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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The official name of the US is the United States of America, not United States, though rendered to that very often. This article should be moved to United States of America to perserve its official name. --Alvinrune 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This has been proposed many times previously and has never garnered a consensus to move and more often than not the discussion degenerated into barely disguised incivility. Please review the archived discussion pages before making a serious attempt to raise this contentious issue again (which after having been beaten to death umpteen times already is highly unlikely to come to any sort of consensus now). BTW, the condensed version of why it remains at United States is the practice of using common names as article titles, enshrined as policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) older≠ wiser 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

--I restored the pictures of the top three cities for several reasons; this issue has been discussed ad nauseum here, and there has always been a far-reaching consensus that we should include only pictures of the top three. No one has ever suggested removing all of them, and just because someone occassionaly rams a picture of Detroit or Houston on here doesn't mean they should all get scrapped. I think setting up the Gallery was a great idea, but it does not change the relevance of having the pictures in the article. Otherwise, the entire article would be void of any meaningful photograph of what an American city actually looks like, and its not as if the article is overflowing with too many pictures as it is. -- Jleon 12:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

A picture of one or two typical American small towns might also do a service to the article (though, where to put them?), especially in contrast to the pictures of the three largest cities. Having pictures of the three largest cities, with their acres of steel and concrete, human habitations literally stacked on top of one another, and all of it crammed together as it tends to be in large cities, without anything to contrast it with, might give the impression that the United States are nothing but giant ant-colonies made from metal and stone with their citizens constantly rubbing their germs all over eachother and everything they touch -- rotting cesspools with disease festering in every nook and cranny. Not to mention eternally persistant noise-pollution. Surely there's more to the United States than Borgesque techno- metropoleis? What of its nice, quiet, peaceful little towns, recessed away from the noise, congestion, and confusion of the big cities? These are just as much a part of American Culture, are they not? -- Corvun 17:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Very little of the country is covered with cities. ( SEWilco 18:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC))

--There probably should be a photograph of an American farm, as well as one of an ordinary suburban street, but neither of these things have anything to do with a section called "largest cities." There are very few photographs on this article as it is, so there shouldn't be any trouble in finding places for these. -- Jleon 18:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Having a subpage is extremely frowned upon. United States/Gallery of Cities is not only misnamed (capital C), but a subpage. Please move it. Quickly. I won't because I don't know a good place. -- Golbez 19:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

--Well I wasn't the one who created it, but I think its actually quite nice. Perhaps if just lower the capital 'C' it won't cause any offense? Some of the photos are a little odd though- is the Camp Snoopy mushroom really the skyline of Minneapolis? (lol) -- Jleon 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Subpages are deprecated. Period. They are to be used only in the User and Wikipedia namespaces, in Talk page, and for /temp articles. They are not to be used for image galleries. See Wikipedia:Subpages. -- Golbez 19:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

--Well you can just go ahead and delete it altogether then. I must admit that while I like the idea, many of the pictures are poorly chosen and the cities are not even organized by population. -- Jleon 19:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Probably those images should have added to them Category:Images of cities of the United States as well as any appropriate category in Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States. ( SEWilco 19:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC))

Then make an article called "Largest Cities in the United States" or "largest metropolitan areas of the United States". The subject deserves it's own article.

• Cities are definatly way over repressented here, a little suburbia might be a nice chnage from all these pictures of pop communists crammed into slums and ghettos, as the last election proves, that's not what America's all about, some should correct this insult immediatly-- I-2-d2 17:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

--I'd really like to know how cities can be over-represented in a section called "Largest Cities." I also don't see any pictures of any ghettos or communists (skyscrapers are indicative of capitalism, are they not?). If you need to see pictures of suburbia then go ahead and put them in a different section. -- Jleon 17:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Jleon's analysis. Even if pictures of suburbia or farms are appropriate in this already enormous article, they should go into the sections on Culture or Economy. But the pictures of cities should stay in the Largest Cities section---it's one thing to read abstract population numbers and another to see a photograph that illustrates the high density of American megacities. -- Coolcaesar 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

My impression is that the article is heaving with blue text, which makes it more difficult to read. In my view, this makes it a less attractive resource, particularly for children and non-native speakers, who may be more easily put off by the visual complexity of blue-peppered text. Although links are a valuable aspect of Wikipedia, they can encourage some readers to go off exploring a range of other topics, when our primary task is to enlighten them about the United States, through a relatively easy, continuous read. Wikipedia's style manual says:

'... On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if ... more than 10% of the words are contained in links; [if] it has more links than lines; [if] a link is repeated within the same screen—40 lines, perhaps;...' The manual refers to years, such as 1995, 1980s, as 'low added-value links ... date forms such as year only (e.g., 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance.' (My highlighting)

A rough tally shows that 26% of the words in the opening paragraph are blue, and 19% in the history section. The opening of an article probably requires a higher density of links, but could I put in a call that contributors keep their eyes out for unnecessary links, bearing in mind that just because an item is not linked doesn't mean that the reader can't key it into the search box and (typically) be rewarded with another article.

Specifically, I'd like to suggest that the 'low added-value' years (as opposed to dates) be delinked unless there's a good reason not to. Sure, some of the year articles have information relevant to the article, but there is a link to Timeline of United States history at the top of the section; that's a much more focussed, relevant link, and the individual blue years, if anything, will detract the reader from that link. I'd also opt to delink centuries: the link to the 20th century, for example, tells my children:

"The 20th century lasted from 1901 to 2000 in the Gregorian calendar. Common usage sometimes regards it as lasting from 1900 to 1999, but this is considered incorrect due to the nonexistence of a "Year Zero" before AD 1/1 CE. The 20th century is also sometimes known as the nineteen hundreds (1900s), referring to the latter usage. Decades are almost always considered as starting with the "0" year and named accordingly ("1960s", etc.), so the first decade of a century technically overlaps back into the preceding one. However, a number of arguments have been used to justify the common usage. One was advanced by the scientist Stephen Jay Gould, that the first decade had only nine years. Another was that the astronomical year numbering system for years does have a year zero, the year normally known as 1 BC. In 2000 the International Organization for Standardization clarified ISO 8601 to use the astronomical year numbering system, so retrospectively endorsing all the people who had celebrated the new century a few months earlier. The term is also used to describe various periods that overlap with the calendar definition, most notably the Short twentieth century and the Modern period. It also had a place in popular culture shown by its use in names such as 20th Century Fox and the Twentieth Century Limited."

Wow, that's really helpful in the opening paragraph on the United States. In my view, a balance is required to make the text easy to read.

Tony 02:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the state articles I've looked at have clear demographics percentages. Why the long winding paragraphs, and why no percentages? People wanna know a countries ethnic breakdown, I don't see what the deal is with the ancestry photo and the many paragraphs.

U.S. Collaboration of the Month The article United States Postal Service is the US Collaboration of the Month for December 2011. ( Shortcut: WP:USCOTM +/-) Help select the next USCOTM now! Nominate an article you think needs improvement or vote for one of the candidates here.

I'm wondering what sort of laws there are on United States citizenship, or maybe more specifically necessary qualifications for naturalization. -- Ihope127 17:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Two days ago 130.237.205.96 posted this statement on the talk page of the Germany article:

Currently it says the form of government is "Federal Republic", whereas the United States page says "Democratic Federal Republic". Germany is hardly any less of a democracy than the USA. Either the US page or this one should be changed.

He received no answer but since I think that 'Federal Republic' suggests a democratic system, maybe it wouldn't be wrong to delete the word 'democratic' before 'Federal Republic' in the United States article. NightBeAsT 23:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

there are some felons who can't vote in the US right? Can we really say universal suffrage if that's the case? McVonn 05:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

People under 18, the dead (except in Georgia and Illinois), and illegal immigrants can't vote either. Wait, the latter can, never mind. But honestly, as long as we're listed on universal suffrage, we have it. You have an issue with it, deal with it on that article. -- Golbez 06:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

File:Der ewige jude.jpg

Tell you what- let's leave "universal suffrage" in for now, as a thing enjoyed by all but certain felons. schwzzl? Crackatzzl 03:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is that image doing here? And the more sockuppets you use, the more I see you as a POV pusher and likely vandal. I hope others will corroborate my thoughts. -- Golbez 03:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

can thoughts be corroborated? Schzz-niddl-bam snip snap sack 06:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So explain the image. -- Golbez 07:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's a no. Thoughts cannot be corroborated. oh well. The image is well explained here. I put it on this page in with my discussion with you cuz I think images are worth a thousand words. I think people who see it will feel a certain way about you and me and our discussion without even realizing what the image is about. I dunno. something inside me told me to put that image there. It's fun. no-one uses random images on talk pages. McVonn 18:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

So, for which party do the dead, people under 18, illegal immigrants, pets, and people who never existed vote in overwhelming numbers? That I'd like to know. -- JamesR1701E 07:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not well versed enough in the subject matter to get what your alluding to. other groups who are not allowed to vote right? well, the age thing is mentioned in that sentence. pets, immigrants, and the nonexistant (that's some trick. I'd like to learn how it's done, Shawshank notwithstanding) aren't Americanz. perhaps you were just kidding around and I took it too seriously. My bad. I mean well. SChweezl. Ished-out amounts of Vonn-ness 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking he's being incredibly sarcastic. Ask Mayor Daley in Chicago about that vote in 1960. Or how dead people voted in Philadelphia, American Center for Voting Rights, Who's really stealing elections?, Bad ACTors, More on Democrat Vote Fraud. Voting fraud is rampant in heavily Democrat regions. I can't speak for JamesR1701E, as I only just got to the Wiki. But I do know fraud when I see it. Ask people in Washington state who they thought won the election. There is a party of fraud, lies, and deceit out there. -- Sarah Tutor 05:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sea monkeys are overwhelmingly Republican. -- Golbez 08:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

weird. you'd think they'd have a collectivist bent. Ished-out amounts of Vonn-ness 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Aug. 27, 2005 -- You shouldn't swear at article writers, Golbez. There's waayy too much about race and demographics, and nothing about Law Enforcement & Medicine. You deleted my articles on Law Enforcement & Medicine. The [1] link is a POV site, but it contians an incarceration statitics table by nation with numbers that show that the U.S. is #1 incarceration nation. 1% of the populations of Louisiana and Texas are in prison. Stats like these are very important and should be included: Heart Disease is the number 1 cause of death in the U.S., at 733,834 deaths in 1995. American life expectancy is 42nd in the world. Infant mortality is 37th. Golbez, you've got delete-itis. ---- 67.150.24.31

Then add something about medicine, not what people die of. -- Golbez 09:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we list the area of countries in both square miles and square kilometres, not just the dominant unit in that country? Perhaps by putting the unit used by the country outside of brackets and putting the alternative in brackets. This, however, leads to the specific problem with the United States page of already having a set of brackets around the area. I don't know if Wikipedia is fine with double brackets, not being that familiar with it. I would put in the are in square kilometres myself, but my method of 'times eight, divide by five' isn't the most accurate in the world.

Well, this is an unfortunate legacy of American refusal to convert to the metric system; in this respect, it is now in isolation. Metric equivalents would be helpful for all non-American readers. Tony 00:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, those awful evil Americans. Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or try out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Tomer ^TALK 00:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

And a kilometre is what? I've heard of kilometers, though. I've never been to a city centre, but the city center is nice where I live.  :) And darn those unfortunate American legacies, like helping people in need, say, in WW2? Maybe Americans should become more European - give up their security to an ineffectual multinational anti-semitic body (the UN), whine and complain about how everything should be done, and not volunteer to help anyone, but demand everyone else's help at the drop of a hat, and then tell those helping you how superior you and your culture are to that of the helpers'? And sell weaponry to nations such as China and Iran in violation of international agreements? That'd make the world better.-- Sarah Tutor 05:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with your opinions regarding Europe, but I simply don't understand why you despise British spellings. You can use American ones, but why make fun of other legitimate spellings? Marco Neves 16:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people go through life looking for things to be offended by.... Heaven knows there's plenty to criticize about Europe, but this really isn't the place for it.

And you'd be ... let me guess ... a Bush voter? Tony 06:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a dispute w/ golbez. I think some of you may know him. See my talk, his and talk:u.s.#universal suffrage for a little better idea of the situation beyond what I'mma put here.

here's a copy of a message I sent golbez a little bit ago.

you'r the only one who'd reverted me so you'r the only one I need to work it out with so far. after I thought about it, dough, I should also put it on the talk:u.s.. I'm pretty sure you havn't fully explained anywhere why you reverted here.

I think

"Americans (except some convicted felons) enjoy universal suffrage upon reaching the age of 18,"

is more truthful and more importantly more honest than

"Americans enjoy universal suffrage upon reaching the age of 18,"

perhaps we could take out "convicted". I'm not married to it.

I think it's worth including.

that's all for now. thankz, Schzz-niddl-bam snip snap sack 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Schzz-niddl-bam snip snap sack 06:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

aight. I found the revert of my work. it was anonymous. so sad. Like I said in my un-revert edit summ- if there's a new objection there's no place like right here to voice it. Schzzl niddl. Ishka Vonn Tzz-weezly 19:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Can this be made a little larger? What's the point when you can't see the details. Tony 00:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is this in the summary article? Can it be moved to a daughter article? If this is to be retained here, I can think of dozens of more important tables that should be included. The article is already dauntingly long for a summary. Tony 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, no one seems to object; soon I'll move this table to a daughter article. ..... Last chance to say something: ??? Tony 01:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we remove this sentence, which doesn't appear to be important in this context—certainly not before the respective powers of the House and the Senate have been explicated: 'Traditionally, the House is considered the "lower house" and the Senate the "upper house," but Congressional publications disagree with this.' Tony 01:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There isn't anything traditional about it- legally, the House is no more subordinate to the Senate than the Senate is subordiante to the House. I suspect that it's a (poor) analogy used to explain the arrangement to people from nations with an 'upper' and 'lower' parliaments.

I have always learned in school, and in government tours, that the Senate is the upper house and the House of Reps in the lower house and always has been carried on from British govt. -- Shimonnyman 03:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've combined the two previous sections, which were too short to require separate sections. However, the information is seriously lacking, given the rich and complex issues in question. A sentence such as 'US foreign policy has swung about several times over the course of its history between the poles of strict isolationism and imperialism and everywhere in between' will not do.

Can we lift the quality of this section, keeping it 'neutral', of course? Tony 05:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think it's possible to get this article up to standard for peer review within the next month or two? I note that it's one of Wikipedia's most visited articles; therefore, it's important that it be a featured article, don't you think? Tony 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The section on the economy is seriously inadequate. Perhaps someone might review it, drawing on the daughter article to produce a brief summary of the most important features of the economy. I think the emphasis should be on succinctly characterizing it in relation to other economies, and providing an account of its contribution to world capitalism over the last 150 years. Tony 07:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the list be moved into the daughter article, which treats the issue in great detail. The introductory information in this section, slightly modified, would sit nicely in Geography, with a link to the daughter article.

When we put this main article up for FA consideration again, people will complain that it's too long and has uneven levels of detail. This list, and the table of federal holidays that I've removed, are prime examples.

Does anyone object?

Tony 07:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone 'voted' to retain the list, and simply put it back in without discussion. The daughter article is excellent (have you looked at it?), and a better place to locate information at this level of detail. I can think of lots of other lists we could load into the main article. Why just large cities?

The whole idea of Wikipedia is to organize information into articles of reasonably even levels of detail; that way, it's much kinder to the reader. I'm concerned that when we put this main article up for FA consideration again, critics will complain that it's far too long—and I'll be able to see their point. Tony 03:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

- A discussion and list of a country's largest cities is routine for an encyclopedia article, and the topic is far too important to simply relegate into the Geography section. If there's anything that deserves a list here, it would be this. -- Jleon 19:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The list was wrong. Please see the table called Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places over 100,000, Ranked by July 1, 2004 Population: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (SUB-EST2004-01) that is available at [2]. Wikipedianinthehouse 18:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedianinthehouse, thank you very much for correcting others about the Louisville issue. Like I explained to others, although Louisville is consolidated with Jefferson County, The U.S. Census Bureau does not discount other incorporated places that still exists in the county. The same issue also occured in Indianapolis, Indiana and Jacksonville, Florida, where city-county consolidations occured but other incorporated places sitll exist. -- Moreau36 15:00, 4th September 2005 (EDT/AST)

---

The list was extended from the usual 10 to 20 so that Detroit & SF would appear - but just being 15th most populous does not merit appearance when other cities that "tell the story" of the USA do not appear

Global cities

• 12 pts: NYC
• 10 pts: Chicago, LA
• 09 pts: SF
• 06 pts: Boston, Dallas, Houston, DC
• 04 pts: Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis

The US has 11 of the 55 global cities of all types.

Other cities that "tell the story" of US culture: Vegas, New Orleans, Nashville, Seattle, Detroit, Philly

Cities form a great part of the culture of a nation. I'd like to see this section expanded, with another column on major features of each city - NYC is a seaport, financial centre, media centre, international (UN)...; LA is media centre, seaport, ...

-- JimWae 19:28, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

The problem with such an expansion is that it may typecast cities on the basis of one or two attributes. While I disagree with that type of tagging (and with the retention of the list in this summary article), I can see Jim's underlying point—the list would be improved if it provided more information than just population and region. There's a lot of wasted space to the right of the table, so why not provide more statistical information for each city; at the moment, it's useless in terms of culture, one of Jim's concerns. Is the economic output of the cities easily accessible? What about the date of first settlement? Size of metropolitan area? International ranking of each in terms of population? Average income of residents? This kind of information would be much more useful for the reader.

In addition, I propose that this be moved into a subsection of 'Society'. It sits oddly as a freestanding section. Tony 02:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

--How is there anything odd about it being its own section? First you said it should be moved to Geography, and now you say it should be under Society- so it seems that even you realize it doesn't quite belong in either one. I think if any info needs to be added to the table it should be the Metro area populations rounded to the nearest tenth of a million, and this should be in place of the Region column which is really unnecessary. Otherwise, I think the section should be left alone, as other areas of the article need far more attention than this. -- Jleon 12:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

While we fuss over the list of cities, the description of the economy languishes. In view of the vast, historically critical influence of the nation on the world's economy over the last 150 years, improving this should be a top priority. It's embarrassingly bad at the moment. If anyone would like to list the categories that should be included, please do so here. Tony 02:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, especially since the 2nd Quarter 2005 the US re-assumed the largest economy in the world. I've edited the values on the European Union and Economy of the European Union pages, but I don't want to do it here, seems like there's a stricter code! -- JDnCoke 10:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me if this has been discussed to death already, but does this uninhabited territory need such a lengthy description in the introduction, or any mention at all? It is properly covered in Political divisions of the United States, which is wikilinked from the intro. Am I missing some great significance this island has? android 79 13:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the fact is Palmyra Atoll, unlike any other territory of U.S.A., is an integral part of the country, just like the 50 states and D.C. So, it needs to be mentioned. It is fully incorporated into the U.S.A. (contrarily to what happens, for instances, regarding Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands or all the other islands - uninhabited or not). Marco Neves 13:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It has no inhabitants and no economic impact on the US or any other country. In other words, it's totally insignificant, and yet it's mentioned in the introduction. Is this simply for consistency with articles on other countries? Would you object to removal of , which, being fully incorporated into the United States, must be considered part of the country and instead simply describing the Atoll as "incorporated"? android 79 16:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Are we sure there is no economic impact? The U.S. (like most countries) claims a 200-mile " economic exclusion zone" around its territory, which includes fishing and oil rights. Granted, any impact may be theoretical rather than actual at the present time. - Willmcw 18:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am reading directly from the Atoll's article: There is no current economic activity on the island. Even if "no economic impact" is hyperbolic, I don't think any such impact – past, present, or future – would be significant enough to warrant the Atoll's mention in the introduction. android 79 18:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I originally thought like you did, but the chap made a compelling argument - it is an incorporated territory, and thus under direct control of the federal government and forever an integral part of the USA, much like the Hawaii territory before it. Now, the question is, if this were 1951, would we say "The United States consists of 48 states and a federal district" or would we say "The United States consists of 48 states, a federal district, and two incorporated territories, 'Alaska' and 'Hawaii'"? Palmyra Atoll has an identical political status to Hawaii before it became a state. -- Golbez 18:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The key point there is before it became a state. There's no reason to believe that the Atoll will ever become a state. The fact that this tiny piece of land is the US's only unorganized incorporated territory is interesting but it just seems totally out of place in the article's introduction. android 79 18:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it has the same political status as Hawaii did. The USA, integrally, contains fifty states, one federal district, and one incorporated territory. However, perhaps a compromise - Since it's uninhabited, maybe we can skip it in the intro (since it's at best a curiosity) and mention it in geography. -- Golbez 18:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

For me, that's not even a compromise. I just don't want it in the intro – anywhere else in the article is just fine with me! android 79 18:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the change you just made is just fine with me. I don't know why the way it was written bugged me so much before, I guess I am in that kind of mood today. android 79 18:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, all! I think this phrasing regarding Palmyra Atoll just make it more difficult to understand why it must be in the introduction (the difference between incorporated and unincorporated is not general knowledge), but its a compromise as any other and so, I'm happy with it. Best regards! Marco Neves 21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Which is why we link to the term. "Huh, I wonder why Palmyra Atoll is mentioned in the first paragraph? *click* Ooooh." :) -- Golbez 21:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, Android; you've saved me the trouble. Analogous mention of, for example, uninhabited dots in the ocean, have been removed from the opening paragraph of another country article (after a bun fight). Please be bold and remove this inappropriate inclusion from what should be a grand picture of the nation. Tony 00:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think this is inappropriate, since Palmyra Atoll is part of the country, but is not included in the 50 states (just like Washington D.C.). Marco Neves 23:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Washington, DC is the nation's capital and the center of government and political activity, and over half a million people live there. Nothing of note happens on this Atoll, and no one lives there. android 79 12:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Which other nation articles are you referring to, Tony? I'm curious, for comparison's sake. android 79 12:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Golbez on this one. Just because Palmyra Atoll has the same political status that Alaska or Hawaii did, doesn't make it relevant at all in the opening section. You could get someone--anyone--who knows about the United States to lecture about the country (even, say, a professor of US history), and he/she could go on for days and days and never ever mention Palmyra. I guarantee you that 99.99% of Americans neither know nor care about Palmyra--nor should they. I think it's ridiculously out of place in the opening. Maybe it deserves a tiny mention in a later section or a daughter article somewhere. Surely it doesn't matter as much as, say, New York City, which, you'll note, does not make an appearance in the opening section (along with thousands of immeasurably more relevant topics which nonetheless don't merit an opening-section mentioning). -- Matt Yeager 05:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

New York City is mentioned - as part of one of the 48 contiguous states. Palmyra Atoll is part of the USA, but not part of the 50 states or federal district. This is an encyclopedia, not Wikirepeatwhateveryonealreadyknowsaboutthecountry.org. (PS, I originally opposed its inclusion, but now I'm enjoying combating the arguments against it :) Am I a devil's advocate? Possibly. If it comes to be that it should be removed, I won't counter, but I'd like to work through the arguments first :) -- Golbez 05:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've yet to hear any argument for its inclusion in the intro that doesn't hinge on its status as a curiosity. Are there any other reasons for mentioning it in the intro? android 79 12:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reason is: it is an integral part of the United States, unlike other islands and possessions. U.S.A. is constituted by 50 states, Washington D.C. and Palmyra Atoll. This may seem strange, but that's how it is. This means the U.S. government can give away any possession, except Palmyra Atoll, which, constitutionally, is perpetually part of U.S.A. The fact that it is tiny has nothing to do with the argument. Marco Neves 14:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not a new argument. Its status as an incorporated territory merely makes it a curiosity, since nothing of import happens on it. What besides this makes the Atoll significant enough to mention in the article's introductory paragraph? android 79 14:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

One more difference between Palmyra Atoll and other territories: US Government has to apply the Constitution in its full extent in Palmyra Atoll. Someone who is in the Atoll (for some reason) enjoys all constitutional protections. In all other overseas territories, that is not true: the Government can choose which parts of the Constitution are in force or not, because those are U.S. "possessions", not "integral parts" of the country (Palmyra Atoll is an integral part). Marco Neves 14:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it is incorporated makes all the difference: the 50 states and D.C. are incorporated, just like Palmyra. It means they are integral parts of U.S.A. This is a strange discussion, because the Atoll is so tiny, but accuracy is important. Palmyra Atoll is not a possession, but part of U.S.A. Marco Neves 14:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, that argument hinges on the status of the Atoll as an incorporated territory. We are going round in circles here – I understand your argument, but I do not feel it is sufficient for the Atoll to be mentioned in the introduction. I am asking for evidence of significance beyond that which might convince me otherwise. Moving mention of the Atoll to a later section in the article will not reduce its accuracy. android 79 14:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

-Well here's a question: is there any other known encyclopedia that mentions this little rock anywhere in the intro to the article on the U.S? I would bet dollars to donuts that the answer is no. -- Jleon 12:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That does not mean it shouldnt be mentioned. If Wikipedia is anything special (and it is) it's because we can make it a better (and more complete) encyclopedia than all others. :) Marco Neves 14:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Android, to answer your question, the article on Australia (a featured article) included mention of Boigu Island, some godforsaken little rock off the northern coast, in the FIRST paragraph. Hello? It took a cream-bun fight, but finally it was removed. I'm going to be bold and remove the analogous Atoll from this article soon; this is ridiculous. Tony 15:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to make some changes, just to get opinions on them. Feel free to revert if you feel strongly, but please discuss here afterward. android 79 15:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Look, please, to Spain's article: all parts of territory are mentioned (even uninhabited tiny rocks). The introduction must state the territorial extension of the country. Palmyra Atoll is part of U.S.A. and it is not covered by the 50 states, nor D.C. nor overseas possessions (since it is not a possession, but an integral part). This seems ridiculous, but it is not. (Reality is not so straighforward as it seems.) Best regards to all! :) Marco Neves 17:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Using my own argument from above, Palmyra Atoll is mentioned, in the same way New York City is mentioned - New York City is part of New York, which is part of the 50 states. Palmyra Atoll is part of the various territories. We don't name the states by name, so perhaps the territories should not get the same treatment. Also, Spain's extracontinental holdings are notable, though I agree they went into a little too much definition with the uninhabited rocks bit. -- Golbez 18:04, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is covered by "overseas territories and possessions" in the introduction. Golbez's "New York City" argument is sound, and I also feel that Spain goes into far too much detail about territorial holdings in its introduction. android 79 18:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I give up. :) But, for the sake of accuracy (here I go again...), it should be "overseas territory and various possessions", since everything else apart from Palmyra Atoll is a possession and the Atoll is the only true territory of U.S.A. But I won't make the change myself, I'd like to listen to other opinions. (Regarding Spain, the problem is Spaniards really give a lot of importance to everybit of territory. An uninhabitated rock in Africa is important to them. And, in fact, those rocks are like Palmyra in which they are fully Spanish, but not a part of any Autonomous Community - they are the only instances where Spanish Government acts directly -- just like D.C. and Palmyra Atoll). Marco Neves 22:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Political divisions of the United States#Territories of the United States, territory and possession are synonyms in this context. It's not incorrect, just redundant. I'll change it to just "territories". android 79 00:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if that is so, it shouldn't be, because Palmyra is a territory, but not a possession. That is the problem, the exact distinction that started this discussion in the first place. U.S.A. doesn't "own" Palmyra, it includes Palmyra. By contrast, it owns Virgin Islands, etc. I only think these words aren't redundant - Palmyra is a territory inside U.S.A., other islands are territories owned by U.S.A. and they are called, therefore, possessions. There is a subtle but important distinction here, but I won't discuss this further. This was a fun discussion :) I give up. Best regards! Marco Neves 00:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

US Virgin Islands describes it as a territory and not a possession. IMO, based on what I've read, territories is just fine to describe all of these entities. Either there's a systematic problem with this nomenclature on Wikipedia, or the terms are just not well-defined enough to matter. (edit conflict, Bkonrad's got more specific info) android 79 00:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what this atoll is, or what its administrative status is: it's just not very important in the larger scheme. The opening of an article such as this does not have to be obsessively thorough if it reduces the impact of the engaging summary and introduction that it needs to be. Diverting the reader to something that should be mentioned way down in geography or political divisions does just this. If this minor detail must be included at the top, it would be better to do this via a link, such as territory or possession. Tony 00:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the Office of Inular Affairs, possession and territory (small "t") are equivalent and that possesion is "no longer current colloquial usage." Unincorporated territory is U.S. territory. It is an interesting footnote that Palmyra is currently the only incorporated territory, but IMO it really doesn't merit specific mention in the intro. older≠ wiser 00:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK, forget "territory", "possession". My point is: United states owns Virgin Islands (and can give them away to another country or give them independence) but, by contrast, U.S.A. 'includes' Palmyra Atoll (cannot give it away). That's the big difference and that's why any full description of US territory must always inclyde the Atoll but not necessarily Virgin Islands. But, as I said, that's fine for me :) Best regards, Marco Neves 08:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to add fuel to the fire, I see no distinction in the United States Constitution between "territory" and "posession," and Article IV, section 3 implicity describes "territory" as a kind of property of the United States (while denying it to any particular state). In either account, Congress has total control over it, with any territorial government operating with the sufferance of Congress instead of any sort of federal arrangement. The only thing that an incorporated territory is "included" in is the framework established by the Northwest Ordinance, but Congress is constitutionaly allowed to change its mind.

If we're going to be talking about what is and is not "included" in the United States, in my opinion it should include only the 50 states included in the federal framework. Everything else, from DC to Puerto Rico to Palmyra, is most certainly "owned," with even an inhabitant's citizenship decided by an unelected Congress instead of the Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps "The United States is composed of 50 states, with the seat of national government in a separate federal district." I suppose it depends on whether you're more thinking about the United States as a nation or as a union. Palmyra may be included in the former, but not the latter, and Palmyra has no special constitutional status to differentiate it from Puerto Rico or American Samoa.

You've also brought up the subject of secession, saying that US government isn't constitutionally allowed to surrender an "incorporated" territory, implying that it's a similar situation with states. In my opinion, at least, the question of whether a state can leave the union hasn't really been explored; at best, the American Civil War discredited unilateral secession. Congress is the sole deciding authority on accepting new states (the first 13 were grandfathered in), and it's never been explored whether Congress is allowed to revoke statehood and grant independence. As for Palmyra, the lack of a constitutionally recognized state government seems to make its continued posession by the United States that much more shaky. Guppy313 07:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I rather agree with you, but I have the following objections:

• Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) forbids secession. As it stands today, states cannot secede. The decision can only be changed by Supreme Court or constitutional ammendment.
• In Wikipedia, Incorporated territory states "Incorporation as it applies to territories is regarded as a permanent condition. Once incorporated, an incorporated territory can no longer be de-incorporated; that is, it can never be excluded from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution." If you have legal arguments against these lines, as I think you have, you should change them.

Marco Neves 20:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, am I that transparent?  :) IANAL

First off, the wiki article on Texas v. White itself mentions that the judgment does seem to leave some room for state secession, "through revolution, or through consent of the States." Salmon Chase didn't seem to specify, though, whether by "consent of the States" he meant through Congress or through something similar to a constitutional convention. I'm inclined to believe he meant Congress (especially since, before the Seventeenth Amendment, states could still grant or withhold consent through the Senate), but that's just me.

He also said revolution, and obviously he didn't include Texas' act of secession from the US as a revolution. The difference between the American Revolution and the American Civil War seems to be the fact that the 13 states managed to squeeze a treaty out of the UK, so it may be that he considered the possibility of the US conducting a treaty with the seceding state (treaties have equal weight to the constitution).

Secondly, after getting bleary-eyed looking at [ Downes v. Bidwell] (which appears to be where the concept of "incorporated vs. unincorporated" came from), it appears that, once Congress has passed an act "incorporating" Constitutional protection within the territory, it can't pass laws affecting the territory that run counter to the Constitution (so I was wrong on that). But "incorporation" itself is mostly concerned with preserving the constitutional protections for individuals (the Bill of Rights, etc.) instead of the treatment of the territory as a whole (Congress can create courts and judges outside of Article III of the constitution, give special treatment to the ports of the incorporated territories of Louisiana and Florida, etc.). There's no federal compact with the territory that would need to be severed (as was the case with Texas), and I'm still not seeing anything in law or legal decisions suggesting that incorporated territory cannot be ceded by Congress in the same way as the Philippines.

The judgment in Downes v. Bidwell, in exploring historical precedence, also mentioned that DC is something of a special case because it was a part of a state (Maryland) before being ceded to the federal government; apparently the land and the people on it couldn't "revert" to something resembling territorial status because it was originally state grounds. But even then, it's not treated as a state in all instances (no Senators, no voting Representatives, still have to pay federal taxes, etc.). David Iwancio 08:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've moved some HTML comments from within the Largest cities section to here, as they appear to be discussion of the article rather than the warnings one usually uses HTML comments for:

Louisville is the 16th largest city. This is just a list of populations within a city. At 703,282 it makes it in. Ever since 2003, counties like St. Matthews and Jefferson have been officially part of Louisville. If you count the counties that surround it (metro population) it is 1.3 million.

and

There is confusion over pop of Louisville, KY - it recently consolidated with Jefferson County - but cities previously in county are still separate cities.

The above list was extended from the usual 10 to 20 so that Detroit & SF would appear - but just being 15th most populous does not merit appearance when other cities that "tell the story" of the USA do not appear

Global cities 12 pts: NYC 10 pts: Chicago, LA 09 pts: SF 06 pts: Boston, Dallas, Houston, DC 04 pts: Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis

Other cities that "tell the story" of US culture: Vegas, New Orleans, Nashville, Seattle, Detroit, Philly

Cities form a great part of the culture of a nation. I'd like to see this section expanded, with another column on major features of each city - NYC is a seaport, financial centre, media centre, international (UN)...; LA is media centre, seaport, ...

I've got no opinion on this stuff; I just thought I'd move these comments to where people are actually likely to read them. android 79 18:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the USA have other names? Britain has "Albion", China has "Cathay" etc. Everton 23:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you mean a name that is not a derivative of the official name yet is widely known, then at the present, the answer is probably not. Columbia used to be widely known but is now archaic. One could refer to "the Union" and be understood, but it sounds archaic and is most commonly used when referring to the states that did not secede in the Civil War. -- Coolcaesar 06:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Columbia archaic? The title of the federal capital is still the District of Colubmia. Everton 08:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary.com's defintion #two says The United States-- Shimonnyman 09:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

By archaic, I mean that if you go up to the average American on the street and say, "isn't Columbia a wonderful country to live in," they will consider you crazy. Only people like myself who hold bachelor's degrees in history from reputable universities are aware that Columbia is the old name for the mythical female personification of the United States (as demonstrated in the name and logo of Columbia Pictures). Most Americans know that D.C. stands for District of Columbia, but don't know what is the Columbia in "District of Columbia." But if you say U.S., United States, America, or USA, everyone will know right away what you are talking about. -- Coolcaesar 02:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am asking this because I feel that there is something very uncomfortable in the name "United States of America", which arrogantly includes America although not covering the whole Americas. People often call the USA "North America", but it is also uncomfortable since there is another country (Canada) in North America. I think that another name should be adopted. Everton 21:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure the government will appreciate your input. -- Golbez 22:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well technicly there are two other countries in North America then again the European Union should change its name because not every European country is a member... The name was never meant to say we are exclusivly american nah nah nah nah nah. It's more just at the time of naming we were the only free nation (as in gained independence) on the Continent of North America why change names? No one else does (for the most part) -- Shimonnyman 03:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, only the ignorant and uneducated are dumb enough to treat North America as synonymous with the United States. Most educated intellectuals in all three North American countries are knowledgeable enough to know that North America refers to a continent that has three main countries, and not just the U.S.

Is there any particular name for the USA mainland, ie 48 states (50 minus Alaska and Hawaii) and Washington DC? Everton 09:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two names I have heard, The Forty-Eight Contingeous (sp.) States. I have also heard The Lower Forty-Eight (however this one doesnt really make sence but it is used for that)-- Shimonnyman 09:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The main ones are "Contintental US", "Lower 48" and "48 Contiguous States". -- Golbez 22:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The main ones I have heard are "Lower 48" and "48 Contiguous States." Lower 48 refers to the fact that the 48 contiguous states are more south (thus appearing literally lower on a vertically mounted map) than Alaska. -- Coolcaesar 01:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the reason it doesnt make sence is Hawaii is even further south thats all. But it is an answer to the question emtymology isnt quite important i dont think. -- Shimonnyman 03:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Although continental United States is indeed common it too is inaccurate, Alaska is on the same continent and not included. Of the three common phrases only Contigous States is accurate. Vicarious 03:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In the Federal Government, including the military, it is normally referred to as CONUS (short for Continental United States) --Nicholas F , 20 September 2005

Yo. What the hell happened to the periods in U.S. throughout the article? Everything was fine two weeks ago and then I come back and everything's changed. The common American English form (in books, newspapers, magazines, etc.) is U.S., not US. Also, the legal form is U.S. as well (that is, federal courts and the vast majority of state courts all refer to the U.S. and not the US). -- Coolcaesar 06:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Both seem to be right the CIA's website consistantly uses US not U.S. While the State Dept. website mainly uses U.S. except in the title of the pages but uses USA and not U.S.A. so I'm not so sure...-- Shimonnyman 09:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, but the majority usage is still U.S. Also, besides the courts, and many executive agencies, most magazines and newspapers also use U.S. consistently---including the big three American newsmagazines, Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News and World Report.

Last time I checked, the consensus in the huge ongoing debate on Talk:WP Manual of Style was to keep U.S. for American-oriented articles and to allow US in other articles that are not US-centric. If no one defends US in the next week or so, I'm switching this article back to the dominant domestic spelling.-- Coolcaesar 21:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you morepointing out that both seem correct however I think the only time its really appropriate to leave out the periods in an acronym if its something pronounced like UNICEF. Before all I was doing was explaining that both seem accepted by the U.S. Govt. but I was a little confused about that because I had been taught what I explained above.-- Shimonnyman 22:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The de facto standard on articles related to the United States is to use the abbreviation "U.S." We shouldn't change it without discussion. Consistent styles are good for professionalism. Rhobite 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the line that says that the U.S. was never a colonial power somewhat inaccurate?

Here's what Dictonary.com defines as a colony:

col·o·ny n. pl. col·o·nies

1.
   1. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
   2. A territory thus settled.
2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

The U.S. annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii after its monarch was overthrown by a coup by settlers of European descent (see the Kingdom of Hawaii page). How is that not colonisation by the definition given above? Ditto the Phillipines and the other overseas possessions.

Or to turn the argument around - if the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii wasn't an example of colonisation, then is it right to say that, say, Britain wasn't a colonial power when it annexed the Sikh Kingdom and other sovereign territories in India and elsewhere? 80.93.2.202 16:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User:NWOG insists on inserting a POV-laden summary of human rights in the US. There is already a separate article on this very issue that is much more balanced – that is, not simply a list of selected human rights abuses. Rather than revert again, I'll suggest here that it be removed. android 79 14:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

How is it POV? It's simply facts. NWOG

POV by exclusion – leaving out any mention of positive contributions by the US to human rights. The POV is not my main objection, anyway – there's a whole article on the subject already. android 79 14:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a short human rights section but NWOG's version is extremely one-sided. It's a laundry list of Howard Zinn style complaints, with no mention of constitutional protections such as the rights to free speech, a speedy trial, legal representation, etc. Any section that's added to this article should be short and based on the content of Human rights in the United States. Rhobite 14:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a prominent link to Human rights in the United States is sufficient, but I wouldn't oppose a short summary based on that article's content. android 79 14:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If there's another article on this, then anything more than a link to that page is unnecessary and will only serve to be a focal point of controversy and edit wars (as it is turning into now).

If you feel it is one-sided, why not contribute to it? As of now, it is one-sided, but that is, I feel, because you are not taking part and contributing to the section. Perhaps you have extensive knowledge of constitutional protections and rights to legal representation, etc. while others do not? If you do have knowledge on this subject, it would be great to add what you know, don't you think? NWOG

• Because there's already a whole article on that, which I think is fairly balanced, and needs no more mention in this article than a wikilink. BTW, Please sign your posts with ~~~~. NWOG does not go to your user page, it goes to the nonexistant article NWOG. android 79 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that NWOG's hit list mostly concerns itself with cold war foreign policy, not human rights within the U.S. Rhobite 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This description was added and I reverted it because I just don't think it's accurate. If parliamentary countries are always referred to as "parliamentary" and that is incorrect, then I say change it on those. I don't think the U.S. page is getting any sort of special treatment (see all the vandalism to understnad how hated this page is). Thoughts? Gator1 23:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

In the first sentence it says that the US is referred to poetically as 'Columbia'. This sounds like an obscure fact which if it belongs in the article at all, certainly shouldn't be in the opening sentence. Astrokey44 13:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No, we just had a HUGE fight about this less than six months ago, please check the archives. It has to remain because Columbia was well-known as referring to the mythical female personification of the U.S. (the female counterpart of Uncle Sam) up until the start of the 20th century. Many things today were named Columbia for that reason, such as Columbia Pictures. -- Coolcaesar 04:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The "United States" article begins this way:

For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation).

The intent is clearly to refer users who arrived at the page in error to the appropriate disambiguation pages. I thought that intent was much more clearly (and usefully) expressed this way:

This article is about the republic, or nation; for other meanings, see the disambiguation pages for US, USA, and United States.

However, when I made the change, Jerzy reverted it, so I think either I'm wrong about my version being better, or else I violated some rule. If the former, can someone explain what's wrong with my idea, or think of a better way? If the latter, what rule did I break?

-- GraemeMcRae 04:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a better one-liner for the top of the United States article:

For alternative meanings, see the disambiguation page for US, USA, or United States.

-- GraemeMcRae 14:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason for redundancy. Matt Yeager 23:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether this has been discussed before and if it has been, I'll shut up.

Wouldn't "United States of America" be the proper name for this article and "United States" only a redirect. After all this is the name of the country and there were and could be other "United States", even though there are none at present.

Str1977 13:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

That has been raised many times, please check the archives. The consensus has always been to keep United States because that is the far more common usage in the vast majority of American publications (even government ones). "United States of America" is very, very formal (not to mention a mouthful to say) and is only commonly used in documents with legal effect like passports and legislative bills (for example, a bill's preamble will always say something like "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled"). -- Coolcaesar 04:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to know without browsing all the archives. Your argument seems to me quite US-centric. But then, I'm only an European. As long as there's no other United States around and as long as it isn't shortened to simply "States" I won't stir this up. But there's another post at the top. (PS. Internal legal usage of the state's name is another matter alltogether.) Str1977 17:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like last edit before vandal was 07:55, 18 October 2005 GraemeMcRae — Gaff ^ταλκ 08:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 11

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 13