Talk:United States/Archive 16

Introduction
I think that it is important for the intro to mention the spread of democracy and rights, which are integral to U.S. history. In particular, I think this sentence: should remain in the introduction in some form. -Will Beback 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was tempered by the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865.
 * If spreading democracy (excluding rights as that's subjective) is an American goal, then it should be mentioned in the history section in where it says about expanding nation (near the beginning). I tried to say that "the republic was destined to spread democracy across the continent," but someone disagrees and changed it to just "the republic was destined to expand across the continent." You can change it to what I said earlier if you want.--Ryz05 22:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The focus on 'spreading democracy' is not a part of the national character; rather, it is part of the present political character of the nation. The notion that 'Manifest Destiny' in the days leading to the expansion of the nation to encompass the present boundaries was based on a desire to 'spread democracy' is simply wrong; the expansion was not driven by any notion of freeing people from tyranny and to argue that would be quite historically revisionist of the author. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was tempered by the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865." this sentence doesn't feel right in the introduction. You don't see the dispossession of indians in the introductory paragraph for Canada, nor do you see the ill-treatment of the Maori in the New Zealand. And shit, while we're at it, lets mention the effects of the British slave trade in their opening paragraph. Netheros99 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The development of the political systems, civil liberties and rights, and treatment of minorities are as key to the the picture of the U.S. To focus the conversation more, I brought it up here because an editor has removed it twice, explaining:
 * I feel that this is inappropriate to make an implicit statement of how terrible America is for Indian and African treatment it shouldn't be stated right off the bat.
 * Whoever revised my edits did a much better job of making NPOV, but I still have an issue with this line right off the bat. I feel that its misplaced and should be explained in the body of article
 * This editor seems to be objecting to the POV that the civil rights movement was a good thing. I'd be open to re-writing it. We might simply replace the last clause with "...this progress was tempered by the mistreatment of some groups", for example. -Will Beback 23:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Will, I don't have a problem with the sentence itself, I just feel that it's not needed in the introductory paragraph. I agree with the other author, why throw something in the introduction that asserts a negative quality to America right off the bat? As I said before, you don't see anything like this with any other country on Wikipedia. But if you TRULY believe its NPOV, then I'm sure the Germans wouldn't mind the holocaust being mentioned in their introduction. Netheros99 00:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't have to spin it as a negative. The improvements in the situation for minorities are a good thing. The sentence covers both the growth of civil rights and "the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens". That seems like an equally important statement as "Since then, the country has expanded its borders and obtained greater wealth and influence in global affairs." or "Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it emerged as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower." While these other sentences cover winning the Cold War and the U.S.'s material wealth, its political ideology and its treatment of its citizens seem worth a sentence. -Will Beback 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryz05 just reverted my edit to the paragraph discussed above with the edit comment "What was wrong with the previous version?". I think the revert was a bit rude since it asserts that I have to explain what's wrong with the previous version instead of him having to explain what was wrong with my version. But since I'm a believer in the 0RR rule and refuse to engage in edit wars, I will take up the challenge and explain why I wrote what I wrote.

Here's the original text which Ryz05 reverted to:


 * While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was tempered by the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865.

Here's the new text that I wrote which was reverted out:


 * While the United States has been a leader in the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was initially limited to white males. There was a corresponding disenfranchisement of females and minorities.  The history of the United States is tainted by shameful acts such as the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865.  It is only in the last century and, in particular, in the last half of the 20th century that democracy and civil rights have been afforded to all regardless of gender, creed, race or ethnic origin.

My original problem with the paragraph started from the fact that the word "tempered" is misused in the original text.

Here's the definition of "temper" as a verb make more temperate, acceptable, or suitable by adding something else; moderate; "she tempered her criticism"

chasten: restrain or temper

There's no way that you can reasonably use "temper" in the way that it was being used. You could say that "the rapacious drive for land was tempered by a desire to do things legally via treaties with the Indians" or any number of variations on the theme but I was trying to keep the general thrust of the statement.

And the real point of the paragraph is lost because we are left with a "progress" balanced by "sins" statement. The real point is that all of that is "past history". Many of these indictments of American conduct are about things that happened and have been rectified.

If you didn't know anything about the U.S., the previous version of the paragraph would leave you with the sense that neither of these sins (against Indians and against African-Americans) had been rectified.

Ok, Ok, Congress hasn't officially apologized to blacks for slavery or to Indians for the sins of the past. Nor have we paid reparations to either group. However, we shouldn't just cite the sins without also citing the rectifications made in the 20th century and there have been many.

So, how to get the point across but without coming across as a POV slam or POV defense of the U.S.? Answer: "Just the facts, ma'am"

I thought about saying "limited to white males with property" or "white Northern European males" or "white Protestant males" but I figured that would just stir up another POV firestorm.

Read what I wrote. It's a reasonable statement of the facts without being terribly POV. We could also list a host of other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. This is not a place for that. U.S. history hasn't been uniformly pure as the driven snow. There've been lots of times when we have departed from our ideals.

I'm not trying to indict the U.S. I was just trying to address the horrible misuse of the word "tempered" and, while I was at it, providing a more accurate statement of the facts.

Now, if you object to the phrasing "tainted by shameful acts", I'm willing to debate that. Want to propose a less harsh phrasing? I'm all ears. Just as long as it doesn't do violence to the English language.

I'm going to replace "tempered" with "limited" for now and I'll hold off putting back the rest of my edits pending further debate here.

Richard 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the previous paragraph:

This is a picky point but I didn't like the sentence "While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens".

I wanted to put "the nation's history" alongside "the development of constitutional democracy, etc". I didn't like putting "the nation's growth" alongside "the development, etc." I didn't like the emphasis on growth although I understand that the idea is that growth was achieved on the backs of the Indians and the African slaves. However, that leaves out other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. which oppressed other people like women and, yes, even white males.

I know it's hard to capture all of that in a single paragraph but I think my paragraph did a better job of it than what went before.

--Richard 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that the intro at the beginning of the article is just a summary of 200 years of US history, so some stuff might be left out for the sake of briefness. I know it's a complex topic, but much of the explanation were given in the section on US history and its perspective main article.--Ryz05 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a summary and so the question becomes "What belongs in the summary and what doesn't?" The answer is critical because the summary claims to be the distilled significant points that are worth communicating.  Aside from my issues with the misuse of the word "tempered', the real issue is whether we wish to leave the reader thinking "Oh, the U.S. made progress on democracy and civil liberties but that progress is debatable because of the oppression of native Americans and slaves".  As I've stated above, it is my desire to assert that most of that oppression tainted the history of the U.S. (i.e. some dead white men did that stuff 100+ years ago).  The last 50 years have witnessed the acknowledgment of past sins and efforts to ameliorate the sins of the first 150 years.  Why are the sins against the native Americans and slaves more worth mentioning than the lack of suffrage for women?  Why are the sins of the first 150 years worth mentioning and not the efforts to redress them in the last 50 years?
 * --Richard 06:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that they are chosen because they are more worth it, its that the second paragraph in the introduction is talking about the time before the last one hundred years, in other words, before the US became a major power in the world.--Ryz05 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, not gonna sell that line to me. That would argue that the progress on democracy and civil liberties ended before the US became a major power in the world?  or that the mistreatment of native Americans and slaves stopped being an issue before the U.S. became a major power in the world?


 * Now, admittedly, the emergence of the U.S. as a superpower after WWII did influence how we and the rest of the world viewed colonialism and oppression of minorities. After all, we couldn't put all those fancy words in the U.N. charter and then ignore those principles at home.  But that's a discussion for another day.  What I'm saying is that you can't argue that democracy, civil liberties and oppression are important in discussing the first 150 years and are irrelevant, settled dusty history in the last 50 years.--Richard 06:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with it. It seems neutral enough with the mentioning of advancements in rights and liberties, and that slavery ended in 1865. The discussion of civil liberties and democracy is relevant since the country is founded, and is clearly laid out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.--Ryz05 06:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * update: I changed the second controversial paragraph by taking some descriptions from the CIA World Factbook, which I also made reference to. This negates the mentioning of slavery and dispossession of Native American lands. Hope the edits will abate some of the controversy and make the intro more neutral.--Ryz05 19:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I continue to find wholesale reverts of edits rude and annoying. In general, such behavior tends to discourage the open and inviting philosophy of Wikipedia. Moreover, reverting an edit which is not wholly unacceptable takes the position that your version is so superior to the new edit that there is nothing of value in the new edit. This is highly arrogant.

Please take the time to read the new edit carefully and understand the rationale behind the edit. The editor is encouraged by WP:BOLD to "be bold" (i.e. make the change first and discuss later at least if the changes are not controversial). Editors are also asked to assume good faith.

No one "owns" the intro paragraphs and no one can claim to represent the consensus of the editors because there is no clear consensus. Certainly not one that has been indicated by a vote. I should know... I've read just about everything that has been said about the intro from Talk:United States/Archive 1 through Talk:United States/Archive 15.

(BTW, a consensus is not a majority position, it is a near-unanimous agreement. This is why votes are considered "evil".)

I will explain why I have made the edits that I have made and I will make them again. Please observe WP:3RR. I do not wish to engage in an edit war but this is getting truly annoying.

OK, here's the current intro text with my comments


 * The United States of America (the U.S., the U.S.A., the States, the United States, or America[2]) is a federal republic in North America. With a history of over 200 years, the country is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world.[3]


 * The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions.[4] While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and economic advances, the two most traumatic experiences in the nation's history were the Civil War (1861-65) and the Great Depression of th 1930s.[4]


 * At first glance, the last sentence in this paragraph is a non sequitur. What do democracy and economic advances have to do with the Civil War and the Great Depression?  If you make a great leap, you can argue that the Civil War was a threat to constitutional democracy and the Great Depression was a threat to economic advances.  But that's a lot of meaning to load onto one poor little sentence no matter how long it is.  I don't care if it came from the CIA World Factbook.  Apparently, the CIA is full of people who can't form a logical, cohesive sentence either.


 * Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II and the end of the Cold War in 1991, 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 emerged as the world's sole superpower[5] or hyperpower.[6]


 * The first sentence of this paragraph is broken for two reasons. First, it is not the victories themselves that caused the U.S. to become a dominant global influence.  I suppose one could argue that "buoyed by" means that the victories contributed to the U.S. becoming a global influence.  However, there are better ways to make the point.  Secondly, mentioning the end of the Cold War in 1991 in the first sentence makes one wonder what the point is of mentioning "the collapse of the Soviet Union" in the second sentence.


 * In summary, some small changes need to be made to the current intro paragraph to get across the points being made. I will make them now.  You are welcome to further edit my text if you think it can be improved.  I don't claim that my text is perfect.  However, I would really appreciate it if you would lay off using "revert" and reserve that tool for vandalism or blatant POV.


 * --Richard 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made the changes described above. As a result of this round of edits, the verbiage about the native Americans and slavery have been dropped. I'd be happier with that stuff in but I will leave it for somebody else to raise the issue and put it back. I do not feel strongly that it has to be in the intro paragraph and I've already struggled more with this intro than I really wanted to.

--Richard 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally believe the previous version make the intro flow a lot better, without being too repetitive. some of the objections you raised could be improved by making simple edits to the previous version, without reorganizing and resummarizing.--Ryz05 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The version I just looked at seems reasonable. Thanks for the effort, everybody. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Will Beback, so why soften the last sentence of the intro? It was there to confirm the US being the sole superpower or hyperpower, so you can't soften it just by saying that it exerts a dominant influence, which make it sound repetitive because saying it's a superpower is saying that it exerts dominant influence.--Ryz05 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor addition: If someone don't like the last sentence of the intro, then let them change it, because at least someone says that the intro looked good enough.--Ryz05 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, due to a lack of reponse, I'm just going to change it to the previous version. If anyone disagrees or feel it should be "softened." Please leave a message. Thanks.--Ryz05 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh... I suppose it's the nature of Wikipedia that if you don't get a response within an hour, you feel that no one is going to respond. I spend more time on Wikipedia than most but being away for a few hours is, at least for me, a common occurrence.


 * That said, here's the point about why I don't like the last paragraph. It's all about trying to maintain a NPOV.  There have been many discussions in the past about whether the U.S. is THE world's dominant power in a variety of areas.  I think I even wrote in this talk page an area-by-area analysis of where the U.S. is "the dominant" and where it is "a dominant".  I'll do it again.  Maybe I'll do a better job this time.

Simply put, the dominance is clear in military terms but not so clear in other arenas. And, you're trying to make one little sentence say too much and, as a result, the sentence is vulnerable to criticism.

What "dominant influence" means in the economic arena is a little unclear to me. I won't get into it too deeply here but the value of saying this in such a short phrase is certaintly debatable. Being the biggest economy doesn't mean we dominate are able to dominate as much as we used to. Are we more dominant than anyone else? Yes but are we the only dominant economic influence? Hardly. If the economic arena includes natural resources then OPEC and the Middle East also dominate.

What does "dominant" mean in the political arena? That we get most of what we want? I suppose we do but getting what you want involves wanting what you can get. That we set the agenda on the stage of world politics? Maybe. But we certainly didn't "win" on the issue of the U.N. and Iraq. How dominant are we politically?

How about the scientific and technological arenas? Perhaps we have dominated and arguably continue to dominate but the world is changing and that dominance is being challenged by Europe, Japan and even China and India. Asserting our dominance without mentioning the challenge is arrogant and POV.

Culturally dominant? What are you saying? That the whole world watches our movies and TV programs? Maybe that's true but that's also changing. That everybody wears Levi's, Gap jeans and Nike shoes? That's also changing. It's claimed that the trend-setter in style and film is Japan. Wanna debate this? I don't. I just don't want to claim that we dominate the world. Although I guess it's true that we are flooding the world with McDonald's, KFC, Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

Look we can debate this until the cows come home. I actually don't care that much about this sentence personally. However, I know that, in the past, the sort of phrasing that involves "THE dominant influence" has attracted editors who come in and argue that this is POV. And that will start another edit war. And, for what? So that we can say that the U.S. is THE dominant influence instead of A dominant influence (or the pre-eminent influence)? "Dominant" is a strong word. "THE dominant" is an even stronger phrase.

A little softening will go a long way. BTW, being a "superpower" is primarily about military power. Yes, military power rests on economic strength which rests on scientific and technological capability. However, you shouldn't assume that being a military superpower implies all the rest. The Soviet Union remained a military superpower for easily a decade after it had lost on those other fronts.

--Richard 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's dominance is unmatched means to say that no other country can match the influence the US has in the world in those specified terms (economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs), which is true IMO. If you still disagree, we should probably ask someone else regarding the issue. But at least we have one user (Will Beback) who thinks that the current introduction looks fine, so there's no reason to change it, at least for now.--Ryz05 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NO, I disagree vehemently. Just because you have one other user that thinks "it's fine", doesn't mean it's fine.  If you look back through the history of Talk:United States/Introduction, you'll find plenty of people who are a lot more opinionated about this than I am.  The agreement of two people who are currently watching and commenting does not a consensus make.


 * I've said it before. You and the other people who have pushed the introduction to the current state do not own the introduction.  If you want to identify specific points of contention and ask for a "Request for Comment", we can see what sort of consensus can be mustered.  A consensus really requires 75-80% on one side to even be considered a possible consensus.  90% would be better.  Failing that, you should strive for NPOV and offer both sides.


 * I'm not that exercised about the intro text as it stands. It's kind of OK with me although I have a quibble about the last sentence and I would prefer the original text about democracy, civil liberties, etc.  However, having watched the intro battles for the past month or so, I think it's worthwhile to address people's concerns rather than pushing your (or my) particular POV.  That's the Wikipedia way.


 * --Richard 00:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That previous debate hardly centers on the last sentence of the intro, which is what we are currently debating. That last debate is more about the mentioning of slavery and the dispossession of Native American lands, so it can be said they are all okay with the sentence stating the US is a dominant influence. If you want more opinions (and fast), you should start a Poll or something.--Ryz05 01:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, my comment was directed at the previous paragraph. Regarding the final paragraph, it seems to go into to much detail about "dominance". I'll let you guys work it out. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I don't think it's necessary to leave out the list that comes after "dominance," or otherwise "dominance" could be too broad when it's used alone, which I don't think Richard will like.--Ryz05 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oldest constitutional republic?
It is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world, and has existed for over 200 years Anything being put in the opening paragraph shouldn't be a matter of contention. Either it is definitely the oldest constitutional republic in the world, in which case we take out 'considered to be'; or it is one of the oldest, in which case we say that; or we remove this claim from the intro entirely and leave it do be dealt with in the appropriate section. Nomist 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would dispute the claim that the USA is the oldest still existing constitutional republic. (Ref. to the Library of Congress website at ). I.e. the above part should be removed or rephrased to "one of the oldest". The fact that San Marino is a rather small country probably lead to this being overlooked. Travelbird 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article on San Marino says it was founded in AD 301, but it doesn't mention a constitution. I'm thinking that it came after the US. Maybe we could say the the US has the oldest constitutional government. Jaxad0127 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it does (look right at the top for "Constitution"). The date given is October 8, 1600. That would be over 150 years prior to the US Constitution of of 1787. I'd still prefer one "of the oldest" because that preempts the discussion about what constitues a valid "constitutional government" . Travelbird 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see it anywhere in the San Marino article. Jaxad0127 05:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not on the San Marino article but on the article by the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/sanmarino.html#constitution Travelbird 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but from the looks of it, the government was reorganized in 1926. That would still leave the US Government as the oldest. Jaxad0127 16:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The government wasn't reorganised, rather an electional law was passed. That would be similar to an American amendment to the constitution, only that (as in many countries), details of how the government is elected are not included in the constitution of San Marino, but are organized in a seperate law. Travelbird 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A few more thoughts : The USA is the third oldest republic in the world, surpassed in age only by San Marino and Switzerland. It is the second oldest constitutional republic. But it is the oldest presidential republic (Switzerland didn't introduce the presidency until sometime in the 19th century, San Marino has never had a president). So I would propose changing "constitutional" to "presidential". Travelbird 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Switzerland article says "In 1798, the armies of the French Revolution conquered Switzerland and imposed a new unified constitution." Helvetic Republic was a state lasting for five years, from 1798 to 1803. It is the predecessor of modern Switzerland. - --JimWae 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then since the current US Constitution was ratified in 1787 and Switzerland in 1788, The US is the second oldest republic. Jaxad0127 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Fact
I added several fact tags to the article, but was inexplicably reverted. They are intended to show where citations are needed so that the article complies with WP:V, not to question the validity of the statement. Should anyone working on this article deign to improve its verifiability, I'd be happy to point out where it's necessary; just leave a note on my talk. --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess there's no need to add those tags now.--Ryz05 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Education image
Of all the featured images that we have, why was this one chosen? There is a very high chance that this image the product of vanity on behalf of some Jesuit College Preparatory School. This image is neither striking enough or notable enough to appear outside of the JCPS article. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I will change it.--Ryz05 06:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Added topical archives
There are certain questions and controversies that keep cropping up. It would be great if new editors would read the Talk Page archives first before jumping in. However, most don't. Moreover, it's not that easy to say "Go read archives 6, 8 and 9 for the discussion of your suggestion." unless you have the locations of all the discussions of a particular issue memorized.

So here's a solution... Instead of having only chronological archives, have a few key topical archives. Now, the next time someone suggests that this article be moved to "United States of America", you can just say "Please read Talk:United States/Name". Similarly, you can request that people read Talk:United States/Introduction or Talk:United States/Human Rights. I know the archive box could be formatted better. Someone please make it prettier if you know how.

Next tasks "to do" re topical archives. Each archive needs a summary of the current consensus on that topic and the justification. For example, the consensus is that the title of the article is "United States". Why?

--Richard 09:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
The statement under "Military" that "American defense expenditure is estimated to be greater than the next twelve largest national military budgets combined" is true, but somewhat misleading. As a percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 4% on military. This compares higher than France's 2.6%, and lower than Saudia Arabia's 10%. This is historically fairly low for the United States. Scott5834 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why that infobox is so big, but it should be shrunk back to normal. Also, if you're looking to shorten the article a bit, I'd start with the history section, especially the 20th century. A more concise overview of world war one would be better, and after World War 2, all of that stuff can be shortened significantly. I'll try to find other places that could be shortened somewhat. I'd say if we can drop this by 10kb that we're in excellent shape. --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, how long has this been semiprotected? I thought we used that primarily for immediate vandalism threats&mdash;does this article get as much vandalism as GWB (an example of where permenant semiprotection is pretty much guaranteed)? In my experience it didn't, but I could be mistaken. --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't get much vandalisms. The tag was put up awhile ago so the article can be improved, without having to do too much reverts everyday.--Ryz05 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually this article gets vandalized quite often, though I'll admit that the rate has decreased this year thanks to the liberal application of the protection policy. A couple of years ago, I saw bad days where it was vandalized as often as every ten minutes.  --Coolcaesar 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly line in 9/11 section
Link to archived discussion Perhaps the fact that the United States will be classified as a second world country in a few years (at the pace it is declining) should be mentioned.
 * Can you provide some referencing for that claim? Because as far as I know, the US will continue to be a dominant influence in the next century.--Ryz05 01:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Second World. The definitions were, First World = Capitalist. Second World = Communist. Third World = those nations that were the pawns of each side, and almost invariably poorer. --Golbez 01:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected?
Why is this nation in particular protected from editing? It is not that I want to edit it or let any one vandalize but that is selectivism. Be in mind that the united states is not the only nation in the world. Some one has got to put a sign that says uneditable if it is not editable.
 * Because a lot of losers like to vandalize it. No other country article gets as much vandalism as United States. That is why it is protected from anon/new users. --Golbez 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have evidence for that, because the semi-protect was only recently put, and never taken off afterwards.--Ryz05 t 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I give you the protection log:


 * 4:01, April 26, 2006 Voice of All protected United States (vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 13:12, April 13, 2006 Alhutch protected United States (been 5 days, give it a shot [move=sysop])
 * 19:03, April 8, 2006 Voice of All protected United States (IP vandals [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 13:30, April 7, 2006 SoLando protected United States (It's been protected since 31 March. Semi-P should be restored if heavy vandalism resumes [move=sysop])
 * 22:17, March 30, 2006 Golbez protected United States (vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 04:30, March 17, 2006 W.marsh protected United States (apparently has been protected for 2+ weeks, let's try unprotect [move=sysop])
 * 10:45, March 15, 2006 Android79 protected United States (template indicates this is sprotected. remove protection and template if that's not the intent. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 22:53, March 2, 2006 Splash protected United States (keep it brief on high-profile articles [move=sysop])
 * 10:32, February 28, 2006 Woohookitty protected United States (vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 19:53, February 8, 2006 Katefan0 protected United States (Long enough [move=sysop])
 * 19:53, February 8, 2006 Katefan0 protected United States (Long enough [move=sysop])
 * 14:29, February 8, 2006 Katefan0 protected United States (lots of vandalism yesterday and today [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 18:46, January 29, 2006 Splash protected United States (that's enough for a high-profile article that's not in need of long-term protection [move=sysop])
 * 19:51, January 25, 2006 Howcheng protected United States (persistent vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 17:37, January 21, 2006 Docu protected United States (long edit history (move) [move=sysop])
 * 18:16, January 19, 2006 Katefan0 unprotected United States (Rm; testing the waters)
 * 16:29, January 18, 2006 Katefan0 protected United States (We've now, once again, reached the point where this article has been vandalized 12 times today. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
 * 11:57, January 14, 2006 Katefan0 unprotected United States (Kiddies should be gone for the weekend)
 * 17:53, January 13, 2006 Katefan0 protected United States (Getting hit but good today; sprot for a few hours [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
 * 19:22, January 12, 2006 Splash unprotected United States (been protected several days now (and no tag))
 * 14:20, January 6, 2006 Katefan0 protected United States (Persistent vandalism - sprot for a bit [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
 * 16:47, January 5, 2006 El C unprotected United States (coeuple of hours belatedly, sorry)
 * 13:27, January 5, 2006 El C protected United States (vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
 * 22:34, December 22, 2005 Splash unprotected United States (i don't see the support for this on Talk:, and the history doesn't support the vandalism claims)
 * 18:31, December 22, 2005 Brian0918 protected United States (as requested, semi-protecting this, one of the most vandalized pages [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 11:03, December 22, 2005 Splash protected United States (the history's not that bad, and poor standards of edit don't warrant protection [move=sysop])
 * 10:33, December 22, 2005 Brian0918 protected United States (semi-protecting one of the most vandalized pages [edit=autoconfirmed; move=sysop] [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * So, pretty much everything you said was incorrect. --Golbez 01:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Those span over almost half a year, which is really a long time. Plus, they are before the article was re-organized and remade, with referencing and everything.--Ryz05 t 01:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And you think vandals give half a whit if you reorganized the article!? --Golbez 02:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there will be less vandals in an important article if that article is well-organized with a lot of interesting links and things to talk about. This way, people won't vandalize as they just go to other interesting articles and read more.--Ryz05 t 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are simply incorrect. The vandals don't care about the QUALITY of the article - they care about the EXPOSURE of the article. They want to be able to say they put something nasty on the United States article. Your faith in this segment of humanity is poorly placed. --Golbez 03:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that some people are just out to play pranks and cause vandals, which happens everywhere. But my statement is not based on blind faith. Check the PRC article for example. You can't deny it's not a huge country with a lot of people angry over its human rights issues and everything, but that article has rarely been vandalized recently. If you don't believe me, you can request this article to be taken off of the semi-protection, so you can see for yourself whether I'm right or not.--Ryz05 t 03:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And you think that's just because PRC is a better article. No, it's because, to en.wikipedia's audience, it's not nearly as high a profile article. I don't think nearly as many schoolkids in America get jollies by vandalizing China as they do USA. You are more than welcome to put this article on requests for unprotection. It may succeed - but for no more than a few days. They always come back. --Golbez 03:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can remove this from semi-protection and see it for yourself if you want.--Ryz05 t 04:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not deluded as to the activities of vandals. Other, more trusting souls may, but I will not. --Golbez 05:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning American Editors of Wikipedia
It has been brought to my attention that many articles within Wikipedia are limited or misleading due to their content being created or edited by an American citizen, or a party with access only to US dates and events. For example, the Console Wars section is clumsy and misleading to those from other English-speaking countries, or to foreigners who speak English. There are a considerable number of these people who use Wikipedia every day, and as such I think that this should be beared in mind in future editing.


 * I think you got the wrong article. What Console Wars section? In the future, it's a good idea to post new messages at the end of this discussion page so others can see.--Ryz05 t 13:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The quality of the sources cited to support this article
If I turned in a paper citing to just Web pages like this article does (that is, back in the days when I attended a certain University of California campus), I would probably flunk the class or get a C at best. In fact, that's what happened to many of my classmates who did their research purely on the Web! With a topic as big as the United States, there should be plenty of high-quality books and articles out there that can be cited as sources.

This article still has a long way to go before it can become a featured article. Not that I have the time to research this mess and provide proper citations, though---I'm too busy with personal and work matters and I'm directing most of my time on Wikipedia to coming up with a solution for the huge hairball that is Freeway. But I'm raising the issue so that hopefully someone else can take care of it. --Coolcaesar 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check the references section, there are a number of books, so I'm not sure where you get the notion of "paper citing to just Web pages." If you want more books and references (as if it's not already too long), just say so. How many books serving as references will satisfy your hunger? --Ryz05 t 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo
"one of the most educated countries in the world, with a litercy rate of 99% (male and female)- defined as anyone age 15 and over who can read and write."

Oh the irony... someone should learn to spell 'literacy' before they claim to be literate.

Might be a good idea to edit it if you have nothing else to do.


 * Done.— G . H e  16:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Spelling is one thing, typing is another. Most people aren't perfect when they try to type fast, especially when trying to summarize an article at the same time.--Ryz05 t 01:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Should the article be renominated again?
I don't see what more to do with this article. If anyone wants to expand it, then a discussion first would be nice, because there are others calling for omission of some parts to reduce the article's size. Personally, I think the article is fine, so it should be renominated. That last election was not fair, as people's objection reasons were either addressed, or of personal opinions that were never discussed on the talk page (and it seems they will never bring them to the discussion). That being said, I suggest this article be renominated, but I'm waiting for more opinions, as it is currently nominated to be the collaboration of the week.--Ryz05 t 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Due to a lack of response, I think I'll take this as an anonymous yes. However, this time, I will make the introduction to the nomination a little more clear, unlike what I did last time, on why I think this article should become featured. Also, I will make a note that any personal opinions should be brought up to the talk page, instead of the nomination page, so that any debates that come up would not lengthen the nomination page considerably.--Ryz05 t 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm experiencing some problems with having the previous failed nomination redirected to Featured article candidates/United States/archive1, maybe someone like an administrator can help with that.--Ryz05 t 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Go to peer review first. Also, it is EXTREMELY poor form to renominate something when it lost just a few days ago. --Golbez 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The nomination was not even up for two weeks, like many other articles. There was also no clear reason why it lost, as many issues were addressed. Finally, the article had been peer reviewed many times since that last nomination.--Ryz05 t 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been through Peer review many times in the last two weeks? News to them, I think. --Golbez 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will oppose the nomination if this article is renominated so soon. I finally got around to taking a good look again at the article and the quality of the books cited is terribly uneven.  Yes, many of the books are scholarly works from good university publishers, but several others are questionable, particularly the Western Civilization textbook and the REA cram book.  I used REA books to cram for high school exams like so many other American students, but that does not make them acceptable source material for Wikipedia.  Textbooks and cram books tend to be watered down to be as appealing and unoffensive to the broadest audience possible, and they usually lag behind the scholarly consensus by about five years or so.
 * Also, even with book citations, the vast majority of citations are still to online sources only. Even though many of those sources are duplicates of articles that were published in paper form, the trend in practically all academic fields today is to provide enough citation information to enable a reader to retrieve the book or article by conventional means, and then to provide the hyperlink as an additional convenience.  Very few of the citations in this article are in proper format of any kind and nearly all look incomplete.  For example, if you look at Lawyer, I've indicated the exact page number(s) on every single citation.  First citations are all in Turabian format with year published, publisher, and publisher's city.  --Coolcaesar 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the size of the article
I haven't even read the article through, but an article at 86 KB is too large. If it doesn't meet the FAC criteria, there is no need for me to read it to judge it on its other merits. As WegianWarrior mentioned, size is a valid objection. Not adhering to the FAC criteria is a valid objection. This needs to be cut down significantly. I recommend this nomination be speedy closed and moved to peer review where suggestions can be made and properly taken care of. Pepsidrinka 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Should the article have a reduction in size? Or an expansion with more references? Because people are saying the the article is too large, and that it should be "cut down significantly." So I'm wondering what you guys think. Is the size appropriate for this article? Below is someone mentioning the size of the article being too large.--Ryz05 t 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * here're people calling for expansion (and omission):


 * Object This is a good article and great effort but also a very long article albeit on a huge topic which means that it has kinks to work out and some omissions. Here are a few things I noticed in quick first run-through:
 * No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else.
 * That pisses me off, because I added that a long time ago when I did my own overhaul of this article. I'm very annoyed that it's been removed in the interim. --Golbez 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Culture section is overly focused on cooking 50% of the summary talks about food (and yet fast food is not mentioned). Glaring ommissions from this section - the "American film industry" is mentioned (inadequately) but the term "Hollywood" is not mentioned anywhere. Also, television is not mentioned in the culture section, but is definitely more important culturally (and economically) than cinema.
 * Science and technology section has no mention of Silicon Valley or the Internet (there is only a very brief mention in the History section - it is not clear that the internet revolution began in the US). Computers are only mentioned in a pre-1969 context.
 * Bwithh 02:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a lose-lose situation if people object simply because the article is either too long or too short.--Ryz05 t 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

E Pluribus Unum (again…)
Okay. I have been an Wikipedia for a while. Can we PLEASE have some sort of consensous on whether E Pluribus Unum is still a motto of the United States? It's getting really annoying for it to continuously be switching between "(1776-present)" and "(1776-1956)" R&#39;son-W 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything I've read leads me to the conclusion that the U.S. had no official motto before 1956, but that E Pluribus Unum was (and is) a motto on the Great Seal of the United States. In other words: E Pluribus Unum is official motto for the seal and used as de facto motto for U.S.; In God We Trust is official motto for the country itself, and only comes along in 1956. But I could be wrong. See Archive. President Lethe 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK "E pluribus unum" was and is the US motto. A second motto, "In God We Trust" was rather bizarrely added as a second one in 1956 by Eisenhower. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See the archive. I already noted the last time we went over this that "In God We Trust" is the national motto.  --Coolcaesar 07:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
"...Its global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs around the world currently remain unmatched."

Is there sources for "unmatched"? In economic affairs the EU as the biggest economy in the world and the vast implications of China's supergrowth certainly have at least comparable global influence. In scientifical and technological affairs EU, Japan and South Korea certainly match. Europe has always had a profound influence in cultural affairs all around the world, Japan and South Korea have nowdays a huge cultural influence in Asia. So I'm not sure about "unmatched" in any but military affairs, and even in military affairs multiple countries maintain a mutually assured destruction to any country. Perhaps "unmatched" should be replaced "high"?--Christinam 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As with the anonymous edit, that sentence has been canceled, so there's no need to add in the list of organizations that US joined. Keep away from doing lists, please.--Ryz05 t 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. armed forces are considered to be the most powerful in the world, with its power projection capabilities unrivaled by any other nation or collaboration of nations.

This is a vague statement. Russia has power projections capabilities to destroy U.S. or any collaboration of nations at any given time, and China, France and UK have nuclear arsenals with delivery capabilities likely enough what can be described as a mutual assured destruction capability. It's true that U.S. has larger power projection capabilities in traditional warfare (and even then, not against "colloborations of nations" as a large enough collaboration would defeat U.S.), but if nuclears are counted the statement is highly incorrect. There isn't even citations for this statement, so I guess it should changed to more accurate comparison.--Christinam 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, that sentence was changed during that anonymous edit. Now, it's more true that the US is more powerful than most other nations, but not collaboration of nations.--Ryz05 t 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

''...Such affirmations of civil rights are the product of nearly four centuries of struggle and social progress aiming for a fair and just society, with its beginnings in 1634 when the first colonies in Maryland were founded on the basis of religious tolerance. However, the internal struggle to define the nature of human rights in the context of the U.S. Constitution began at the very inception of that document and continues to this day, with people of good conscience on both sides of many controversial issues. The U.S. has often been criticized for seemingly contradictory stances, on the one hand supporting the human rights laid out in its Constitution and Declaration of Independence, while not always living up to these ideals in practice.[26] For example, the compromise to maintain slavery was made at the drafting of the Constitution to secure the ratification of Southern states whose economy was thought to depend on this practice, though this may be perceived as a violation of the principle laid out in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal".''

Expressions like "centuries of struggle" or "good conscience" sound too much poetic glorification of the history of our country, and are certainly not encyclopedic. Founding on religious tolerance is a bit controversial statement since some parts were founded on the puritan ideals that found England and Europe religiously too tolerant and wanted to enforce more religious discipline. Furthermore, I don't think the section should focus on history as it's already overly long, but today's concepts of human rights in the country, some criticism by human rights organizations and responds to the criticism.--Christinam 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, those do sound a little poetic, so they are now deleted. However, the rest are there to keep NPOV.--Ryz05 t 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

''Some of the most important industrial contributions include the invention of the cotton gin, the development of interchangeable parts, and the assembly line, which made mass production possible. Other important inventions include the airplane, the lightbulb, and the telephone.''

Not to mention that the assembly line and interchangeable parts were developed in Italy and Germany, I doubt that filling sections with this kind of 'merit lists' help the reader to understand the essential points of the country. "Some of the most important contributions of Germany are contact lenses, kindergarten, gas motorcycle, x-ray, television, rocketry" doesn't tell much about Germany as almost all countries have their large shares of important inventions. Such listing is just nonsense. The section should focus more on summarizing the federal policies toward science and technology, for example: policies and issues on attracting international talent to visit, legislation (stem cells, etc.) and budgets targeted to research.--Christinam 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why some of the important industrial contributions and inventions can't be listed. The German article can list some of their important contributions too.--Ryz05 t 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So I think all of your suggestions have been addressed. I don't control the article and it's a collaboration, but I don't see why your other edits are useful in any way. They don't improve the article, IMO.--Ryz05 t 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The main article states that there are only about 60,000 registered rugby players and that the sport not very developed in the U.S., so I believe "not very popular" is more accurate expression about rugby.--Christinam 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are only that many total players, rather than say it's "not very popular," the entire mentioning about rugby can be deleted altogether. But first, I don't see where it says that there's only about 60,000 registered players. Do you mind showing it to me? Thank you.--Ryz05 t 22:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted 65.96.154.197's reversion, then reinstated it
65.96.154.197 reverted the article with the following edit comment - "rvt to last by me- too much bad edits making nothing but a mess."

I reverted the 65.96.154.197's reversion not because I thought the previous text was clearly superior to the text following 65.96.154.197's reversion but on general principle. I thought 65.96.154.197 was being arbitrary in insisting on his version of the intro paragraph. (That's what the diff seemed to imply.)

However, on reviewing the comparison between 65.96.154.197's previous version and the version that User:Christinam edited, I realized that 65.96.154.197 was right. The various recent edits are a mess. Any one of those edits is debatable and might be worth putting in but just about every one has a problem with grammar or diction. Together, these errors make the article look juvenile. It's better to pull all those edits out and put them back in with proper English.

We can debate whether or not the various points need to be made and how to do it in an NPOV fashion but let's keep this article sounding professional in the meantime.

--Richard 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing my mind again based on a re-read of the diff. This has the makings of an edit war. I'm not going to do any more reverting on this article.

I'll leave it for User:65.96.154.197, User:Christinam and others to duke it out.

There have been a lot of changes lately without discussion on this Talk Page. It would be better to discuss changes rather than engaging in a revert war. Every one of the recently edited paragraphs has been discussed previously. Let's document the consensus and ask people to read the documentation before editing.

--Richard 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryz05's edit

 * Throughout its history, the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and civil liberties.

What is this sentence supposed to mean? You could likely add this to any country's introduction. As far as I know about our great country's history, we were about the last developed country to abandon slavery, the last to abandon racial segretation, and we are still ranked in the worse of half of the developed countries in what comes to functional democracy or press liberties.
 * That part was once considered to be needed for providing NPOV. That was awhile ago when people are debating whether the dispossession of Native Americans and the mentioning of slavery should be included in the intro, which caused quite a stir. Anyways, now that those two mentionings are gone, that sentence can be omitted as well.--Ryz05 t 17:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. An earlier version of the intro stated that "the United States has been at the forefront of developing constitutional democracy and civil liberties."  I wrote that sentence and I believe it belongs in the intro.  I just got tired of fighting over it.
 * --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely POV and controversial statement. U.S. was about the last country to abandon slavery, and that it ever even happened was largely a result of political pressure from UK and France, which had civil liberties as a top agenda. The idea that U.S. had been anywhere nead forefront is a myth. It was UK, France, Sweden, Norway, and other North Europeans. Their black people had universal suffrage and other rights a century before there was even discussion about Civil Rights Act in the U.S. And if you look it today, RWB ranks 36 countries above the U.S. in free press and human rights organizations' reports of the U.S. are not really the shiniest. The U.S. has a good history of democracy and civil liberties, but nothing that should be put into the lead.--Janechra 09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That sentence is not incorrect in any sense, but anyways, it's taken out already.--Ryz05 t 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The two most traumatic experiences in the nation's history were the devastating Civil War (1861–65) and the Great Depression of the 1930s.[3]

Were they really overwhelmingly more traumatic than World War II, Cold War, September 11, etc.? We could perhaps write that CIA Factbook sees these two as the most dramatic, X sees Y as the most dramatic, Z sees.. It's nonsense statement to put into intro unless there was an extremely dramatic event (perhaps WW2 for Japanese?). "Two traumatic experiences" would be fine.

That's from the CIA world factbook. You can argue WWII, 9/11, and Cold War are traumatic as well, but WWII happened mostly outside the US, 9/11 affected mostly NY, and Cold War conflicts occurred mostly outside the US as well. If you futher question it, you can email the CIA to see what they think.--Ryz05 t 17:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We aren't the CIA fact book. We don't have to parrot what they say. --Golbez 19:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This and this claim that JFK murder was "the most traumatic event". Others claim "the most traumatic" was Pearl Harbor. Or.. Which one should we believe? No one!--Janechra 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I never liked that sentence about the "two most traumatic events" even if it DID come from the CIA fact book. Leave it out, please.  --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The United States is one of the most educated countries in the world, with a literacy rate of 99% of the population over age 15.

According to OECD studies, U.S. kids tend to rank below the average of developed countries. Well, the claim was without citations anyway.

The edit also added other questionable statements that appeared to be solely writer's own opinions, as well as removed parts of the article. Sorry Ryz05, we appreciate your efforts, but the edit was not quite enclylopedic. You should always summarize reasons for your edits and try to provide citations, preferably first by participating in the discussion page. We look forward to see you contributing to Wikipedia. --Janechra 01:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it not true that the US is one of the most educated countries in the world? I don't see why the mentioning of 99% literacy rate should be omitted.--Ryz05 t 17:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please discuss first before you change significantly the article. As such, it has been reverted and your comments have been taken care of. There's a peer review going on in which you can put forward suggestions. Thanks.--Ryz05 t 17:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Developed countries such as U.S. are, by definition, more educated than developing countries. But among the developed countries U.S. ranks in the worse half, so stating "one of the most educated" is indeed incorrect.--Janechra 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Stating that the US is "one of the most educated countries in the world" is not incorrect.  Saying it's one of the most educated industrialized countries in the world is debatable. Bjsiders-~
 * Yes, but there's no point to state "one of the most educated" in the articles of every 30 developed countries and non-country education systems. It doesn't tell anything to the reader as long as it's made clear that the country in question is a developed country. I believe the U.S. can't be confused with developing countries, and even then, better form would be "education in the United States is at the level of developed countries" or something similar.--Janechra 13:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The literacy rate is mentioned in the UK article. Germany is described as having "one of the world's highest levels of education."  France and Japan have an entire separate article dedicated to each's educational system.  I don't understand why similar treatment is inappropriate for this article.  Or do you propose to go through the other 30 and remove all such references? Bjsiders 13:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That Germany article sucks is no reason to make this article worse: instead, we should improve Germany article. UK article should also be improved to include citations for the statement, but as for UK, it's likely true. Not to even mention the weasel declaration "one of the most educated", CIA has likely invented the whole number 99%: National Center for Educational Statistics provides quite different numbers at A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century.
 * The mentioning of the 99% literacy rate in the US should be kept. It is an important piece of information in the Education sub-section. Also, CIA does not invent a number like 99% as there's no need to. It's also an intelligence agency working for the government, so it can't be wrong on the literacy rate of the country.--Ryz05 t 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you think a foreign intelligence and military department is a more reliable source than the department which actually provides the statistics (with full documentation)? Eh?--Janechra 09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The CIA is a US intelligence agency, it's not foreign.--Ryz05 t 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The edits at the science and technology section most lacked citations and the few I checked were incorrect. Also, the style was unprofessional sounding with expressions like "technological might", "culminating the first visit of..", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a poetry channel. Why important references to WHO research and infant mortality were removed and replaced with talk about fruits? See Verifiability and No original research. Don't put your own research if it already has been contested. Also, please think twice about changing too much, it would be preferable if you did edits one by one with explanations at edit summaries.--Janechra 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower. 

The entire concept hyperpower is questioned in the article as well as political science, and the cited article doesn't even claim that U.S. was a hyperpower. So I guess this was just writer's own thought.
 * author's signature of above text probably lost during subsequent editing, it is almost certainly NOT Ryz05


 * That hyperpower statement was discussed awhile ago. I don't see a reason why it should be removed.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to re-open the characterization of the U.S. as a "hyperpower" if it can be shown that this is a disputed concept in political science. Sources, please.


 * --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * in every continent besides Antarctica.

How's this important to the reader? And there doesn't seem to be a military base in Australian continent anyway.


 * It's pretty important to say something about where the US troops are stationed. If it's not true, you are welcome to change that statement. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, please be civil. Second of all, can you prove this? A short google search reveals no such base. According to Deployments of the U.S. Military, "There are about 200 American military members in Australia. Almost all are a part of the embassy staff or are exchange officers or enlisted personnel." That does not mean it is a base. To turn your sentiment back against you, just because you say it doesn't make it true. --Golbez 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Chill out, plese. I don't think Ryz05 was being uncivil although it could have been read that way.  It's true "If the statement is untrue, you can change it or delete it and ask for sources to prove it."
 * --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that the US has forces in Australia, see this article http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/09/02-09-04.shtml. So that sentence shouldn't be removed.--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The economic history of the United States has its roots in the quest of European settlers for economic gain in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.

Says who? All economies are rooted on quest of wealth. This such a weasel-sentence you could put in any country's economy summary, just add or remove centuries.


 * That's the earliest basis of American economic history. It's only a sentence long, and explains clearly enough what it's about.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We have already multiple times explained that the United States was colonized by European settlers. The other piece of information, that it's about "quest of wealth", is . "The economic history of China has roots in the quest of Chinese people for economic gain the millenians -6000, -5000, ..., 1000, 2000". Explaining that economies are about quest of wealth is as meaningful as it was to explain that a sport is a form of organized physical activity. There is limited space in the article and it shouldn't be wasted on obvious things.--Janechra 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that the earliest American economies were a quest for wealth, which led to its colonization, of course.--Ryz05 t 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sentence, as written, is trite. However, is there a reason why capitalism grew more quickly in the United States?  Has anybody attributed that to immigration, Protestantism and the American frontier?  That would be a more significant assertion and one that is unique to America.


 * For extra credit, compare and contrast the American colonies with Spanish colonies in Central and Latin America. (Seriously, there are differences and those are more significant than this namby-pamby weasely "quest for wealth".  The Spaniards had a quest for wealth too.  Why did those countries turn out so differently from the United States?


 * --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the economy section needs an explanation of why the US was so successful while other countries at the time like Spain, failed economically in the end. I don't see why that one sentence needs to be taken out. It's logically, clearly, and well stated to me.--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But you feel it necessary to attribute the US economy to a "quest for wealth" implying perhaps that this is something unique and noteworthy among nations? Janechra has a point.  Take out "quest for wealth".  If you don't want to delve into why the U.S. is an economic superpower, that's your prerogative but "quest for wealth" is trite and should be taken out.


 * What are you trying to say anyway? That our Founding Fathers were money-grubbing capitalists?  That they were rapacious, land-hungry, avaricious and greedy?  If so, then say so.  If not, then just take it out. --Richard 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The American colonies progressed from marginally successful colonial economies to a small, independent farming economy. Over the course of those years, the United States grew from thirteen British colonies with distinct economies and institutions to one of the most integrated, largest, and industrialized economies in the world, making up over a fifth of the world economy. 

The American history is already explained in the history section, it doesn't need to be reworded in every section.


 * the section is about American economy, and a little history is acceptable.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But there's no sense to explain things twice.--Janechra 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned twice. It's the economy section, and was never included in History section.--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The economic system of the United States can be described as a capitalistic, free market-oriented mixed economy, in which corporations and other private firms make the vast majority of microeconomic decisions and governments prefer to take a minimal role in the domestic economy. Because of this, the U.S. has a small social safety net, and business firms in the U.S. face considerably less regulation than firms in many other nations.

There's no need to explain what concepts capitalistic, free market and mixed economy are - these are common terms and they are covered with links. Small social safety net is no way an implication of small goverment intervention, neither is regulation (and "considerably less regulation" is misleading; U.S. businesses face likely the world's most complex tax, patent and court systems). They are already covered in the relavant articles, separate explanations out.


 * There's a need to explain the kind of economy the US has.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, read again.--Janechra 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Janechra has a point but he/she hasn't spelled it out clearly enough apparently. I think the proposal would be to say The economic system of the United States can be described as a capitalistic, free market-oriented mixed economy. Because of this, the U.S. has a small social safety net, and business firms in the U.S. face considerably less regulation than firms in many other nations.


 * Side note: I can't believe that there is a List of United States companies. That seems like a nutso idea to me.


 * --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no point in deleting that sentence anyways, as it is pretty important.--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the sentence is important. The argument is that the phrase "in which corporations and other private firms make the vast majority of microeconomic decisions and governments prefer to take a minimal role in the domestic economy" is redundant because you are just defining what capitalism is.  If the reader doesn't know, then there is are multiple links to provide more information.  To include the above phrse is just pedantic. --Richard 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the entire paragraph has flawed logic: "Because of this, the U.S. has...". No, "small social safety net" is independent from the economic system. "Because of this" should be removed. Also, "face considerably less regulation than firms in many other nations", is there sources for this? What other countries "many" includes than France? :) I believe that the U.S. businesses actually face more regulation than in many countries.--Janechra 10:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * from the world's largest creditor
 * The United States was not necessarily the largest, but certainly "a large".


 * The section should also mention aspects such as income inequality and poverty as they are something exceptional and widely influential.


 * --Janechra


 * Cite some references for your statements.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have to: if you can't cite that the U.S. was the largest creditor, then it was just 'a large creditor'. I believe Switzerland was a hot creditor at the time.--Janechra 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Janechra is right. It's not up to him to prove that the U.S. wasn't the largest creditor.  It's up to someone to prove that it was.  Cite your sources
 * --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However, Janechra is wrong about income inequality and poverty being exceptional and widely influential. --Richard 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Income inequality is not exceptional? List of countries by income equality ranks it by far the worst of developed countries. For example, exceptional income inequality is mentioned at China article, although it's less than the U.S. income inequality. And poverty: In most developed countries, there's simply no poverty such as in the U.S. because those countries tend to have higher minimum salaries and larger social security. The reader should be aware of this. For example, that many have to do over 8h/5days workweek, often having two jobs, is a clearly observable difference. The poverty is considered to be a main reason to high crime and health problem rates. Such exceptional and influential aspect is important information. --Janechra 10:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * a melting pot of different cultures around the world.


 * It would be better expressed with something like "has interacted with many cultures": the communication has always been two-way.


 * --Janechra


 * "melting pot" sounds more profession and correct than "has interacted with many cultures".--Ryz05 al t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's primary concern is to be an encyclopedia. Please provide more "professional sounding" expression if you want so (however, "melting pot" does not really appear such expression). Two-way communications is an important aspect that needs to be covered.--Janechra 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the "melting pot" metaphor is an old one and is widely understood to represent the assimilation of immigrant cultures into the American culture. It is used widely in both common parlance and scholarly publications.  I don't know about it sounding "professional" but it is certainly appropriate to use in this context.
 * The melting pot is an old metaphor for the assimilation of many cultures in the US. You are welcomed to check out that article to read more.--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * American Cuisine is rustic rather than elaborate, much of American food culture is not immediately recognized as being "cuisine", such as clam chowder, baked beans, and barbecue.


 * Em, weren't those quite imported culture? What's the point of all this talk about cuisine anyway? It gives a feeling that the culture section was writen by a chef. There are other aspects in the U.S. culture than just eating habits: the section should summarize some main points and provide links to some central themes.


 * --Janechra


 * That's a counter-argument for the first, which says there's no food that comes from the US. It's there to provide NPOV basically.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever since homo sapiens started to prepare food, every single food has been inspired by the previous. If look in depth, french cuisine is a result of interaction with french tribes, romans, uk kingdoms, german kingdoms, italian kingdoms, etc. There should be a statement that dishes imported to the U.S. have always been altered to local integredients, culture and the American taste, as in every country.--Janechra 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no point to delete that sentence, and I found it pretty interesting. It explains how some things can be considered "100%" American food, but at the same time, they are not recognized as being "cuisine."--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of those, only the clam chowder is considered to be from the U.S. Barbecue has been around longer than Americas has been known by the Europeans, the word barbecue has just became a popular name (in many languages the original name is used). Baked beans are considered to be 100% French food elsewhere. Again, the whole discussion about who "invented" what is useful only to moron readers.--Janechra 10:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Barbecue is typically known as an American food, and so are baked beans, especially in the South.--Ryz05 t 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * among the country's most internationally renowned genres.


 * What's is this supposed to mean?


 * --Janechra


 * It means the most popular, as in styles of music.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not "country's". They have been developed all over.--Janechra 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you mean to say that the elements to those styles of music have developed the world over, but those elements create a music that's distinctively American.--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However, not all American culture is derived from some other form found elsewhere in the world. For example, the birth of cinema, as well as its radical development, can largely be traced back to the United States. In the early 20th century, the first recorded instance of photographs capturing and reproducing motion was Eadweard Muybridge's series of photographs of a running horse, which he captured in Palo Alto, California, using a set of still cameras placed in a row. Since then, the American film industry has had a profound effect on cinema across the world. Others areas of development include the comic book and Disney's animated cartoons, which saw widespread popularity and influence, especially in Japanese anime and manga, and Chinese animation and manhua.


 * There's no point to use a half paragraph to tell a story about running horses. It would be much more interesting to use the space on refering to regional differences, famous centers, etc.--Janechra 15:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Janechra. We can communicate the point about the film industry starting in the U.S. without describing the invention from a technical standpoint.  In the culture section, the focus should be on explaining how the U.S. dominated the film industry for over half a century.
 * --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph is a counter-argument to the first, which says basically all of American culture is derived from some other culture. This way promotes NPOV.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph doesn't claim such thing, or if it claims, it's fatally flawed. The section should not be about such pointless argument, but explaining the country's culture.--Janechra 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That second paragraph should be kept as it explains how some things originated in the United States. Besides, that fact about cinema is an important contribution of the country. Other things can be added to that second paragraph, but it's not right to just delete it.--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Plenty of things (plenty of inventions, in particular) originated in the U.S. You're talking about culture not science and technology in this section, right?  The real point is that the cinema industry originated in the U.S. and dominated the global film industry for decades.  Mentioning the invention of motion pictures doesn't make that point.  Better to talk about the emergence of Hollywood than the invention of the motion picture camera. --Richard 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cinema is universally considered to be invented by Lumiere. That's why it's called cinema (from french). And yes, it was the French and Italians who dominated global film industry for decades, not the U.S. This is what I'm talking about: some contributors seem to have an ideology that country-articles are about bragging the country in question and using fancy words (not just the U.S. article, others as well), and then articles get filled up with factual problems, poetry, stories and lists instead of useful information. We would have tons of essential aspects to be covered. For instance, why there isn't a single word about Easterner, Westerner, Southerner differences?--Janechra 10:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The french might have their role in the early history of filming, but the US has made significant contributions as well, which is what that second paragraph talks about.--Ryz05 t 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II


 * We should emphasize, that a major factor for the success was not victory itself but that the U.S. was thousand miles away from every battlefield: most other developed countries were literally torn down. This resulted to that the U.S. got advantage in both physical and intellectual capital. So I propose a form something like "relatively uninfluenced by WW1&WW2" or "beneficial result".--Janechra 15:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are reading too much into it. Saying it got the advantage after WWII is the same as saying that is is buoyed by victories. Saying that it's "buoyed by victories" sound a lot more profession anyways.
 * .--Ryz05
 * I disagree. I think it's important to focus on the fact that the U.S. was the least damaged of all the participants in WWI and WWII.  Both of those wars devastated the European participants, victors and vanquished alike.  It's not that the U.S. was a victor that helped it dominate the 20th century.  It's that all the other victors were exhausted after each of the wars.
 * --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we have to add "Wikipedia is not about poetry" to What Wikipedia is not? The information counts, "good sounding words" are no reason to give the reader bad information. U.S. could well have lost and it the result would have been the same as long as Europe and Japan were ruined by the war destruction and U.S. had the natural resources. This appears to be already noted by the user Richard above.--Janechra 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what I said, man! --Richard 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check the introduction from the CIA World Factbook, that's how it's phrased, and that's where I got it from.--Ryz05 t 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it just me, or does it seem like Janechra is on a crusade to remove all positive aspects of the United States from this article? Regardless of how you word it, the US was a victor in both wars, and the current wording almost seems to suggest that we didn't play a major role. But yeah, lets not give any credit to the United States, after all we're the worst fucking country in the world, or thats what I gather from reading the article. I hope Ryz05 reverts it back to its original form, he seems like the only reasonable person here. Netheros99 07:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just you.... ;^) Seriously, Janechra did a good detailed analysis.  He/she wasn't right on every point but it certainly wasn't as POV as some of the other critiques that have been aimed at this article.


 * I have an increased respect for Ryz05 based on his willingness to change the text based on suggestions. He doesn't always see things the right way (i.e. my way) but he's not totally intransigent either (which was my initial perception).

I still think the intro should say that the U.S. has been a leader in constitutional democracy and civil liberties but that's just me.


 * --Richard 07:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment.--Ryz05 t 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many unexplained edits in the US article
Too many of the edits in the US article are unexplained and do not seem to hold much merit. Therefore, the article will be reverted to its original style, otherwise, much of the edits, I'm afraid, rely on too much bias, because the previous edits are made as a result of considerable debate and discussion. Therefore, I suggest any new major edits be discussed first. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You do not own the article. Just because many have not been summarized does not give you the right to discard them out of hand. I reverted your reversion. Perhaps we should request a protection so we can discuss these things - though we have the peer review page for that, we don't need to fill up this talk page with it [for now]. --Golbez 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Too many people making significant edits to many of the sections without consulting the peer review is the problem. Sections like Education, which omitted the mentioning of literacy rate as well as the inclusion of the picture on Jesuit Prep school, and in the Science and technology section, where the section was almost cut down to nothing, are some of the problems.--Ryz05 t 16:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Time is not of the essence; we can take our time and work with it. --Golbez 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problems of your edit have been well documented here and in the peer review. Please participate in the discussion page before repeating them.--Janechra 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please participate in the discussion before you repeat your edits as well.--Ryz05 t 19:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

demographics...
What is there to discuss? Saying the US is 81 percent white is extremely misleading and it gives people the impression that its 81 percent European which is far from the truth. The US census bureau even states that Americans do not consider people of hispanic descent to be white. I summarized the article and merely included what the census counts as white to make it accurate. Whats the problem? Why do you keep reverting it? You cant just leave out important information. Not all people are going to go in the sub forums and read they are just going to give a cursory glance at the info and say America is 81 percent white European which is not true. It needs to say.

Jerry Jones 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC) The CIA World Factbook just states that white make up 81 percent of the population; nothing misleading about that. I fixed the demographics section a little bit to make it more clear. There's no need to state "without counting hispanics, whites make up 61 percent of the population." In any case, there's nothing NPOV about that section, so I removed the tag.--Ryz05 t 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Science and technology
In the sentence about Nobel Prizes, I changed "key focus on..." to "a heavy concentration in the fields of...".

The above edit still doesn't quite get across what I'm trying to convey but it's a first step. My point is that because of the beginning of the sentence mentioning Nobel Prizes, the implication is that the U.S. has a "focus" on getting Nobel Prizes in physiology and medicine. This is obviously not our primary goal. My change tries to get across the point that we get more Nobel Prizes in physiology and medicine than in any other field. If we devote more research money to physiology and medicine than to other fields of research, then we should mention that. I don't have any data on that question.

Also, I didn't make this change but I didn't understand why the U.S. should be "second to the Europeans" in Nobel Prizes. Is Europe a country? Do we say that the Asians are third in Nobel Prizes? I know the nature of the EU is difficult to handle but I think the right approach here is to say that the U.S. has the largest share of Nobel Prizes, period.

--Richard 18:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a point there about comparing Americans to Europeans, as Europe is not a country but a continent, so I've changed that sentence. I think the section is a lot better now. If anyone want to dispute, please discuss before changing anything. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is very misleading, because per capita many nations get more prizes, and if foreign-educated Americans are excluded, even more dramatically so. I believe the Nobel prize comparison is not relevant to the reader anyway, but if it is, it's should be expressed accurately in terms of per capita with meaningful comparison.--Marielleh 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The mentioning about the Nobel Prizes that you just deleted is not comparing the US with other countries or continents in any way. It is true to say that the US has a large share of Nobel Prizes in the sciences, so it should be kept. --Ryz05 t 19:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, what is the meaning to mention it? For example, we don't write that U.S. has a large share of world's rapes, deaths, marriages, etc. - although they would be surely interesting facts - but we don't, because it comes with the size. If you think it should be included, you have to explain why it's important.--Marielleh 20:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Having a large share of nobel prizes is something to be proud of, so mentioning it is important, while other things, which are largely negative, are not important.--Ryz05 t 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you really think that Wikipedia is a forum to write your points "to be proud of", see What Wikipedia is not, Neutral point of view and other Policies and guidelines. Sorry, but argument disqualified.--Marielleh 20:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Headline text
How is development of atomic bomb important specific that needs to be covered? Don't push extra pictures when the layout is already full, a picture or story of Neil Amstrong does not contain much information to the reader. Same with the story. Also, "relatively undamaged" is misleading because we weren't damaged at all unless you count a few potential forest fires by Japanese balloon bombs as damage.--Marielleh 20:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The development of the atomic bomb ushered in the atomic age, as that sentence said. Also, the picture is important to include because it is one of the highlights of the Cold War and an important technological achievement, when the first man lands on the moon; something that have not been done again in more than 40 years. Finally, it's not just hydrogen balloons, it's also about the attack on Pearl Harbor, so you can't say the US was not damaged at all during the war.--Ryz05 t 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was the development of theories of relativity, first reactors of Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassman and further reactors of Fermi that "ushered" it. You have to give a citation that it's something important. Same for Apollo 11. It sure was a important media spectacle (that would be an excellent reason to include it), but that's about it. Nobody has sent people there, because it's expensive and has no value other than image. It's technologically damn easy if you choose to invest in the equipment. For the U.S., it was just about losing the face after Russians had been the first in everything. You see, poor Indians are nowdays sending guys out there. If you think that the layout must be vandalized, find a pic of Fermilab, a premier American research center, or something other with a purpose to the reader's understanding.--Marielleh 20:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that it was "technologically damn easy" to go to the moon in the 1960s? I'm sorry, if that's so I think we're on very different pages... TastyCakes 21:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about this day. We should not waste space on history when the reader can well read the main article.--Marielleh 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the atomic bomb and the space race are pretty central examples of America's role in 20th century science and technology. And I think the picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon encapsulates that pretty well, but if there's no space for it I don't think it's a big deal.  As far as not being damaged in WW2, physically that may be true (other than Pacific islands), but over 400000 Americans were killed in it, which I'm sure damaged the labour pool if nothing else.  TastyCakes 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The pool sent out there didn't really represent the research pool. Actually, the war boosted science. Anyway, I agree that the "relatively undamaged" might suit better.--Marielleh 20:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that some pictures appear a little too big for their respective sections because of the different computer screen sizes. But the picture of Buzz Aldrin on my computer screen fits the section perfectly, so I'm not sure if the statement there's no space for it applies to most people or not.--Ryz05 t 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. Plus I think the section deserves a picture and that walking on the moon is as good as any I can think of.  TastyCakes 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, sorry guys, it's my widescreen.--Marielleh 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the section to include a brief presentation of main points. It was overly long in comparison to other sections, main articles are meant for details.--Marielleh 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted because you basically took all the things you talked about above and then did them without any consensus here. TastyCakes 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was Ryz who pushed his edits, without reasons or citations, but whatever. Let's keep the article sounding professional while consensus is searched whether to include Ryz's edits.--Marielleh 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you accusing me of "pushing" my edits without "citations?" Almost all the citations are added in by me. Also, please do not make random edits just because you feel like it, without thinking logically what you are doing, like deleting almost a whole section without contributing something else, which is like vandalism.--Ryz05 t 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok then. I think the space program and the nuclear program deserve at least a passing mention.  I think there should be some mention of the large number of world class universities as well as corporate research parks that attract top students and researchers from at home and abroad, which is reflected by the number of Nobel Prizes.  The stats on what percentage of GDP go into R&D and the portion of the global total also seem relevent.  Probably the large number of contributions to medicine should be mentioned, but I don't know too much about that.  Also the fact that they lost the lead to East Asia for many consumer electronic type technology probably deserves mention.  TastyCakes 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be wonderful. This is what I'm talking about, real information to the reader.--Marielleh 21:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would want to shorten the section. It is not that long and what it talks about are all pretty relevant.--Ryz05 t 21:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problems of your edits are well documentated above and your edits won't be incorporated to the article until you at least provide some response and seek consensus. There is space for larger section, but it has to be professional content. TastyCakes had wonderful suggestions, I'm going to try find numbers about R&D percentage of GDP.--Marielleh 00:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered why you want the section to be cut like what you just did. TastyCakes was never against the Science and technology section to be that size, so I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Also, I do not understand why you take out the previous two pictures in the Education section and included a picture of Jesuit Prep School. Why are you so interested in adding that as opposed to the other two, which are more informative anyways.--Ryz05 t 03:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion when you are clearly refered to it. As you have been noted before, Wikipedia content is not based on stories "to be proud of" but important encyclopedic information for greater understanding of the subject. Nuclear program and space program might deserve a mention, but your edits "ushering in the atomic age", tales of Amstrong or Nobel prizes are nonsense in the form your edit expresses them. The problems of your picture edit are well covered here - neither of those provide any information and the left picture makes the section more difficult to read, while the college sports picture provides link to 2-4 major aspects not covered in the section. It would be nice if you helped to find citations for things such as R&D percantages and research parks.--Marielleh 18:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The mentioning of the nuclear program as well as the Apollo 11 mission deserves a mentioning. If you can improve the wordings there without omitting the information, fine, but otherwise, do not delete them like what you just did.--Ryz05 t 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if you missed why regions of military bases count more and continents counts nearly not at all: for instance, one can have a military base in Turkey (=Asian continent) and it has simply 0% use in possible operations against North Korea. It's important to emphasize that there more military bases than just "every continent".--Marielleh 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can say "every strategic region in every continent besides Antarctica," not just say "in many regions," which is unnecessary as the word "worldwide" was already mentioned.--Ryz05 t 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cities table
--Once again I've had to restore the Cities table. Please see the most recent (of many) votes that were taken on this matter: Talk:United_States/Archive_15   --Jleon 00:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Treaty more informative than revolution?
Someone(s) has/have changed:
 * 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.

to
 * The U.S. originated from thirteen colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

How does substituting a treaty (which, btw, was not ratified until later and was NOT the first recognition of the new nation) tell more about the US than that it was forged by revolution and that it was one of the first (if not THE first) constitutional republics? --JimWae 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Treaty of Paris deserves to be mentioned in the Intro, the American Revolution is already mentioned in the history section anyways. The intro should be more about the establishment of the country and its recognition in the world, and less about how they fought a revolution to achieve it.--Ryz05 t 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of unsupported "shoulds" in your response. I note a close similarity to the CIA factbook. Readers are best served by intros that include familiar things - not a treaty that even few Americns can name (and was not ratified until at least a year later) - and recognition came earlier than that from France. Put the Treaty in the history section! --JimWae 18:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There can be a mentioning of the Revolutionary War in the intro, which I'll try to include if that's what you want.--Ryz05 t 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative citation method
Recently, an alternative citation method was created for some of the facts in this article. A stand-alone "References" sub-page was created. This page was subsequently nominated for deletion. See Miscellany for deletion/United States/References for a record of that discussion. While the page was not deleted, the discussion participants recommended against the use of that alternative citation strategy. The page has been redirected here pending a discussion by the participants of this page on whether this "references" page can become a useful and sanctioned support page for the main article. Rossami (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Serious Problem in the list of cities
Someone has switched Philadelphia to sixth behind Phoenix. This is speculation, it has not officially happened yet. But more importantly, they failed to move the rest of the stats along with each respective city. So Philadelphia's Metro Population and Rank are now attached to Phoenix. Ex: Philly is the fourth largest Metro, and Phoenix the 14th largest metro, not the other way around, etc. What originally tipped me off was that it was listing Phoenix as having a population density of 11,234 which would make it the third densest city in the U.S. behind Chicago and New York. Obviously that 11,234 stat belongs to Philadelphia. As does the 4th metro rank, and ~6million metro population. Also I can find no source placing Phoenix's population at the number listed on this page, it contradicts even the Phoenix Page on wikipedia. Can someone please swap Phoenix and Philly?


 * I saw someone edit that before, but didn't do anything to revert it because I couldn't be sure if that edit was right. If you really believe it's wrong, please feel free to correct that mistake.--Ryz05 t 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Poorly educated"
The claim that the USA is "poorly educated" by industrialized standards is utterly without merit. The real literacy rate may be disputed but the United States has one of the most highly educated adult populations in the world, far above the majority of Europe, all of Asia, and the rest of the western hemisphere. One can argue this is because American schools award so many stupid degrees that don't amount to anything (for example, Asia and Europe both trounce America in science and engineering degrees), but to omit this fact and focus exclusively on literacy is an exercise in POV cherry-picking of facts. Bjsiders 18:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that.--Ryz05 t 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, what Bjsiders was trying to say that America is not poorly educated. In fact, it is one of the most educated countries in the world, "far above the majority of Europe, all of Asia, and the rest of the western hemisphere."--Ryz05 t 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are we all reading the same section? It appears to me to be well supported-- if you want to contest it, you'll need references to back you up. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The current section looks correct. There's nothing wrong with it in my opinion.--Ryz05 t 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The country has a low literacy rate as compared to other developed countries, with a reading literacy rate at 86-98% of the population over age 15,[51] while ranking below average in science and mathematics understanding.

At first glance, the beginning sentence in the section of Education starts the section in a negative tone. Perhaps American may actually be as stupid as this sentence words it, but a rewording could be nice. --Physicq210 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you want it to be worded?--Ryz05 t 20:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps American may actually be as stupid as this sentence words it, but a rewording could be nice." That is called manipulation. If your country is stupid or not, I don´t know (actually, I don´t care), but please do not manipulate sentences.

There is a vandalism lock on this article for a reason, because people are stating opinions (such as those listed above) as facts. It is unreliable, and it is the reason why Wikipedia is so controversial. 71.139.157.29 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this note. Seems pretty right to me. Science and math knowledge has been declining for years. Jaxad0127 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Largest cities table
I notice that there's a change to the List of cities table in the Demographics section. While I'm not against adding the table to the article, I do suggest that the table size be kept to a minimum and that only the top ten most populated cities are included, which is what that Cities' section talks primarily about, the population. If you disagree, please discuss. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 21:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll let this picture do the talking for me about the picture thumbnails. President Lethe 03:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like you have a wider screen than most other people's computers, because on mine, the pictures fit perfectly. Maybe you can adjust the width of your screen a little bit? A simpler solution is to shrink the width of your internet browser. --Ryz05 t 18:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I think limiting the table to '10 most populous metropolitan areas, 10 most populous cities proper, and all 11 global cities' is quite an alright idea. President Lethe 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the current list of cities list, so it's quite all right.--Ryz05 t 18:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the current list of cities. Covering only top ten cities proper produces the misconception that some rapidly growing municipalities have a larger sphere of influence than they really do, i.e., Boston proper is less than half as populus as San Antonio proper, while metro Boston is two-and-a-half times as populus and more influencial than metro San Antonio. Covering only top 10 metro areas leaves out large cities, which are important in that they are large units of governement and more easily compared to other municipalities worldwide. Covering the global cities is a nice touch given the worldwide nature of Wikipedia. Compare with Wikipedia entry for Germany, where cities proper and metros are both listed, and where the differences between the two, like the U.S., are significant.

Education Edits
Janechra, the source I provided shows the following rates of 24 year old adults with one college degree to the general population of 24 year-olds. If you sort on column J it is very clear that the United States comes in at #5 behind the nations cited in my original edit.


 * The United States is at 35.3%
 * Australia is at 35.9%
 * Finland is at 33.0
 * Iceland isn't even on the source, I don't know where you got that number from.
 * Poland is at 24.6%.
 * Denmark is at 17.4%.
 * Norway is at 57.7%.
 * The UK is at 36.0%.
 * Ireland is at 24.3%.
 * Sweden is at 28.4%.
 * Hungary is at 24.4%
 * Japan is at 30.1%

I think you're referring a different source, in which case either one of the source is wrong, or they're measuring two differen things. If it's the latter, we need to figure out which source is measuring what, and change the prose to reflect that. If it's the former, we ought to use the more recent source I think, or if both are fairly recent and from reliable statistical institutions, include both and note the discrepency. I hope that clear things up a bit. Bjsiders 15:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll put my comment on the literacy information here.


 * One can find credible sources saying the U.S. literacy rate is as high as 99.9% (the figure that the United Nations Development Program uses in computing the Human Development Index for the U.S.) and as low as the 70s. This is because of the different ways of figuring literacy. Whom do you count? Whom do you exclude? What kind of literacy? Where is the bar set? At least in the early '90s, the official U.S. statistics had 12 different levels or categories in which a person could be literate or illiterate.


 * Start comparing this to other countries, with their own ways of measuring literacy, and things can get quite blurry.


 * But maybe there's someone here who would like to read this report, by the 	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (an international body), which is from 2000 and covers 20 developed nations, including the U.S.


 * Starting at page 32 of that PDF, for example, are several tables, showing the 'ranges' of literacy to be found in various countries. One point revealed by those tables is that the distribution in the U.S. (and Canada, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and the U.K.) is broader than it is in some other countries—a big range of literacy in that country from the more literate to the less literate, whereas some countries have smaller ranges, with higher low scores but also lower high scores.


 * Table A on page 32 of the PDF, for example, does indicate that only four (Chile, Poland, Portugal, and Slovenia) of the 20 counted countries have lower bottom ends of their literacy rates than the U.S. has—but it also indicates that only one (Sweden) has a higher upper end.


 * It also indicates that, although 9 of the 20 countries have higher median rates than the U.S., 12 (including Ireland, Switzerland, and the U.K.) have lower medians.


 * I'll let someone else fiddle with the actual text in the article, but thought this deserved attention.


 * And, hey, by the way, everybody, keep something in mind when considering statistics: sometimes a table can trick you into giving something a false ranking compared to other items in that category. For example, if someone showed you SOME of the letters of the alphabet—say, A, E, M, P, T, and U—and said the letters had been put in alphabetical order, you might say “O.K. If they've been put in order, then that means that P is the fourth letter” ... when, of course, it is indeed the fourth letter of those shown, but the list doesn't consider every possible letter (and, if it did, P would drop to 16th place).


 * President Lethe 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * College degree rates are very difficult to compare. For instance, in Sweden (28.4%) there are no institutions comparable to American colleges. There are universities which are more like graduate schools and then there are polytechnic and vocational schools. So which ones do you count as "colleges"? Depending on your definition of a "college", that figure could probably be anything between 15-50%. Quoting it to three significant figures is absurd. In my opinion the ranking should be removed, because it's too inaccurate. 137.222.40.132 14:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavery and democracy - a paradox of American history
In past versions of the introduction, there has been text that mentions the fact that U.S. has been a pioneer in democracy. There has also been text that mentions the fact that the U.S. was one of the last to abolish slavery and the legacy that slavery has had on our nation's history.

Neither of these are mentioned in the current version of the introduction. I have felt that this was a mistake. Today, I heard something on NPR that made me think that I should raise this issue again.

Here are some links and quotes:

http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/ta/13025.html

"Professor Eric Foner explains in this e-seminar how slavery and freedom grew concurrently in the English colonies in North America. He states, "This is the paradox of American history: that freedom and slavery expanded simultaneously in colonial America." To resolve the paradox, students may be tempted to assume that the founding fathers were simply hypocrites, individuals who claimed to prize liberty and freedom but did not. Or they may argue that slavery is an exception in the story of American democracy, or that American democracy represents an exception to a legacy of oppression and exploitation. None of these explanations suffice. Professor Edmund S. Morgan examines this paradox in his pathbreaking study American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (1975). Morgan writes that "the rights of Englishmen were preserved by destroying the rights of Africans." American freedom and democracy, Morgan concludes, rested on the foundation of American slavery."

Here's a link to an essay by Edmund Morgan... http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/morgansupp.html

It was NPR's mention of Edmund Morgan that led me to research this on Google.

I reiterate my objection to the failure to mention the role that the U.S. has played in pioneering and fostering constitutional democracy. I also recognize that this pioneering role has to be qualified by the fact that there have also been difficulties in achieving the ideals of democracy.

--Richard 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point Richard. I blieve there's a mentioning of this in the Human Rights section, where it points out how slavery contradicted what was laid out in the US Constitution.--Ryz05 t 16:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But as far as we can tell, not in the view of many of the people at the time (including the writers of the constitution) since they viewed slaves and/or coloured people as not really humans. Don't get me wrong, I find such views extremely disgusting but ther is strong evidence to suggest they were held by many at the time and are held by people at the current time (both inside the US and outside of it). Nil Einne 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see how this would be a paradox at all. It may be mentionable as an erroneous premise, but assuming this premise there is no contradiction with a democracy of the people. - Centrx 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Languages
Please change the page. English is NOT the official language of the United States. The bill below would make it the "national language," which is just symbolism but nothing like an official language. The bill if passed, would not prevent the rights of everyone in the United States to provide services in other languages. Posted by User:71.249.79.13 15:00, May 19, 2006 (but unsigned)

The recent US Senate bill or whatever is discussed in the languages page. While I'm not an American so perhaps I misunderstand it's significance, it sounds to me like it merits brief mention here as well even if it still has to be approved by the US Congress or whatever 203.173.143.182 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Official language is the language of the government, as the new national language will be. In Norway there are two (some places three) "official languages", but that only applies to the government - businesses, schools etc. can use whichever language they want.

An official language is infact much more descriptive (and honest): Language used by the officials, as opposed to national language - compare that with national currency, which the government forces you to accept (or else the monies would have had any worth).62.249.183.170 16:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Move
I have set up a vote for this page to be moved to United States of America. Vote here ending 00:00, May 27, 2006. &mdash; Brenden  h  ull  17:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your link for a vote is incorrect. Dpotop 18:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. The longstanding Wikipedia policy (and it has been debated dozens of times in the past two years) is to stick with common names of things.  United States is the common name used by the media, in literature, in many laws and regulations, and in ordinary speech.  It is also used in the U.S. Constitution itself.  --Coolcaesar 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "United States" is too likely to be linked to. Moving the page will allow one to make United States into a dis-ambiguation page. Georgia guy 19:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note your views at Requested moves/United States. -Will Beback 21:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not moved, as there was no consensus. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We JUST had a vote on this, not two months ago or thereabouts. It's not going to happen. Deal with it. --Golbez 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Largest Cities
The more I look at this section, the less relevance I see in the article. We have a nice flowing article, then bam - TABLE! And the ranking isn't even standard throughout the table. I suggest we remove it, and mention some of the more important and historic cities, and link to the articles that handle the listing much better. To put it blunt, it's ugly and doesn't offer all that much information. The cities can be much better handled in text than relying on a huge table. --Golbez 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was an earlier vote Talk:United_States/Archive_15, but I suppose we can post up another vote to see how people think of it now. Maybe we can just reduce it down to having the ten largest cities posted again, if people still insist on keeping it.--Ryz05 t 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't think it was as fugly back then. It used to be small and efficient, though even then I would suggest removing it. But at the very least, the current incarnation is horrible. --Golbez 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

American Football America's top sport
Football shouldn't be one of the most popular....it is the most popular. 1/2 house-holds in the USA watch the Super Bowl. Madden Football is the most popular videogame three years in a role. NCAA Football draws in a larger crowd then NCAA baseball, NCAA basketball, PGA Golf and NCAA soccer. Also mention that the Green Bay Packers are the most popular NFL team. renegadeviking
 * Sources are required. Also, I point out that NASCAR competes very well with football, even in video games. --Golbez 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I provided a reference for that comment, which I found in the article on American football. In the future, you should add references for such bold statements.--Ryz05 t 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the page to vote for the move United States to United States of America. Pages should be at the topic's official name, not the name it goes by. Almost every source I've seen has this topic under United States of America. Vote support if you think the page should be moved, oppose if you think it shouldn't. Voting ends 00:00, May 27, 2006. &mdash; Brenden  h  ull  23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support And no, you don't need to be logged on to vote. 70.51.9.190 19:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I set up the vote, of course I support. &mdash; Brenden  h  ull  19:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The name of the state should be the name of the article. --Matthead 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per User:Matthead. &mdash;RJN 21:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support Dpotop 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support There is more than 1 United States,United States Of America and United States Of Mexico. Dudtz 5/20/06 6:47 pM EST
 * 7) Support don't forget Winston Churchill's speech about a "United States of Europe". I think it's ok to use the full name in this case, just like in the case of People's Republic of China, in order to pre-empt confusion. Also if you are going to go by "most common name", it's certainly United States of America (USA). Gryffindor  17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) *US is a much more common abbreviation than USA, in my experience. United States is also a much more common usage than the full United States of America. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) support because "United States of America" is the official name, is common enough, and reduced ambiguity. Case in point: the article starts by calling it the "United States of America." "United States" should of course remain as a redirect to the page. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. "United States" is rather non-descript without adding "of America". &minus;Woodstone 21:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support Article name should be the official name of the country. Sarbox 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) *In which case, what should the name of the United Kingdom page be? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px|Support]] Support United States of America is much more encyclopedic that United States since the first one is the official name. — Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 01:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) *In which case, what should the name of the United Kingdom page be? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I'm a bit confused as to the logic of those who are opposed to this move. "United States" is not a different name than "United States of America", it is only a short version. Heck, I bet more people use "the States" in conversation than "United States", but I doubt we'd want to title it that. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)  -- Ned Scott 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support as per brighterorange and Gryffindor. sendai 05:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per all of the above. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong Support Its the real name, not the shortened name. --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - Runch 17:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support as per Dudtz Ruszewski 01:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose as per WP:NC: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." -- Mwanner | Talk 20:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for the same reason as Mwanner. "United States" is used in the Constitution, in numerous federal laws and regulations, in nearly all newspapers, magazines, and journals, and in ordinary speech as the most common name of the United States of America.  --Coolcaesar 21:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose &mdash; See Comments section below for reasoning related to my opposition. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose in agreement with Mwanner. Article titles don't reflect "official" names, but common ones. While "United States of America" is somewhat common, "United States" is far more so. And I honestly doubt there are very many people who think of Mexico when they hear "United States." &mdash; Larry V (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. If the page is moved, United States can stay a re-direct, but it can allow someone to remove the re-direct and make a dis-ambiguation page for other uses. Georgia guy 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt this would stand. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Mwanner. There is no plausible conflict here.  Postdlf 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. When I first came across the article on United States, I wondered why it wasn't named United States of America, but then I figured that the name United States is just as good, since it is more commonly used. For an encyclopedic source like Wikipedia, the article United States should best be left with that name, because that's what all other encyclopedias are doing, including the CIA World Factbook, a government site. Plus, a google search for United States yields more than three billion results, as compared to that of United States of America, with less than 900 million results . The name of the country should be left in its conventional short form as the title of the article, but the first mentioning of the country should begin with its conventional long form, as what the article does.--Ryz05 t 02:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose Circeus 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Mwanner. Also, an ease of use thing; so many articles must link here, it would be helpful to keep the article at the short name, so we can avoid redirects.  Mango juice talk 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose It would require the fixing of thousands of links due to all the double redirects it would make. --Bachrach44 14:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. If you don't like the naming conventions, then propose changing them, rather than proposing to move an article in clear violation of them. Proteus (Talk) 16:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. There's nothing wrong with where it is.  Unless you'd like to change Mexico to United States of Mexico.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose &mdash; Per above args. &mdash; RJH 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Above arguments. --TheDarkForest 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Wikipedia policy is to use common names, not official names. The most common name for this country is the United States, nor is any other entity commonly referred to by that name. Policy and precedent is quite clear. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose: use common name to facilitate linking. Jonathunder 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px|oppose]] Oppose. Shall we move United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose: use common names; it doesn't matter which one is official--Jiang 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose: WP:NC, link fixing issues, common name, and the move wouldn't improve anything. Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 17:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose: moving is hella dumb. --153.18.41.76 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose: "If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase." There is some precedent for using formal names for countries, such as those related to the Congo or China, but those need the more specific names because they mean distinct things.  In the case of "United States" and "United States of America," they mean exactly the same thing.  There is no distinction, so we go with the common name. ~ Booyabazooka 01:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral changing my vote from Support. I would still personally prefer ... of America, but as pointed out by User:Ceyockey below, United States is the common form in ecyclopedias (also and ). I would still like to see more examples of common usage outside the U.S. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Neutral. If Wikipedia was just starting life, I would support the move, but by now I guess there are thousands of articles referring to this one now. I'd rather the effort to make the necessary changes was put into improving other articles. Markb 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
WP:NC in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to
 * what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize,
 * Tie. Both seem easily recognized.


 * with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity,
 * Strongly in favor of nomination. The only ambiguity is to the band. United States on the other hand is geographically ambiguous.


 * while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
 * In favor of United States, but would make the third alternative, USA the frontrunner.

In balance, I favor the full original name which is common enough and unambiguous. I might support a move to USA though. ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * United States is not geographically ambiguous. The English Wikipedia caters to English-language users and few fluent speakers of the English language would reasonably think "United States" refers to anything other than the United States of America.  Indeed, the use of "United States" to refer to the U.S. occurs in the U.S. Constitution itself (go read it).  Americans are the majority of native English language speakers (that is, people using the English language as an active community on a daily basis, as opposed to people in other countries taking it to graduate from secondary school).  --Coolcaesar 21:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By 'Americans' I assume you mean the people of the USA? I do not understand your rational that they are majority of native English speakers - so what? don't assume only native English speakers use the English Wikipedia, and all the rest merely studied it to graduate from secondary school (by the way, don't assume most people 'graduate' from secondary school, either!) Markb 10:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the nominator's stated rationale, Wikipedia's naming conventions explicitly do not call for articles to use official names. Rather they call for articles to be named for the most common name (see, for example Cambodia, (official name: Kampuchea)). In the present instance, the most common name is certainly "United States"— "...of America" is only added in the most formal contexts. This policy was upheld by better than 2 to 1 in a poll back in May, 2004, and there is no reason to change it now. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, United States is the conventional short form. United States of America is the conventional long form. It seems like WP uses the short form in most cases, including Mexico over United States of Mexico (but not exclusively: see Taiwan or China). I'm not sure about the "in the most formal contexts" though. It seems reasonably widespread. ~ trialsanderrors 17:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments accompanying opposition by User:Ceyockey : There is no compelling reason to change the name. As for ambiguity, page moves are generally not done to satisfy disambiguation issues of the kind being discussed here (in my experience); there are other mechanisms for dealing with such. For example Distinguish in the case of potential confusion with Mexico &mdash; United States of Mexico being a redirect from an alternate, unofficial name. Further, as I've been reminded of on occasion, the availability of an official name that differs from an article title is not a compelling reason to move a page; the 'avoid legalese' argument applies as well to countries as it does to companies, the latter being where it most often appears in discussions (again, in my experience). User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is "United States" an 'encyclopedic' title? According to Britannica Online, it is (article entitled 'United States' not 'United States of America'). According to MSN Encarta, it is (article entitled 'United States (Overview)' not 'United States of America (Overview)'). User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

coat of arms
is the great seal considered to be a coat of arms. other country pages have other names for their symbol. should it say Great Seal or Seal or Great Seal of the United States? AJseagull1 01:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the Great Seal of the United States; however, that is its name. Its description is, it's a Coat of Arms, and it's for the United States. For standardization's sake, we use that term. (By the way, "Coat of Arms of the United States" redirects to "Great Seal of the United States".) --Golbez 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But it's not really a coat of arms. Wouldn't it be more correct to call it a seal, as long as the parameter is there in the template? &rarr;bjorn the great t|c 16:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's not like it would be a unique exception, Japan has an "imperial seal" instead of a "coat of arms," and India and People's Republic of China have "emblems." It would be completely accurate: the US does not have a coat of arms. It should be changed to "Great Seal" AscendedAnathema 02:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Objections over changing to "Great Seal" by anyone, and why? AscendedAnathema 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Request unprotection
That last semi-portection was enacted to prevent overlooked vandalisms when a few sections were moved around and many copyedits were made. Now that those edits are done, I feel it's all right to remove the semi-protection.--Ryz05 t 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The vandals will return. Semiprotection will be re-enabled, in a matter of hours or days, not weeks. I see no reason to experiment with something we know will fail. Again, Ryz05, you're thinking that vandals only attack low quality pages. That is not truth. --Golbez 21:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said that vandals only attack low quality pages. I said that vandals tend to attack articles on popular topics that appear messy. You sound like you want a permanent semi-protection for this article, which I don't think is necessary, as we can just revert any vandalisms that do occur (as they do for every other article).--Ryz05 t 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I am not a fan of preemptive permanent semi-protection. I agree with Ryz05.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  21:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not unprotect: First a question &mdash; am I right that this talk page is still open to editing by everyone even if the main page is semi-protected? Second, my opinion &mdash; I'm not a fan of such a preemptive action either, but I took a look at the edit history prior to the protection on 12 May and the majority of edits in the several days leading up to protection were vandalism from numerous different editors (from widely disparate numerical domains) and accompanying reverts. I don't think its unreasonable to treat this article as an attractive wall for graffiti. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But hey, not all anons are vandals. I'd rather not turn away potential good editors just because of vandalism by a few other anonymous users (much of it is automatically reverted by a bot anyway, or at least by someone who has it on his watchlist).&#160;—  The KMan  talk  22:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that not all anons are vandals - I spend time adding IP-related infoboxes to active anon pages to help assist in keeping them from being blindly blocked as the result of the edits of a few bad apples. Your observation needs to be weighed against the history of vandalism on this particular article, though; one need not assume good faith to the exclusion of reasonable extrapolation from past events. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If vandals do return, as they will for every article, we can just revert their edits. I don't think you are trying to put a permanent semi-protection on this article are you?--Ryz05 t 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In short, yes, I am advocating permanent semi-protection ... personally, I've never once added a protection template myself to this or any other article nor would I get into an edit tug-of-war to try and keep such a template in place in defiance of consensus; I revert vandalism just like the next guy. Nonetheless, some articles exhibit extenuating circumstances; for instance George W. Bush (this is a mail posted to WikiEN-L by Jimbo Wales on the topic of semi-protecting the Bush article and permanent semi-protection in general ... apologies if you are already familiar with this missive). User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it semi-protected. This article is a big target for vandals.  Semi-Protection&mdash;at least that will keep out the unregistared users who vandalize. &mdash;MJCdetroit 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care really if this article is permanently semi-protected, I'm just worried about it becoming featured. Will this semi-protection prevent the article from being featured? If that's the case, then it should be removed as that won't be fair, since it is a good article and should have a chance of becoming featured. But if the semi-protection does not prevent the article from becoming featured, then keep it, I don't care. And I'm sure many people want this article featured, right?--Ryz05 t 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you worried about semi-protection interfering with ascension to featured status? Is there a precedent for this having happened before? I can't see why there would be any conflict between the two status indicators. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the criteria for featured article candidate is that the article be stable and not subject to edit wars (see WP:WIAFA, criteria 2e). Featured articles are also put on the front page when they are Today's Featured Article, and on that day, they are usually one of the highest-traffic articles on the website. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia if an article on the main page has to be protected from editing, and we all know that this is one of the most-edited (and most-vandalized) articles on this website. The lack of stability is a significant issue. It's unfortunate, because there's not really that much that you can do about it. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I generally feel that any article should be able to become an FA, and this article certainly meets many of the criteria. I'm still somewhat on the fence, but it is a topic of concern. The Disco King 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

E pluribus unum translation
Someone just changed the motto from "Out of many, One" to "One out of many." I'm not an expert on latin, so which is the more correct one? As the two statements seem to have different meanings.--Ryz05 t 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked the article on E pluribus unum, and it appears that "Out of many, One" is more accurate. Or we can say "One out of more." I guess the "One out of many" is all right as well, but I changed it back to the original.--Ryz05 t 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * E - out of, from
 * pluribus - many (with ablative case ending)
 * unum - one
 * --JimWae 00:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with JimWae. "Out of may, one" or "From many, (comes) one" (which is how I've sometimes heard it in the public school system) Jaxad0127 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dick Cheney's full name
I changed the "Vice President" designation to "Richard B. Cheney." I know some (Golbez) think this is "pedantic," but I feel that when naming world leaders in at-a-glance templates, it's only proper to have their full name rather than the colloquial name, no matter how commonplace it is in cultural reference. People frequently call George W. Bush "Dubya" (at least where I come from) and this is a similar, although certainly more extreme, example of leaving more familiar terms for leaders in the main article as interesting asides.


 * Except I am 98% sure that if the current President were not identified by his middle initial, you would never have thought to include Cheney's middle initial. --Golbez 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not true. As a matter of fact, I would have thought to include his middle initial because, in the CIA World Factbook, he is listed as "Richard B. Cheney." I just think that, in the interests of making a more "encyclopedic" entry, it looks better to have a full name. If Clinton were still president, for example, it would be appropriate to call him "William J. Clinton" in the box and have any interested parties click the link and find out how he is commonly addressed. Lemonsawdust 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No one ever calls him "Richard B. Cheney". -Will Beback 22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying people commonly call him "Richard B. Cheney," but there's no argument that that's his name. Lemonsawdust 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would wager that almost everyone would prefer "Bill Clinton" and "George Bush" in the boxes, and "Al Gore" and "Dan Quayle", rather than "Albert A. Gore Jr." and "James D. Quayle". --Golbez 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't actually address the issue of what people would "prefer" in those boxes. It seems, according to recent history, that many people would "prefer" to allow George W. Bush's website to remain vandalized. The point here is that "Richard B. Cheney" is more encyclopedic in tone. It's not because George W. Bush is usually associated with a middle initial, it's just the most seemingly appropriate way to put it. Not in EVERY instance of Dick Cheney's name, obviously, but in this one location. I use as references: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html, http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ (the graphic portion, analogous to the U.S. info-box at the right of our main USA page), http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/elections/cheney.html, and a host of others. Based on the comments left when "Richard B. Cheney" is changed to "Dick Cheney," it seems like the removal of the full name is due to a personal disagreement with a perceived parity battle rather than any genuine interest in maintaining the tone of Wikipedia. I simply think that the full name is more appropriate, and my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that "W" is usually in Bush's name.


 * Then perhaps we should have a vote on the matter. --Golbez 08:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you suggest putting "Anthony Blair" as Prime Minister on the template in United Kingdom? Or "Anthony C. L. Blair", perhaps? Don't be ridiculous. (And it's not his "full name" either &mdash; that's rather obviously "Richard Bruce Cheney".) Proteus (Talk) 09:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly would, if "The Rt Hon" and "MP" didn't eat up all the space. There's no such excuse for not having Dick Cheney's full name on the USA template. Honestly, what would be the harm, space permitting, of putting "Anthony Blair"? The only bad that would come of it is extra precision at the cost of a sliver of familiarity. I honestly don't know how you can deride this opinion as "ridiculous" when it's quite reasonable. Perhaps I'm not correct, but I would appreciate a modicum of respect when addressing the very rational ideas of others. Thank you, by the way, for the helpful tip about my use of the term "full name." Someday I'll offer you some advice on punctuation, but this is clearly not the venue.

Religion
The Article states: "About 38% of Americans say they attend religious services at least once a week,[58] and 53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives, as compared to 16% in Britain, 14% in France, and 13% in Germany".

I think the percentages given for Britain, France and Germany are much higher than the actual percentages in reality, although I'm confused as to which of the two statements the comparison is for. In Britain though, most research shows only just over 1 million (out of 58 million) attend church once reguarly, this puts the percentage at 3% - 4%. I'm not sure on figures for France but I'm pretty sure Germany is even lower (almost 0% in former East-Germany in particular).

There is also a marked difference in the role of religion in daily life and particularly politics between the USA and Western Europe (e.g. the well documented "religuos vote" in the USA compared to basically no "relgious vote" in Western Europe) which should maybe be pointed out, although maybe this is already implied? Canderra 17:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Statistics always require a reference. So if you can find a good reference to those claims, then you are welcome to change that statement accordingly.--Ryz05 t 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have found several websites which state the figures for the Western European countries are lower, although some websites also seem to state they are higher. The only credible source I can find is [this official poll], however the results require some decoding - Church attendance is only asked to the 44% which stated they had any religous feelings at all and is then split done by religion. Doing some maths however - 0.44*(0.49*0.12+0.22*0.26+0.16*0.24+0.12*0.14) - I get a figure for UK Church attendance of only 7.5% (Although this figure is probably an over-estimate as it counts any attendance above just "several time a year", so weekly attendance would probably be a fair bit less). Should the figure for the UK be changed as the Yougov poll is a lot more reliable than the unsourced figures on the cited website) or are the stated figures for "importance of religion" which is not asked in the forementioned poll? Although, the majority of websites quote lower figures than the ones in the article but to be honest it is all starting to seem a bit pedantic now, simply for some guide figures :| Canderra 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The source for the data comes from this website . It is from a survey in 1995-1997, so your poll taken in 2004 is a lot newer. If you want to change the data for the UK in that section, you are welcome to, but just make sure that you add another reference to that sentence. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the data with a more up-to-date one taken in November 2003. It is from this website http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2003/Nov03/r111703 .--Ryz05 t 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

population clock
The use of the population clock is not good practice for referencing a population estimate unless one puts the exact date and time for the figure. We should use a more stable mid-year population estimate (either the US Census, the CIA Factbook, or the UN Population Division). I'm going to change this later unless someone can justify the use of a population clock. Polaron | Talk 16:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish in the country box
Someone added Spanish next to official language in the country box, and I'm not sure if that's justified. The country still is overwhelmingly English speaking, even though Spanish is the second most popular language in the country.--Ryz05 t 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

United States ready for featured article candidate
I'm thinking of making this a featured article candidate once the peer review is done, because I think it's very well written, not too long and not too short, and very well supported.--Ryz05 t 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The last one was just a few weeks ago; I sincerely suggest you wait a few more weeks. You *will* get a blowback of people thinking you're overnominating it, whether or not it's actually true. --Golbez 23:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It has already been a few weeks since that last nomination, so I think it's ready to be nominated again, especially after a peer review. It doesn't matter if a person nominates an article a few times, as long as that article is ready to become featured.--Ryz05 t 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does; did you not notice the backlash after your previous attempt? --Golbez 02:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Backlash? They just said it was nominated again soon after the previous nomination, without even looking at the quality of the article.--Ryz05 t 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. Expect that if you nominate it again too soon. I COULD be wrong, I'm just saying, wait a little longer. --Golbez 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, after the peer review is done the article will be nominated.--Ryz05 t 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Columbia as a name of the US?
I don't think Historical Columbia should be included in the parenthesis next to United States of America in the lead, because noone refers to the US as Columbia anymore. The names inside the parenthesis in the lead are some of the most common names to call the country in writing (excluding U.S. of A and U.S. and A., etc.). It is better to just include it in the See also section at the end of the article. --Ryz05 t 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

% Urban
If there is such a discrepancy, then discussion is needed --JimWae 21:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * according to our article the US census (somewhere) says 68 percent of the population lives in rural areas.
 * according to the UN (thoroughly sourced in previous version of article) 19% live in RURAL areas & 81% are urban


 * Thank you for pointing that out. It is suppose to say "68 percent lives in urban areas," now that's a big difference. I think it's better to add in the 68 percent as opposed to 81 percent, because it's not an estimate and it flows better with the paragraph. You can find that number (68 percent) from USDA http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/WhatisRural/, which is taken from Census 2000.--Ryz05 t 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The 68% figure doesn't match with the 2000 census figures which says 79.0% urban. The differences might be attributed to time variance (the UN 81% figure is for 2005) and to minor differences in urban/rural classification.


 * The 68% figure only counts people in urbanized areas. It excludes the 11% of the population living in urban clusters (urban areas with 10,000 or fewer people). I will change the figure in the article to 79.0%. Polaron | Talk 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked again and it says 79% in http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm as well. Thank you for pointing that out.--Ryz05 t 22:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic and ancestry groups
I can't find where it says in Census 2000 that "the country has 31 ethnic groups with at least one million members each, with numerous others represented in smaller amounts." If anyone can find a reference for this statement, please include it. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This and this may be helpful. The pdf file shows 37 ancestries/races with over 1 million. I couldn't find a comprehensive table from Factfinder but the second link allows you to look up the total population of each ancestry, ethnic, or race group and/or subgroup. Polaron | Talk 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for showing those links so a reference may be added.--Ryz05 t 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

History
"Following Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential election, the country experienced the largest peacetime economic expansion in its history, which is primarily attributed to the digital revolution and new business opportunities created by the Internet.[16]" a) The link given to support this paragraph points to an amateur's anti-Republican rant page; b) it seems likely that the LATEST expansion would generally be the LARGEST, whenever it occurred; c) placing Clinton's election in juxtaposition to the expansion makes it seem like his administration had something to do with it besides coincidence; d) tech stocks started dropping in the spring before Clinton's last term ended; e) the linked page for the digital revolution indicates that the revolution started in the 80's, well before Clinton's election; f) what definition of "peacetime" are you using here? ).User:nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn 03:52, 30 May 2006 (PST)

I don't see anything wrong with how it's phrased. It's all factual and the sentence even specifically gives credit for the expansion to something completely out of Clinton's control. The link might need to be changed if the source is inappropriate. Surely the CBO has some statistics on this we can use. Economic expansions tend to get bigger, true, but prior to Nixon the boom/bust cycles of the economy were fairly short. The long booms of the Reagan and Cliton administrations were uncommon. Now we have 7-10 year booms followed by busts that last less than two years. The boom DID follow Clinton's election. In fact, it started just BEFORE the election. The recession was over before people went to the polls. I agree that some clarification of "peacetime" is appropriate. We haven't officially declared war since WW2, and are unlikely to ever do so again regardless of the circumstances. Are ALL economic expansions to be considered "peacetime" from here on out? Bjsiders 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Since, it started just BEFORE the election", it's incorrect to say 'FOLLOWING the election'. Changing it to "Shortly before the end of George H. W. Bush's term, ..." would be more accurate. User:nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn 15:15, 01 June 2006 (PST)

Religion2
80 per cent of Americans are Christian, down from 90% in 1990. The current info in the religion section is wrong


 * Can you provide a reference for your argument?--Ryz05 t 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)