american, and uruguayan"; second, i can not understand the origin of yout conceit, you have one of the worst high school sistems, universities are restrictive, you breed a society of lambs, not of intellectuals.

Have you seen your spelling? The high school system varies with the area, universities tend to be open, many of us are quite intellectual. And, what fascism? Jaxad0127 02:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Errors have been struck, corrections are in red and proof-reading comments are in blue.

unfortunately Unfortunately, i I consider this argument closed because of the fascism and the despise. two Two things at last:[horribly worded] first, i I have remark remarked that i I wake up and i I say "i´m american, and uruguayan" I'm American and Uruguayan [forgot anti-American P.O.S.];[should be the start of a new sentence] secondSecond, i I can not understand the origin of yout your conceit,[comma splice–should have started a new sentence] you You [America] have one of the worst high school sistems systems, universities are restrictive [forgot and], you breed a society of lambs,[should have used an em dash to off set the last insult]—not of intellectuals.

Enough said! —MJCdetroit 04:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(applauds) I wholeheartedly concur! Also, I should point out that the U.S. has more intellectuals than anywhere else. That's why we invented the Internet, the mouse, the transistor, the microprocessor, the local area network, recombinant DNA genetic engineering, etc. And our intellectuals win Nobel Prizes all the time. I haven't seen any major inventions or innovations coming out of Uruguay lately! --Coolcaesar 05:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Two thoughts.

First, the serious one: In at least some areas of Austria, and perhaps more areas of the German-speaking world, it's common to call a person from the U.S.A. a "U.S.-Amerikaner". I have yet to receive an explanation of whether this is just the addition of ner to Amerika and the shortening of United States of to U.S.-, or whether it is the word Amerikaner with U.S.- stuck in front. (I hope the difference I'm trying to convey comes across.)

Second: Persons of the U.S.A. have two reasons to claim American—for they live in North America and they're in a country that has the word America as part of its official name—, while those in other countries in the Americas have only the geographic reason.

See how well I don't spend my time on this? :-) — President Lethe 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good reason. So, in those areas of the German speaking world, do they cann Brittans U.K.- Brittans, etc.? Jaxad0127 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, though it could be. — President Lethe 04:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna stand up here and say something: Whatever I may dislike about the argument or English of the anonymous contributor, I much more dislike MJCdetroit's stepping in with that "Enough said!" edit (and the other one that MJCdetroit recently made to this section). — President Lethe 04:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry. The anonymous contributor's edit reeked of a prejudice view of Americans. That editor conveyed that message by using words/phases such as “fascists" and "society of lambs" and "the worst high school sistems" among others. I have nothing against people from Uruguay but he/she threw stones from a glass house. You try having the same prejudice views of say the French or the Israelis and post such inflammatory remarks on those talk pages and see what happens. I stand by my remarks and do not hide behind a sock puppet or an IP address. Now I'm gonna stand up here and say something: I am proud to be an American and I will not stand idle while she is insulted in such a flagrant manner. And sir, despite your title— no one here voted for you! —MJCdetroit 17:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MJCdetroit.

Earlier today, I wanted to check something in this, the 17th archive of the United States Talk page—and I happened across your reply, immediately above, which I'd never seen before.

I know you may not see my reply, because this is in the archive. But I want to reply.

My problem with your "Enough said!" post is that, as I see it, it did extremely little to represent the positive side of the U.S. or to defend against the things that the anonymous contributor wrote.

I'll call that editor Anonymous.

Anonymous seemed to be calling Americans, or the other Wikipedians in that section of the Talk page, fascists. In your post, I didn't find any very good examples to show a relative lack of fascism in those Wikipedians or in Americans.

Anonymous said "you breed a society of lambs"—but I don't think giving someone an example of what was to be desired in his or her English was a very advisable example of the 'non-lamb-ness' of American society.

I think you could've written other things that would've given a much better response to the criticism of American high schools.

That a person criticizing Israel or France at the Talk pages about those countries' articles might have to expect a volley of insults in reply should not mean that a person should expect the same at this Talk page.

I think that, as an 'Internet ambassador' of the United States to the rest of the world, you could have shown a better, higher-ground, less belittling face of Americans.

I'm glad of the benefits of my being American, although I grasp that my American citizenship is really just the result of my parents' being American and not anything I've done personally.

When I disagree with someone's view of the U.S., if I have the time and desire to respond, I try to make my response show, with specific examples, how that person's view might be off base. I'm not interested in bashing the person's English.

For example, when Anonymous brought up this issue of the name of the U.S. and persons from the U.S. and adjectives to describe U.S. things, I decided that I might have some worthwhile thoughts to share on an ooooold argument and I shared them—without personally attacking Anonymous or his or her writing style.

In my view of the world, the evidence against Anonymous's claims was so abundant that I didn't feel a need to respond to the accusations of fascism, &c. Of course, if I'd been more charitable, then, instead of saying nothing, I might've assumed good faith on Anonymous's part and tried to guide him or her into also seeing my point of view.

I find it interesting when "Sir" is reserved for moments of defensiveness.

I have no problem with your desire to defend things, countries, persons, and ideas, against criticism that you find inappropriate. I just think you can do it in much more effective ways than what you chose in your "Enough said!" post.

Anyway, that's about all. You don't have to agree with my objections to your edit—but I thought there might be some benefit in my explaining what I disliked about it.

President Lethe 03:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Isnt the US the country with the most WMDs?

nowhere to be found... funny how in wikipedia is much easier to find WMDs information on coutries of the "axis of evil".

Wikipedia is open for edits. If you want to add information to this article (there's a section on the military), go right ahead. Moncrief 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Russia-Germans in tte United States

Hi, I am a Seventh-Day-Adventist from Germany and this is my community.Here are some Rußlanddeutsche (ethnic Germans from the states of the old Soviet-Union). Original they were Mennonites, Baptists or Hutterer. The last one went to America in 1875. A few years later some German Mennonites from Russia (13,000) immigrated to the USA and they heart about the Advent-message and told it their relatives in Russia. And nowadays are ca 5,000 of the Russia-Germans Seventh-Day-Adventists. But mostly they are Baptists (Evangeliumschristen-Baptisten; 300,000) or Mennonites (Russlandmennoniten; 30,000). Here is my question: Have the Germans from Russia in the United States an own community or an expellee organizationlike in Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan or in Canada? Or are they integrated (Here in Germany they aren´t).

Friede sei mit Euch, Peace, Simon MAYER

The German community is pretty well integrated into American society. In fact America was one vote away when it was founded from speaking German, rather than English due to the large number of German emigrees in Pennsylvania at the time. The religious community of Mennonites, Amish, and others are sometimes living in separate communities due to their specific beliefs, but do interact with other Americans when coming to town for various reasons. As far as the Russian-German community, I am unsure. --Northmeister 03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I always read in history books that we were one vote away from French. Anyways, he wasn't talking about historic Germans, but about what I assume to be refuges from the former Soviet republics. Jaxad0127 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it was German. The vote happened in 1771, but sorry I don't a source other my memory. I am sure someone has a source for this vote. MJCdetroit 04:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Urban legend: "Legend has it that in 1795 a bill to establish German as the official language of the fledgling United States of America was defeated in Congress by a single vote. There never was such a vote; indeed, there wasn't any such bill, either. A proposal before Congress in 1795 merely recommended the printing of federal laws in German as well as English, and no bill was ever actually voted upon." [5] --Golbez 04:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Best-selling bands only come from England?

Can anybody answer me this? -Dragong4

Er.. perhaps you're looking for the Reference Desk? And Americans love an accent. --Golbez 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't Americans have accents? -Dragong4

I think he means foreign accents. Jaxad0127 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which explains why country music performs so well. ;) --Golbez 04:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No but c'mon now, can't ANYBODY explain why the United Kindom dominated in Rock?? -Dragong4

Because we are not the Reference Desk. Ask your question there. Emmett5 18:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so basically, you can't explain, huh? -Dragong4

Apparently not. --Golbez 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of President Lethe's edits to opening

Here are the changes I've just made to the opening paragraphs and some of my reasons for them:

1. "referred to as"

-> "known as"

Concision. Two Teutonic words, two syllables, and seven letters, versus three words (one of them Latin-y), four syllables, and twelve letters.

2. "the United States, U.S., U.S.A., or America"

-> "the United States, the U.S., the U.S.A., and America"

Because the goes with United States and U.S. and U.S.A., but not America, it should be repeated. The lack of repetition means the goes with only United States, or goes with all of them (including America)—neither of which is true. Also, the first three letters of the alphabet are A, B, and C, not A, B, or C: the country is known as all these different names, not just one or another.

3. "third-largest" and "third or fourth-largest"

-> "third largest" and "third or fourth largest"

The hyphens are unnecessary. If someone insists on using them, they should be used consistently, so that the latter bit is "third- or fourth-largest".

4. "On July 4, 1776, thirteen of these colonies declared their independence and fought a war to win it; Great Britain recognized the new nation in 1783."

-> "On July 4, 1776, thirteen of these colonies declared their independence; they were 14½ months into a war to secure it, which would last until 1783, when Great Britain recognized the new nation."

I don't think my new version is perfect. Maybe someone can rework it so that it's smoother but lacks the flaws of the previous version. The previous version (1) omitted the fact that the war had already been going on for more than a year, (2) could be inferred as describing a one-day-long war, and (3) didn't quite make clear that the war kept going on until a point in 1783. I agree that the introductory paragraphs don't need to mention the war's exact length or its beginning and ending dates. But the previous version didn't just omit information: it instead left plenty of room for misunderstanding—as if the war started on (or after, if it's read less carefully) July 4, 1776, and maybe even as if it lasted only a day, or perhaps finished before 1783. Also, in terms of style, the rewritten version ends in "new nation", which, I think, is a lot more exciting than "1783".

5. "Since then, the United States has expanded greatly through territorial acquisitions, and now comprises 50 states and a number of overseas territories."

-> "Since then, the United States has expanded greatly through territorial acquisitions; it now comprises 50 states and a number of overseas territories."

Why break it into two independent clauses? Because, otherwise, it's like "Since then, the United States [...] now comprises [...]". "Since then now"? "Since then" is a span; "now" is a point. (A different fix would be to move "since then" to a point closer to "has expanded", so that it's not in front of the subject, modifying all the verbs in the sentence, but instead modifying just "has expanded", and leaving "now" to modify "comprises". In other words, something like "The United States has since expanded greatly through territorial acquisitions and now comprises 50 states and a number of overseas territories"—which, hey, is also shorter for the removal of "then". But I still think it's cleaner as two independents joined by a colon or semicolon.)

6. "following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the nation emerged as the world's sole superpower."

-> "with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the nation emerged as the world's sole superpower."

I had thought of just changing "following" to "after", for plainer, simpler style. But it's a matter not just of style: it's a matter of history. This emergence was simultaneous with the collapse; it didn't come after it. If there are two superpowers at the beginning, then, the moment one of them disappears, the remaining one instantly becomes the only one: it doesn't wait around for a month or a year and then say "Oh, now I'm the only one."

President Lethe 05:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanations accepted; the only objeciton I have is #4, there is no way 14 1/2 belongs in the intro. Our article on the war itelf doesn't mention the 14.5 month difference in its intro, there's no reason it belongs here. --Golbez 05:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just found your reply while adding to my post. I'm glad we could work out most/all of this on the talk page. I, too, feel awkward about 14.5 months. But, somehow, we should say that the war was already going on—or at least not imply that it began on Independence Day. Maybe something along the lines of "begun a year earlier"? President Lethe 05:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something like "In 1775, a war began over British or local rule in thirteen of these colonies; on July 4, 1776, these thirteen declared their independence; the war ended in 1783, when Great Britain recognized the new nation"? I know it's a little longer; but it's in chronological order and, I hope, is clearer. Should "or local" be left out? I know this version lacks the drama of "fought a war to win it" (and I did like those six words); but ... it is better in other ways, do you think? President Lethe 06:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Or how about the same thing I just suggested, but ending in "the war ended in 1783, with British recognition of the new nation"? Just a thought. By the way, I like this "new nation" bit—for it conjures up the opening of the Gettysburg Address. President Lethe 06:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Something new:

My version:

At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.1 million square kilometers), it is the third or fourth largest country, home to nearly 300,000,000 persons, the world's third largest population.

Moncrief's revision of my version:

At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.1 million square kilometers), the U.S. is the third or fourth largest country and is home to nearly 300 million people, making it the world's third most populous country.

In my version, it's well understood that the antecedent for "it" is the United States. I know it's hard to juggle "it", "the country", "the nation", "the United States", "the U.S.", &c., and maintain variety. But I think the "it" here is fine. Then again, I'll also accept "the U.S."

In my version, "home to nearly 300,000,000 persons" is an appositive to "the third or fourth largest country". In other words, the country is the home of those persons. This seems fine to me.

"300,000,000" and "300 million" are both fine with me. I prefer "persons" over "people", but am willing to accept "people".

In my version, "the world's third largest population" is an appositive to "nearly 300,000,000 persons" (or "nearly 300 million people"). In other words, those persons are the world's third largest population. Again, this seems fine to me.

This way, we don't bother with repeating "country", and we fiddle with fewer "verbs".

Is it possible that you were reading it as a three-item list, like "it is (1) the third or fourth largest country, (2) home to nearly 300,000,000 persons, and (3) the world's third largest population"? If you were, I can see why you would say that it doesn't make sense to say that the U.S. is the world's third largest population.

Perhaps this punctuation (I'm not suggesting we actually use it) makes clearer my appositive meaning: "it is the third or fourth largest country (home to nearly 300 million people (the world's third largest population))".

... I can see the room for confusion.

President Lethe 19:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond because it seems as if you've accepted my changes. Chicago Manual of Style (5.202, 15th ed.) prefers "people" to "persons." Certainly "300 million" is cleaner than "300,000,000." Keep up the good work. It's nice to have a grammarian giving the whole article a once-over. Moncrief 21:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, there. Thanks for your kind reply; that makes my day. :-) I've seen your latest version, which is "At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.1 million square kilometers), the U.S. is the third or fourth largest country by area. The country is home to nearly 300 million people, making it the world's third most populous country." This sort of bothers me in that we now have three countrys in the paragraph—but I don't want to get into a fight about it. President Lethe 21:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You can fiddle with it; I see your point. To be frank, I'm not sure what was wrong exactly with the version as it existed before you changed it. Can you clarify? I still like that original (well, recently original) version best. Moncrief 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If I have this wrong, please, let me know; but I think the "recently original" version you mean is

The United States is the third largest country in the world in population, with nearly 300 million people, and third or fourth largest in area, with over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.1 million square kilometres).

I replaced it with

At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.1 million square kilometers), it is the third or fourth largest country, home to nearly 300,000,000 persons, the world's third largest population.

I don't think the "original" was horrible, and I don't think mine was perfect. In my version, I hadn't yet detected the "appositives vs. 3-item list" confusion, to which you later drew my attention. The improvements that I thought I was making:

1. I put the area (instead of the population) first, so that it immediately followed talk of territorial expansion.

2. I put the people (rather than the land) second, so that it immediately preceded talk of what they have done.

3. (I've already addressed "300,000,000 persons" vs. "300 million people". My inclination is not to 'abbreviate' numbers before about the trillions or quadrillions: but, really, eliminating "million" was an accident on my part; I had meant to leave the original wording, but instinct kicked in.)

4. Until I saw the room for confusion, I thought my string of appositives was quite streamlined: sort of "it is a (b (c))", instead of "it is a (b) and c (d)".

5. I put kilometres into American spelling, just for consistency's sake.

6. I got rid of "area", because I found it redundant when there was talk of square miles and kilometers.

7. I found "people" redundant with talk of "population"; but I left it in (sort of; changed it to "persons") because, I think, someone had already put it back in after I'd removed it at an earlier point.

8. I was also hoping to make a subtle distinction, restricting country to talk of land (with an unspoken restriction of nation to talk of human beings)—but I know this is quite subtle to many eyes (especially if I don't even end up using the word nation in talk of the population).

9. I made both bits (land and population) end on the strong note of superlatives ("largest"), rather than numbers.

I think those were about all of my reasons.

By the way, I'm really glad that someone (you) is getting the idea that, even though my edits may be imperfect, I really do put a lot of thought into them before making them.

President Lethe 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "consists of" vs. "includes." Either is okay, I guess, but the first one is more precise. The U.S. exactly consists of 50 states, a federal district, and a number of overseas territories. There isn't anything more to it that I can think of. (Do we have any direct claim on the moon? :) ). "Includes" always implies to me that there's something more out there beyond what's listed. In this case, there isn't, so I prefer "consists of." What specifically don't you like about "consists of"? Moncrief 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to share your concern about "include" implying that fewer than all things are being listed; I just forewent this concern in my attempt to avoid the controversy that sometimes arises about "consist" and "comprise". It's O.K. with me if you want to put "consists of" back—but others might mess with it again. President Lethe 22:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added "comprises" in the first place, which no one changed, so I don't think "consists of" is going to be a problem. Moncrief 00:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Third or fourth largest by area"

This phrase in the intro is awkward, especially to start an article with. The confusion comes up only because the People's Republic of China still claims Taiwan (maybe a few other places too... have to study the link more carefully) as part of its territory. Since most Americans and most non-Chinese do not share this belief, I'm not sure why we need to cater to it and use this awkward phrase that implies a lack of confidence about statistics. I propose we just say "third largest" with perhaps a footnote to a page about the controversy. Moncrief 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The PRC editors (and hell, the RoC ones too, since they claim mainland China as well) may have a problem with it. Worth a try, though. --Golbez 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We've gone through this before. See various archives of this talk page. I grasp Moncrief's reasoning about the ranking in general, and about the "third or fourth" wording in the intro in particular. But I'd rather avoid another big ordeal over this. Except that it would be even less precise, I might even suggest just saying "one of the largest". For vague reasons (one of which may even be the selfish desire to say the U.S. is bigger than China), I also tend to reject the inclusion of Taiwan as part of China. But I think even I wouldn't say Taiwan is a separate, sovereign state—which may mean it should be counted as part of another country then. (But, on the other hand, Puerto Rico isn't sovereign and we don't count it in the usual measurement of the United States' area.) And what about those products stamped "Made in Taiwan R.O.C."? (Maybe the "R.O.C." thing is from the past, actually. I'm not sure. But it stands for "Republic of China"—and, as Golbez points out, even proponents of the R.O.C. have some idea that China and Taiwan belong under one roof (though they argue about whose roof).) — President Lethe

Centrx, what is your numbering rationality?

You seem to have a strong, unexplained preference to spell out every number under 100. While this is unlike nearly all other Wikipedia articles and against most style guides' advice (they only insist on numbers spelled out under 10), I actually wouldn't have a problem with your proclivity if you were at least consistent about it. You can't (or shouldn't) change the numbers in the introduction but then not throughout the entire article. We now have numbers under 100 spelled out in the intro ("seventeenth century" and the like) but not further down in the article (the "Demography" section, to name one example). Consistency is the most important factor here and, while I'd also be curious what your rationale is (I'm sure you agree that arbitrary decisions without thought-out rationales are no good), I'm more interested in seeing consistency applied so we can shoot for Featured Article status again, and so this article looks its best. Moncrief 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I like to spell as a word any number that is no more than two 'words', including "a hundred", "one hundred", "seventy-three", "sixteen", "five", &c. (There are exceptions. For example, in a list of figures that includes all sorts of different 'word lengths' of numbers, I'd write them all as numerals: e.g., "1, 13, 456, 1,092".) But (1) I'm pretty sure Wikipedia's own style manual generally recommends that any two-digit number be written with numerals (even if it's a 'one-word' number, like 15 (fifteen)), and (2) a system that is consistent is the most important thing to keep in mind. Just sharing my view. President Lethe 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

At least the Chicago Manual of Style and apparently the MLA recommend spelling out words under 100, and it is regardless more appropriate for formal prose and not problematic with numbers under 100 (two words or less). Regarding the Wikipedia Manual of Style in this matter, it states that numbers under 10 are spelled out, and that numbers above 10 may be written either as words or numerals. If I edit the numbers in this article to effect this change again, I will do it throughout the article, rather than just in the places I happen to be editing at the time, and have changed back to the numeral-style in the introduction. —Centrx→talk 08:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)