Talk:United States/Archive 3

States link
Okay in the Politics section there is a link states, it goes to a defination of states but in this context should it not go to a listing of the 50 states? Belizian 22:50, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

AgreedPedant 23:41, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Bosnian Wiki
I realize you guys are having some disputes, but Im hoping maybe someone could edit the article to add the newly created Bosnian article. Its called "Sjedinjene Ameri&#269;ke Države", our wiki code is bs:.

Definition of contiguous U.S.
I changed the definition of contiguous US to say w/o Alaska or Hawaii or island territories -- if that stands, it should be similarly changed in the same worded sentence in United States Territory.


 * Is this the level we have sunk to? Isn't wiktionary the place where we are supposed to argue about the meanings of individual words? --Cynical 15:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I skulle hellere skrive om [flipsider]

Dubrovnik
Copied the statement "The first country to recognize the United States after declaring its independence was the city state of Dubrovnik(at that time also called Ragusa). " to History of US 1776-1861. Perhaps the statement belongs solely in that History of US article 169.207.89.79 03:20, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Topics table
I created a table like this one for Greek mythology, but no one has expressed any opinions on it. I think it's a good way to organize a large number of articles concerning a single major subject (rather like a article series), and propose it replacing the long and unwieldy "Related Topics" list -- this both adds and removes some links, and makes them easier to navigate IMO (mostly removes cabinet positions and departments, probably adds more than it removes). Does anybody here have an opinion? FTR, almost all of these articles link to an article either specific to the US or with a section on the US (or being a primarily or originally American phenomenon like rock and roll). The only article which doesn't exist is Law enforcement in the United States, which is a major lack IMO. Tuf-Kat 06:19, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you going to put one of these in every single article listed in the table? If so, then I think it's a bad idea. Look at the width of this thing. It takes up half the page. Linking these articles to List of United States-related topics is good enough. Only the bored would bother to read all these articles, and almost no would probably do so in the order prescribed. I don't see the value in this.--Jiang 06:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Acutally, I like the Greek mythology table. It's comprehensive and organizes the topics well. The miscellaneous topics links on this page should not be numerous, like the rest of the countries templated by wikiProject Countries. That's why we have a separate list of topics. If the list on this page is too long, then cut things out. --Jiang 07:01, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want to put this on all the articles, only here (same way as at Greek mythology). I think having a select group of links to articles relating to the United States is useful -- List of United States-related topics is more of a utility page that presumably has some value to some people (though I don't use them).  It is unwieldy now and is missing tons of extant articles -- it is apparently supposed to be comprehensive, and include all battles, bands, politicians, regions and native tribes, universities and islands, rivers and mountains, etc.  That is not now and will not become more useful for a reader trying to find specific information on the US.  The current system (on this page) takes up six of my screens, while this entire box fits on one -- this is far easier to find information on the United States than trying a somewhat select but clumsily formatted list here or a too comprehensive one elsewhere. Tuf-Kat 07:32, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Some listings such as Radio and Affirmative action are not US-specific and should probably not belong, IMO. --Jiang


 * I would be amenable to removing some. Affirmative action is mostly US-specific in fact, if not in theory. Radio can go (though I'm sure there will eventually be a radio in the United States article).  Most of the others that aren't explicitly US-specific are largely so, or at least have a section just for the US (as in newspaper). I suppose capitalism could probably go.Tuf-Kat


 * I removed capitalism and radio. Tuf-Kat


 * And now I removed the borders and colors (less intrusive that way), and will move it to the article. Tuf-Kat


 * "HistoryPoliticsGovernmentGeographyEconomyDemographicsArts& CultureOther" renders at the top of the table for me. Badanedwa 00:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

No offense intended, but that is one of the ugliest, most useless 'related topics' pages I can think of. Why not just include a link to Category: United States? --Cynical 15:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Netscape
I was reading this on Netscape on an Apple OS X computer at the University of Colorado, Boulder, USA (CU), and the flag, Great Seal, demographic info & other nonsense on the right side of the page sure looked weird &mdash; cut off. Changing Netscape's size did not help. Maybe it's a CU thing, but could someone else with a Mac please check this out? -- dino


 * On a Mac using Mozilla it looks fine. Tuf-Kat

it's also fine using Safari

of America
One more vote for United States of America. There are, in fact, other nations using the title "United States of (something)", so it actually is analogous to the "People's Republic of China" example given above. Yes, I realize there are a bagillion pages linking to United States, but in all fact there are probably a bagillion linking to United States of America as well. -- Ian Maxwell, 2004-03-12-1728
 * Indeed... - Woodrow 20:52, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Show me a reputable English publication referring to some other country as "u.s." or "united states".--Jiang


 * No reputable publication refers to another nation solely as "United States" because that is generally recognized among English speakers to be shorthand for "United States of America". Also on this continent, however, are the United States of Mexico and the United States of Brazil. Also, show me a reputable English publication referring to some war other than the American Revolutionary War as "the Revolutionary War". -- Ian Maxwell
 * "This continent"? Since when are the United States of America and Brazil on the same continent?
 * Depends on which system you use. See The Americas. Rmhermen 21:23, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * When I first got here I was like United States of America but after having been here many months I am now resolutely in the United States camp. Why? a.) It's shorter, b.) It's unambigious "united states of mexico" to the contrary, c.) it is used SOOOOO much more in running text--using the whole United States of America becomes incredibly clumsy--and, as someone mentioned somewhere once, the United States page is the most linked-to page on wikipedia, and I imagine the added burden on the servers with the resultant redirects would be substantial. It is wikipolicy to have the most common name in English as the actual page URL--the complete name of the country is absolutely explained herein, but United States is, I'm 99% sure, the very best place for this page to be. Compare South Africa, for Republic of South Africa; Germany for Federal Republic of Germany, etc. America is ambigious according to the goddamn unamericans ;), so United States is by far the best choice. :) jengod 04:14, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * The other thing is U.S. institutions--they are not U.S.A. institutions--US Air Force, U.S. Supreme Court, US Capitol, U.S. state, United States Trade Representative, etc. jengod 04:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * And when these names are used, they don't link to "United States". For instance, the links are properly United States Air Force not United States Air Force.

My point exactly. "United States" will automatically refer to the United States of America. Your first sentence has negated your second. French Revolutionary War?Revolutionary War in Haiti?

I say we move this page to America to piss off those ungrateful anti-American bastards.--Jiang
 * I second Jiang's brilliant plan. :) jengod 07:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You should read the NPOV stuff. WikiPedia recognises its extraordinary pro-USA stance on practically everything but evem if light hearted these kind of comments don't help trying to get the other 95% of the planet' population to get involved... --(talk to)BozMo 22:40, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, sir, you spelled "recognize" wrong. Just to let you know... --Jiang 22:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks kiddo. "Recognise" is an unusual word because it can actually be argued that the US spelling (recognize) is correct rather than just established ignorance. Cambridge University Press has maintained the "z" spelling always, (against 99% of native English speakers who spell it with an "s"]] so whether by luck or judgement I cede you are arguably correct. --(talk to)BozMo 14:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * But seriously folks:


 * United Kingdom is the page, official name is apparently United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
 * Australia is the page, official name is apparently Commonwealth of Australia
 * A little place I like to call Germany is technically the Federal Republic of Germany jengod 07:04, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * These are all incomparable. First, it is quite uncommon for anyone to refer to UKGBNI or CA or FRG, whereas USA is extremely common. Second, with the possible exception of the UK (which can reasonable be excepted from this consideration because it is so unique in its longness, it's so totally different, no one uses it), the common names are far less ambiguous than "United States". Similarly, the removed parts are so generic, "Commonwealth" and "Federal Republic" that they don't indicate uniqueness. More telling, though, is that these names are far less common than "United States of America", compared to their short names. From a search on Google (example: "Australia" -"Commonwealth of Australia" vs. "Commonwealth of Australia"), the ratios are as follows: USA-US:2.9-1, CA-A:4.7-1, FRG-G:44.1-1, UKGBNI-UK:75.9-1. In other words, with the exception of Australia which is about 160% (1.6x) difference in usage, the difference of usage for the UK and Germany is magnitudes larger (more than 15 times). - Centrx 21:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Germany is a region, and the history of that region is covered in the relevant article for a period long before the Federal Republic came into existence. The history in the article on the United States of America begins with the creation of the United States of America. Not comparable. -- Ian Maxwell 2004 Aug 13 02:53 (UTC)


 * Long live Usonia! -- Decumanus | Talk 07:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would also vote for United States of America. Regardless of whether there are other nations using "United States" term, the actual page should be the formal title and all nicknames should redirect to there - this should be done for the UK and USSR as well. --Xinoph 15:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why? Redirects are not a good thing. We already state the full name in the article itself. Some of these entries not only speak of the current political entity, but its predecessors. --Jiang 16:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Er, there is already a redirect from United States of America to United States. If the article is moved, the redirect will be from United States to United States of America. Why is the latter a worse situation than the former? As far as I can tell, there are a near-equal amount of links to both as things stand. -- Ian Maxwell, 2004 Aug 13 02:57 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Xinoph. Maybe it's just me, but this is an encyclopedia, we should refer to things by their FULL AND PROPER names. The full and proper name of the US is the United States of America, and it should be listed as such. The same goes for all other countries. And why exactly are redirects such a bad thing? We're going to have the same number of names (therefore the same number of redirects) any way we go about this, so why not just use the proper name for the proper article and redirect all shortened or casual names to that? NerdOfTheNorth 03:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * By fiat, as Queen of all I survey, I hereby forbid, ban&mdash;and swear to abolish&mdash;any user of less than 1,000 edits and three months on Wikipedia to comment on the "of America" debate. Sincerely yours, the Queen. [her mark] :o) jengod 04:01, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * See Naming conventions (common names). RickK | Talk 04:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The length is an irrelevant concern. The proper name for this country is "United States of America". Just because many use a shorthand doesn't alter in any way the established full name of the country. -- Stevietheman 20:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. But we're not renaming the country, we're locating an encyclopedia article at the most obvious URL. jengod 21:00, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter about obviousness, it gets redirected. The only reason not to do that is if there is some true performance concern. - Centrx 21:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Obvious, eh? Guess where I looked for it first? -- Ian Maxwell, 2004 Aug 13 02:54 (UTC)

Role of federal government
Somewhere it would be good to have a fuller explanation of the role of the US federal government.

I was interested to hear from an American friend of mine that there is a principle that it has jurisdiction in matters relating to interstate commerce, and that therefore there are efforts made to relate cases to interstate commerce in order to establish that the federal courts have jurisdiction (for example, the case of the mailbox pipe-bomber Luke Helder is seen as a federal matter, because it involved destruction of mailboxes, which are used in interstate commerce).

Wasn't there some case where the supreme court rejected a federal law on guns in schools, on the grounds that there was no relevant basis for federal jurisdiction?

Anyway, I think it could be an interesting article if there are Americans who would be willing to writing it.

--Trainspotter 10:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As for mailboxes specifically, the federal government explicitly has jurisdiction over the postal service and such. Federalism is brilliant and has numerous advantages, and it should be explicated, but sadly it's repeatedly infringed. - Centrx 21:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * United States v. Lopez: the Supreme Court overturns the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Commerce Clause is often stretched to include anything that "affects" interstate commerce, which is virtually anything. In The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater wrote about a case in which it was ruled that a law under which a farmer was charged for producing too much and feeding the excess to his own animals was Constitutional because he might have bought grain from a farm in another state to feed his animals if he didn't produce too much. - Calmypal 00:15, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * A factual explication of 'the role of the US Federal government' would not last 10 minutes on wikipedia. There are vested interests that would never allow it to get out of disputed/protected status.  Sadly, articles with reference to controversial issues get massaged to death, obscuring facts, until there is nothing controversial left.  A factual explication of 'the role of the US Federal government' would be controversial from the beginning.  I doubt I would be able to get 2 factual paragraphs to stand, without having their factuality compromised... I've seen whole websites on the subject disappear, even from google's cache and archive.org . but it would be a good idea if it could work.Pedant

"Republic" vs. "Democracy" dispute
It would be interesting to see some detail of the ongoing dispute that seems to take place in many political fora regarding whether the United States is a republic or a democracy (or both). I won't disclose my position. :)

America is a federal republic--naryathegreat 00:12, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

see my comments immediately above... this is an example of what I mean. depending on WHICH government you are referring to AND on your opinion, the United States is/are:
 * an independent nation
 * a republic
 * a democracy
 * a democracy in a republic
 * a federation of (some number of) Nations
 * one nation, under god (not 'under the People'!)
 * the servant of the people
 * an Anarchy, Plutocracy, etc...
 * a rogue State
 * a non-state
 * a corporation
 * (some number of) independent nations

depending on what facet of the gem you look at, many of the above are provably correct, including contradictory positions. Before we report on the facts, it would be convenient to have there be at least some consensus on what is true about the USA in the real world. This might never happen. Huge isssues of rights and responsibilities and obligations and jurisdiction are involved, billions of dollars, millions of people on any side of the fence. Pedant 16:09, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

'Republican' per US constitution
As far as this article goes, My Humble Opinion is that we should go with the constituion:

US Constitution, Artivls FOUR section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (emphasis added for clarity)Pedant 22:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

NATO and OECD?
I've noticed people reverting edits adding links to Template:NATO and Template:OECD. Why? Just curious. Johnleemk 16:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * see wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries --Jiang 20:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Census figures
Can we get a citation to back up the recent changes to the census figures? I could not see any 2004 census information on the U.S. census site (aside from the real-time population clock). And at very best, these figures should be marked as estimates, as the bureau only conducts an actual census every ten years. older &ne; wiser 00:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and the census itself is an estimate.. and a baby was just now born.

Images
I removed the Las Vegas and arches images from this article as they were 1) in the politics section and 2) don't seem to be particularly representative of the US. Sfmontyo 12:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You are joking, yes? To me, here in England, Las Vegas and the rock arches of Utah are absolutely part of the landscapes of the USA, how could they not be! What is "representative" of the USA?
 * McDonald's, Rush Hour Traffic, Atomic First Strikes, Corporate Welfare, Low crime rate/High imprisonment, 'reality TV'/fantasy news etc.  ...  seriously, that's a good question, "What is the image YOU picture when you think of the US, what picture represents the US?"  btw, those were quite nice pics, Adrian, cheers for your work!Pedant 23:05, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * I spent a long time finding and preparing those images. It would have been thoughtful to transfer them to the Geography of the United States section, which I have now done. Best Wishes, Adrian - Adrian Pingstone 19:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Different forms of Power
I suggest the closing line under the History heading:


 * "the United States has become the world's most powerful country."

be changed to reflect the fact that the US is the most powerful only militarily & economically. Although it is a westerncentric tendecy to see power as force or finance, it's not necessarily true. I think changing it to:


 * "the United States has become the world's most powerful country economically and militarily."

would suffice. If there is no great disagreement with this, I will change it sometime Friday (late in the day) --Duemellon 17:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I would tend to say that it is correct both ways, though the first may be ever so slightly POV. I don't really care if you change it, but why would you say the United States isn't the most powerful.  Even if you don't like us, that doesn't mean it isn't true (besides, everyone hates the successful guy on the block--*sigh*).--naryathegreat 22:57, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Depends on what form of power you're considering. Diplomatic power? not us. People-power? definitely not us. Religious power? nope, not us again. Power is just too ambiguous & leads to a POV issue b/c of it's ambiguity. --Duemellon 11:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * and it assumes that 'the U.S.' is a country/nation... which it is NOT. without bringing that issue up... I prefer :

Pedant 16:27, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
 * "the United States government, has become -- in terms of economic power and military might -- the world's most powerful political entity ."

Some American academics introduced the notions of 'hard' power (economic and military influence ) and 'soft' power (cultural/diplomatic influence) to refine the debate - does this add anything? I think there's no debate that in terms of hard power the US is the foremost world power - in terms of soft power there is more potential disagreement. I think it's possible to advance a case that US soft power has diminished slightly over recent years - scepticism and antipathy to American values and cultural norms is something that is perceived by many US and foreign commentators to have risen across the globe over recent years. Although we're getting into contentious territory here, the question of the US's effect (intended or otherwise) can't be avoided in the Wikipedia. Nick Fraser 13:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please answer this question CAREFULLY
At Wikipedia, it keeps being mentioned over and over again that Wikipedia doesn't belong primarily to Americans. Why doesn't the United States get to be the country that the English Wikipedia belongs mostly to?? (What I mean is, why can't we think of Wikipedia as belonging to all regions, but mostly to the United States)?? What's so non-special about the United States?? 66.245.82.212 21:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Why should it "belong primarily" to the Unite States? Because it happens to be the biggest English-speaking country? Would you exclude African Americans, Hispanics and other cultural minorities from this ownership? It's quite possible that more people outside U.S. use English in daily communication than inside U.S. It's special because it's a de facto world language and increasingly belongs to everyone, not just native speakers. And besides, free information and software belongs to everyone equally. If you want proprietary stuff, make your own wiki. This discussion probably belongs to some other page. Please don't misuse the article talk pages. Wipe 01:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Dude the largest English speaking nation is India as in the sub-continent. Our puny quarter billion got nothing on them.

I regard the Wikipedia as belonging equally to all 6 billion+ people on the Earth. As well as being a nice thing to believe in, accepting this as a fundamental value of the Wikipedia encourages maximum participation and helps maintain NPOV. Nick Fraser 13:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

GDP and Official Language
The GDP of the United States is and should be listed as first the in the world because GDP refers to sovereign states. Though the European Union is indeed the largest single economy in the world, the EU is more of a confederation (that is, it's made up of 25 sovereign states) and is not a sovereign state itself. Now, I want to call attention to the Official Language part of this article in the infobox: it presently states that English is the official language of the United States by "common law". This is not accurate, as the United States does not and never has had an official language at the national level. I think the key word here is "Official". Also, the fact that the United States has such rich linguistic and cultural diversity is quintissentially American; it is my opinion that the infobox should only say "None". There is a separate article, "Languages in the United States", for discussion of the languages in use by Americans. I will not, however, take the liberty to change this without other people agreeing. What do you all think? - (unsigned)


 * There is no official language of the United States. The correct answer to the question "What is the official language of the United States?" is "none". It might be helpful to include statistics on actual language use, but it is distinctly unhelpful to declare English "official" and justify it with a bogus "by common law". - Nunh-huh 21:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nunh-huh. English is most common but that's not what "common law" means.  The box for official language should say: "None; English most common" or some such.  I think that some states have passed laws designating English as the official language but there's no such law that's applicable nationwide. JamesMLane 21:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I just updated it to say something similar. Unfortunately, we don't have a list of which states have which official languages. --Golbez 22:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * again there are issues of WHICH State you refer to. The State of California (the State with the Great Seal of the State of California) has English as the official language, but California Republic (the one with the 'bear flag' that says California Republic on it, and which predates and was never superceded by the 'State of California') has Spanish as the primary official language.  The United States is special because most of the States are actually TWO different states, one of which is a Sovereign State, the other of which is not.Pedant 16:41, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
 * wha? Maybe prior to Lincoln's hissy fit in 1861. --Golbez 19:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Quote



End Quote


 * the same is true of the United States, the United States government is not Sovereign, the People and the States are the sovereign in the US system. Sovereignty requires exclusivity of jurisdiction in  a legal sense.Pedant 16:41, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)


 * Not sovereign on paper, but certainly sovereign in practice, which is all that matters. --Golbez 19:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)