Talk:United States/Archive 2

[Untitled]
Changed world's third largest country (land area) to world's third largest country (total area). The US is actually the fourth largest in land area (PR of China is slightly larger in land area but has less water area).

Removed the words overcome and power because even the US DoD projects power. It is difficult to claim has power without the consent of all parties. (Read Rights of Man) However, a technology is something through which a competitive advantage is obtained. Thus the substitution for power. 169.207.86.78 07:58, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I apologize for making so many changes in a row, I should have just reverted to the last reasonable version. I compared the current against some older versions that were used as reversion points by multiple people and the changes appear to be good now. Daniel Quinlan 08:18, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

political spectrum
though in the US, the center point in politics is more to the right than in most liberal democracies; US center-left is more akin to center elsewhere

What does this "elsewhere" mean? It seems more like just Europe, and not most of the world. I would leave this statement out. We should just be concerned about the US's relative spectrum, especially since this is only a summary. --Jiang 22:14, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The description of the Democrats as simply center-left is grossly misleading. US politics is more right-wing than the norm in liberal democracies. Few mainstream politicians in the US advocate policies that are elementary centre-left standard elsewhere. In most liberal democracies, centre-left politicians advocate free health care, are opposed to the death penalty, advocate higher taxes and social spending on pensions and social welfare. The standard US political commitment to private health care, private pension arrangements, private control of utilities are all stances that elsewhere are defined as centre-right. Internationally people are often puzzled by claims that such and such a US politician is centre-left. Elsewhere they would be seen as on the right. And the policies of the US center-right are described simply as right wing elsewhere. In the absence of any strong left of centre party in the US, centrist politicians tend to be discribed, to the amusement of the rest of the world, as center-left when their policies would not remotely be categorised that way anywhere else in liberal democracies. Because of no strong socialist or social democratic tradition, the central fulcrum of US politics is to the right of elsewhere.

A recent description of Tony Blair as a left-winger in a CBS program caused mirth in Europe, where Blair is seen as the most right wing Labour Prime Minister in history, to the right indeed of some of the 'left' of the Tory Party. Ted Kennedy has been described in the US as center-left or even extreme left, whereas in Britain, France, Italy, South Africa, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Italy,New Zealand, etc he would be seen at best as moderate left of centre, ie social democratic. And George W. Bush's policies would never be described as centre-right in other states but as right wing. Margaret Thatcher, undoubtedly a right-winger, was to the left of Ronald Reagan in many of her policies, eg, her refusal to propose the abolition of the National Health Service, her failure to reintroduce the death penalty, which is opposed by all by the far right wing internationally, but supported by such supposedly center-left/center US politicians as Al Gore and Bill Clinton, who also championed workfare, something even the centre-right internationally baulked at. So calling the Democrats center-left is blatently wrong. The US may think so, but this is an international encyclopædia and US definitions in these areas are regarded as weird and factually wrong in most liberal democracies. Wiki has got to use world-recognised terminology, not the ones popular in the US and only in the US. Using terms like center-right and center-left is simply misleading where the centre point in US politics is right of centre by international definition, in the absence of the standard left of centre socialist and social democratic traditions in the US. FearÉIREANN 22:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The Democratic Party has and should be described as center-left [sic], and to describe it otherwise would be quite against common practice in the US. Besides, you say center-left politics favor "free health care, are opposed to the death penalty, advocate higher taxes and social spending on pensions and social welfare"  Last time I checked, folks like Howard Dean and plenty of Democrats advocate these positions.  Perhaps a compromise is to make the distinction between "centre-left" and "center-left." :) Fuzheado

And Howard Dean is seen as "unelectable" by many for being "too left wing" and certainly on the left of the Democrats. Yet his views would be mainstream centre-left and he would be seen as certainly electable in other states. His case is a classic example. FearÉIREANN 23:23, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Explaining all that is outside the scope of this article. It is not implied that this "center-left" is the same "centre-left" as in Europe. Do we have to explain that "center-right" is much more centrist than in Singapore? Where does it stop? The politics section is meant to be a summary. --Jiang 22:50, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Singapore is not a typical liberal democracy. Using Singapore's definitions of politics in its article would mislead world readers who generally use different understandings for terms. In standard liberal democracies, communist, socialist, social democratic, centre left, centrist, centre right, right of centre, right wing, liberal, conservative etc have broad communal meanings, linked to specific policies and ideologies. In the US, Singapore and some other states where the central political fulcrum is not in the centre but to the right or the left of centre, those terms have different meanings. In the US the centre-point is to the right of most liberal democracies, producing unelectable left-wingers like Dean that elsewhere would be seen as slightly left of centre. In Sweden, Dean would positively be seen as right wing, while Dean would be to the left of Blair, to the moderate left in the Irish Labour Party, etc. FearÉIREANN 23:23, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Comparing these terms is not going to resolve this I'm afraid. Compared to Hitler or Tim McVeigh most of us can be called leftist.  Compared to Lenin most of us can be called rightist. The path to take might be:

''The dominant political culture in the United States is, as a whole, somewhat to the right of the dominant political culture in European democracies. Within the US political culture, US Republican Party is described as center-right and the US Democratic Party is described as center-left.'' Granted, its a bit tortured, but some wordsmith could probably reword it. Anyway, you get the idea.Ark30inf 22:58, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Question: why mention both Hitler and Timothy McVeigh when comparing the right and only Lenin and not people like Joseph Stalin and the Unabomber on the left? Both the so-called left and so-called right have their monsters. I say so-called, since those people are lumped in by critics on the opposing side in the simplistic one-dimensional view of political views (right vs. left). Darn, now I've opened the topic of authoritarian vs. libertarian. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 00:01, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)
 * The Unabomber one is a good one! To be honest, I am less familiar with the extremes on the far left than I am the far right (when they live in your own house you have to pay more attention). Once you get so far in either direction though I don't think it matters much. You end up with dead people either way it seems.Ark30inf 00:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bravo. Good work, Ark. FearÉIREANN 23:23, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I can live with that version as factual, thanks Ark30inf and Jtdirl. However, I think it is still somewhat long-winded for the top-level United States article and the inclusion of the European comparison is somewhat Euro-centric.  Now, someone else will want to list that the US center is somewhat left of various other regions/countries, then we'll start debating why that's the case, etc.  sigh  Daniel Quinlan 00:01, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

I meant to add in one change. Both the Democrats and Republicans are catch all parties, so they cannot simply be said to be center-left or center-right alone. They are coalitions across the spectrum, but with the Democrat spectrum to the left of the Republican spectrum. So Democrats run in US parlance from center-left to center (with some particularly in the south center-right), and the Republicans center to center-right, with some (like Arnie right now) on marginally left of center. Put simply, the main block of the Democrats are slightly left of center, the main block of the Republicans slightly right of center, each with a large and small fringe (the former left, the latter right in the Ds, the former right the latter left in the Rs. And both have members who could (and on occasion do) cross from one to the other. Hence presidents from one party can find members of the other sufficiently close to them to join their administration. So it was natural for the Ds to produce an FDR (left of center) and for the Rs to produce Reagan (right of center), though of course Reagan was once a Democrat. So simply center-left and center-right alone are insufficient categorisations and hide the fact that the parties have a broadbased range of support, differing in geography (north and south), class and income levels, religion and ethnic background (RC - Democrat, minority Republican, Episcopalian - Republican, minority Democrat, etc). FearÉIREANN 23:43, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I think these differences are largely geographical. From left to right, roughly:
 * cities <-> suburban <-> rural
 * northeast and pacific <-> northern midwest and industrial belt <-> south and west
 * So, the "center" of major candidates of either party shifts accordingly in each of those areas. Even the average Green candidate in Pennsylvania is further right than the average Green candidate in California.  Anyhow, I think this is better addressed in one or several sub-articles.  Daniel Quinlan 00:18, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Religious statistics: this is a an excellent addition, but it shouldn't mix statistics from the Census and the ARIS survey because they seem to use different criteria and it's a bit confusing. Can we just use one source (I would lean towards the Census) to be clearer?


 * In 2000, 53% (Census Bureau figures, PDF file) of Americans were members of Christian churches, with smaller Jewish (2.3%) and Muslim (0.1%) minorities. Although most American Christians are Protestant, the Catholic church is the largest Christian denomination because there are many more Protestant denominations. In contrast to Europe, those saying they are not religious are a minority (14.1% 2001 American Religious Identification Survey) in the United States. The actual level devotion of Americans to their faith is often debated and the ARIS Study showed a decline from 86.2% calling themselves Christian in 1990 to 76.5% doing so in 2001, still well above the 53% who are members of a Christian church.

Daniel Quinlan 22:44, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * How does the rewritten paragraph look? If there's one source it should be ARIS because the Census Bureau itself can't study religion in the census and is presenting a compilaton of figures from several studies. The generally lower numbers for church membership are also given in the ARIS study but I don't like to give just one study for a subject as controversial as religion. Hopefully the revised wording clarifies the reason for the difference in the figures. JamesDay 16:40, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hawaii isn't marked as part of the U.S. on the map. Trontonian 03:49, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, the small map needs to be fixed. The green could also be darker in Alaska.  Hawaii is at least shown as part of the U.S. on the larger map in the Geography section. Daniel Quinlan 03:55, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * I have a modified map which I will upload today some time. I'll try fixing the Alaska green, too. The map isn't that much of an improvement but it'll do till something better can be put together. Trontonian 17:08, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I added it. It ain't beautiful, but it shows Hawaii. Alaska looks a little bloated, but it's a darker green. Trontonian 01:51, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The background is a little pinkish too. Can't someone just generate a new one?  Daniel Quinlan 05:59, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Putting in another vote to change this to United States of America. We wouldn't call the People's Republic of China just the People's Republic.


 * Bad analogy. Changing this page's name would be more like renaming United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  It would mostly end up being just a lot of extra typing for no particularly good reason.  United States as a well-accepted short form and it's 100% unambigious.  "People's Republic" is quite ambigious.  Daniel Quinlan 01:42, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Also, as of August 7, 2003, 10190 pages linked to United States making it the 13th most referenced article.


 * I think both articles should use the full names. There's no linking problem since the abbreviations can redirect. ( 08:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, I think the culture section on this page needs a lot of work. Hard to summarize American culture, I know, but it's been done for the other sections. At the moment it's primarily an ugly and not particularly helpful list of links. Any ideas?


 * I agree that it could be better, but changes to Culture seem to attract various POV insertions. Good luck.  Daniel Quinlan 01:42, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

I was just reading through the 1st para and felt the 2nd sentence out of tune with the paragraph. It's in past tense, the sentence ideally should have been in another para. The line can be replaced by "It extends from the Atlantic coast in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west", or something of that sort. Jay 09:31, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Done. Jay 09:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations of removing the "strong democratic tradition" bit from the opening. Democracy in the USA is a joke compared to many other countries - a system where only two parties have any chance of representation, with rigged elections (George W), dodgy voting systems (Diebold) and rampant gerrymandering. ( 08:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Uh, no. Other political groups tend to get representation by luring away votes in presidential elections. It would be inefficient if there were about twenty political parties vying for seats in the government. Israel uses the Knesset system, yet


 * According to this argument you would be better off with only one party: that would be even more efficient. I don't see how "luring away votes" can be counted as representation: it just means hardly anyone will vote for other parties since the vote would be wasted.  By representation I mean having seats in parliament, i.e., the people who voted for these parties actually get some representation under the representative democracy model·  ( 09:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, Canada and the UK also have two dominant parties.


 * These systems are also pretty bad. I think most European countries have some form of proportional representation and it's easy to consider them as more democratic than the USA. ( 09:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The "Bush rigged the election" idea IS DISPUTED. I'm not saying that the U.S. democracy is perfect, however.

Some Sociologists believe that the wealthy and elite rule the U.S. Others believe interest groups rule the U.S. One indiciation that the men being elected are from a predominant group in U.S. society stems from low voter turnout.

Besides, before one goes saying "The U.S. has a weak democracy.", he or she should define it.

My definition of a modern democracy is a system which the people have the absolute final say in the government.

I'm going to put the sentence back as "The country was founded under a tradition of having the rule come from the people under the republic form of democracy. The modern democracy model used by the United States was exported and is now in use around the world." WhisperToMe 00:34, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, if it's actually true (I don't know the history well enough, and the modern democracy article doesn't exist). Some countries follow the Westminster System which the inherited from the British Empire; I'm not sure if this owes anything to the USA.  Other countries use proportional representation models which don't seem to derive from the USA.  Are there many clear examples where the USA has exported its system?  ( 09:36, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a number, although "export" is not the word I would use. Mexico is one.  Daniel Quinlan 22:49, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Vandalism
I've blocked the vandal's IP address for about 2 minutes as a warning. I cannot block permamently as its an AOL addy. As this guy seems to like vandalizing this page, I'm going to protect it the next time that happens. WhisperToMe 00:44, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 1

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 3