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 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

The war in iraq is a lot like the war in the philippines while Teddy Roosevelt was president. No one knew that because it died down after the fact. Wait until the event is in school text books to write about it in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. This is for facts, not attitudes. Iraq has no place here. 9/11 does because it is factual. Iraq is still going on, so you cant write about it. The people who did are dumb- this is FACTS ONLY!

Going by that line, theoretically you would not be able to write about a myriad of things for years upon years, from the Iraq war to increased domestic surveillance as it all falls under the presidential administration's "War on Terror," which has been referred to by Vice President Cheney as the "War that will not end in our lifetimes." The place of an encyclopedia is to give historically accurate fact based on the most accurate information available. The benefit of wikipedia is that it is constantly updating, versus a paper based book that updates every few years. Ecopirate 17:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, and no, he didn't land on the main land of North American, until his fourth, and final voyage.-- Dp462090 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

At this page, there should just be important information about the history. The country is the world's first democracy since Athens in ancient Greece. Show respect. It is sad how this page has to be edited for content. No wonder schools no longer allow students to use Wikipedia as a source of information. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Look that up if you don't know what it is. the encyclopedia dates back to 1751. this isnt an encyclopedia. this is a bad website.

The country is referred to as: The United Sates of America, The United States, America, and U.S.A where did US of A and Columbia come from?

This a rather simple question to answer, U.S. of A is just someone's preference, standing for United States of America, and Columbia is just an old name for America, coming from the last name Christopher Columbus, since he is said to have be the first European to discover North America(Although this is disputed).-- Dp462090 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

...but wouldn't the consideration of neo-paganism as an organized religion (singularly or even as a whole) be a contradiction in terms? I guess if that's what the stats say...

It seems that someone have deleted everything on this page to tell about his/her disapproval of the US. What to do? ~~Not A Member —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.181.254 ( talk • contribs)

It's already been restored. Vandalism happens a lot on pages like this, and usually gets reverted very quickly. If you notice anything like that in future, reverting is as simple as clicking 'history' at the top, clicking on the date and time of the version of the page before it was vandalised, clicking 'edit' and then saving the page. See Wikipedia:Revert for a fuller explanation. -- Malthusian (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of crappy at this so relax. Just pointing something factual out. The US is not technically a democratic republic, its a constitutional republic employing/having a tradition of democray. See CIA World Factbook for reference. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

thanks

Well "technically" you're wrong. "Democracy" is not a separate, distinct and codified type of government. Any system that allows the people to control their own destiny is a democracy, so the US is most definitely a democracy and a democratic republic. The US also happens to be a constitutional republic. These terms are not mutually exclusive! The US is both a republic and a democracy. (This is not Sid Meiers' Civilization!) You can attach any qualifier you want to those terms by calling the US a federal republic, constitutional democracy or whatever, but ultimately all the terms are valid and descriptive of the US government as described by the constitution. --WH

It has more than a democratic tradition - it has amendments to the constitution guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of sex or race or previous condition of servitude - and text and amendments specifying how elections should be held -- JimWae 00:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My first time to comment on an article, but I couldn't find "fecalphilial" in my on-line dictionary. Thus, I am not sure what it contributes. C R Krieger Lowell, MA crk@theworld.com

I see that this article has been protected from being moved by the lack of a move tag. Any category for such articles?? Georgia guy 22:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is no category that I know of, but there is a listing on Wikipedia:Protected page, which is unfortunately not always exactly accurate. -- Beland 12:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• That page recommends adding {{ moveprotected}} to the top of this page, which does use categories, but which is probably inappropriate for permanent protection. -- Beland 12:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've made a note of this discussion at Template talk:Moveprotected. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 23:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "official founding date" sounded a little odd to me, in a picky sort of way. I'm left with the question, "who made it official"? I suppose if there's a public law which declares this, than this phrasing makes perfect sense. But it sounds like there could be some British Office of Rebel Affairs that stamped and approved the Declaration of Independence with an official date. Saying that we "celebrate" our independence on this day is just as true, but it doesn't try to qualify what kind of founding day it is - the rest of the sentence just tells you what actually happened that day, and all is clear. Hopefully that makes sense to the rest of you. -- Beland 12:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Over time, material has been added to the Economy section of this article that has not made its way into Economy of the United States. Really, the sections here that link to longer main articles should just summarize the important parts of the main articles. We don't want people to miss out on any details by going directly to the longer article (perhaps from somewhere else). I've synced things up a bit better than they were before by adding some missing material to the subarticle, but someone will actually have to read the whole thing in detail and do some back-and-forth to finish the job. Or we can work our way there incrementally, as long as we keep headed in that direction. -- Beland 12:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just read the Wikipedia article on Mexico which said the top 20% by Income received 55% percent of all the income (GDP) in the country in 2004. Recently, I read that in the USA the top 20% by income received 50% of all GDP for 2004. Quite a Shock! Maybe Wikipedia should use this statistic in all it's summary articles about national economies and wealth distribution. It sure would make comparisons between nations (articles) much easier.

Just throwing this out... but the name of the country IS the "United States of America". Why is the article here at "United States"? (This has been annoying me for some time.) Matt Yeager 21:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a redirect in place ... what specific arguments would you place for the change? User:Ceyockey 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution refers to "The United States of America".

2. The term "united states" is rather ambiguious. Mexico is the "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", translating roughly as "United States of Mexico". So "United States" could refer to more than one nation.

praetor_alpha 14:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

But, amusingly, it doesn't. We've been over this, several times. The full name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos, are we planning to move Mexico there? "United States" COULD refer to other things, but does it? Can you cite something in common use where it is used for something other than America? -- Golbez 16:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I think the article is situated properly (i.e., currently) precisely, but not solely, because it is simpler and easier for users to type. Why confuse the issue for visitors by reversing the current state with a redirect as so? Similarly, few other country articles are entitled so lengthily, and should only be when there is a possibility of ambiguity or confusion (e.g., Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, and Congo). This isn't an issue per se here; further to that, I believe the Mexican longform name more properly translates (according to my almanac) into " United Mexican States". My two cents ... E Pluribus Anthony 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article for the Republic of Austria just says "Austria" as the title, and the article for the Federal Republic of Germany just says "Germany" as the title, and similar things with the Republic of France and such. If you change the title to "united states of america", you'd have to change the titles of all the other nation articles, logically. -Alex 12.220.157.93 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with all the arguments raised above in favor of the status quo. The current policy of preferring the common name of a country over the country's formal legal name is the better one. It would be awkward to force users to go to articles with titles like "United Mexican States." -- Coolcaesar 20:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This needs to be named "United States of America." The side bar even states the full name, isn't that confusing? And who is going to be confused anyway with the title as the full name, in a regular encyclopedia it would be in full. And what's wrong with having a redirect anyway?

The sidebar of Belarus says Republic of Belarus, and the sidebars of almost every country have a longer name, so that argument is right out - we have deliberately chosen to use the short-form names here. The burden of proof is on y'all - show how "United States" is ever used in a fashion not specifically referring to America. I'll accept any press citation. -- Golbez 16:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the comment "in a regular encyclopedia it would be in full" ... in the on-line version of Britannica, the article is "United States" (see http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9111233). User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just checked: MSN Encarta's online version also uses "United States" rather than "United States of America" (and Encarta is the descendant of the old Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia). So both of the two "established" or "regular" encyclopedias use "United States." -- Coolcaesar 05:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this naming convention. All throughout Wikipedia, in countless instances, the United States of America is called "the United States", or just "US". It is, as far as I can tell, an Americocentric term perpetuated with a fair degree of unjustifiable chauvinistic pride. I am doubtless of a minority view, but I wish Wikipedians from the USA would step outside their national mindset and help create a new Wikipedia standard for the naming of this country, which is, after all, and although the most powerful, one of just 190 or more nation states in the world. Australia, after all, is not called in Wikipedia "The Commonwealth", although its full name is "The Commonwealth of Australia". Is it a case of "might is right" in Wikipedia as elsewhere? Alpheus 05:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'll have to say yes. Although it's not just might, it's also the weight of tradition. The usage of "United States" or "U.S." for the United States of America is overwhelmingly established as part of American English. This usage goes all the way back to the original 1789 Constitution, which repeatedly uses "United States" to refer to the United States of America. If you run a Google search with the site: operator to limit scope to constitution.org, you will notice many other early historical documents and commentaries also use the term "United States." -- Coolcaesar 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please check non-English encyclopedias and reference works in German, French, Chinese, Portugeuese (sp) and any other language you think fit as well as non-American English works (Australian, British, South African, for example) and report back here what they find to be the name used to refer to the United States of America in those works? That would be helpful, in my opinion. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia refers to es:Estados Unidos. the iBook of the Revolution 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If so, then it should be then the "United Kingdom" article should change to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". It is in common usage and I think it is fine. Panthro 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a broader question here: should article names be popular names or proper names? I personally favor proper names for article names, though I don't mind popular names in article texts. Therefore, I favor the "United States of America" name for this article. (For what it is worth, the popular name of the "United States" is certainly consistent with usage in world press. Le Monde refers to "les Etats-Unis" (the United States). Frankfurter Allgemeine refers to "die Vereinigten Staaten" (the United States). BBC News refers to "the US" or "the United States".) JonathanFreed 23:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, we would have to rename about 90% of the country articles. And should we rename the states, to Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, not to mention counties, County of Orange, California, et.al. ad nauseam? The fact remains, we use the general name here, the one most familiar in the English speaking world, and no one has been able to show any evidence that "United States" is a vague term. -- Golbez 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because renaming involves work does not mean you personally have to do it or that it should not be done.

Vulgar (common) names such as "United States" were probably used in print to patronize vulgar readers, but automatic redirect technology now allows us to have the best of both worlds: put an automatic redirect on the vulgar "United States" and put the article at "United States of America", where it properly belongs. By saying this, I assert that the important question is not whether "United States" is a vague term, but whether it is the proper title for the article. Clearly, the people and representatives of the USA have used the "United States of America" as the proper name, and have used "United States" merely in reference to the "United States of America" as it is used in the Constitution (see the preamble). Usage of the phrase even predates the Constitution (see the Treaty of Paris of 1783).

If we seek a NPOV or worldview, then let's look at what is used in multilateral treaties, which don't assume an audience of USA citizens only. For example, look at the multilateral Chemical Weapons Convention and its member states. JonathanFreed 04:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a single demand - show me a case in the mainstream English-speaking media where "United States" can be confused for anything else. Also, again, you might want to take this up with the folks at United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and San Marino, all of which have considerably longer "real" names. Just because the official definition of the country is "United States of America" doesn't mean that's what we name it here; we use the most common, simplest name. The policy of least surprise. -- Golbez 04:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your demand is reasonable, though it's probably impossible to provide a case, because no other "United States of" countries appear to exist. (See CIA FactBook list of country names). Also, if you feel strongly about this issue, you might want to go over to Hillary Rodham Clinton and get that article name changed. (Good luck with that. :)

I just determined that my preference of "proper over popular" for article names is out-of-synch with the official style guide of Wikipedia. (Specifically, see the section regarding article titles, and the separate naming conventions article.) It is a shame that 23 days passed and 18 response comments were made before somebody (me) found the guideline and include a reference to it here. Perhaps that is a sign that the guideline is too hidden, or something, but that is a debate for some other talk page, not this one. At this point, I consider this question closed, because the current official style guide supports the existing "United States" article name. JonathanFreed 06:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

With the Clinton thing, you're comparing apples to kumquats. And I knew of the guideline but I was too lazy to mention it; after all, I figured anyone arguing a name change would have familiarized themselves with it, right? -- Golbez 07:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with JonathanFreed, when i came to this article, the first thing that struck me was the absence of "of America" from the title. It's awkward and therefore should be changed. -- 2nd Piston Honda 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some day the style guideline will be changed, or at least this specific article's name will be excepted. That will only happen if enough people log their support for change. JonathanFreed 16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My comment is that even the most informal of settings use the full title United States of America [1] and the formal [2]. Wikipedia should do the same if possible. Yusuka 23:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Show me an instance where "United States" has actually been used or confused for something else. Please. -- Golbez 00:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Show me an instance where "Hillary Clinton" has actually been used or confused for someone else. Please. -- 2nd Piston Honda 01:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how many logical fallacies can be contained in a sixteen word sentence. -- Golbez 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Using a blog entry as a usage note (referring to the contribution from User:Yusuka) is not what I'd call referring to either a representative or authoritative (not synonymous, those two) source. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does a tie mean that one side wins? (Namely, that this article is still named "United States") -- 2nd Piston Honda 05:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum. -- Golbez 05:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so if the article was originally named "United States of America" then it would currently be so named. Makes sense...not really. -- 2nd Piston Honda 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a more equitable outcome ... keeping in mind that a) thou shalt not fork and b) consensus is almost never a 90:10 proposition and usually closer to 50:40 (with 10 quiet until after a decision is made). User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A more equitable outcome would be to keep debating it until there's a clear winner. -- 2nd Piston Honda 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, can someone tell me why China's article is named "People's Republic of China"? -- 2nd Piston Honda 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pleeeease don't start that conversation here anew. The current naming of China-related and Taiwan-related articles is the result of heavy discussions among many passionate people over a period of years (yes, years) and it will likely never be settled. Could someone please put on Honda's talk page a reference to some of the voluminous discussion on this matter. The discussion here around the naming of the United States article is orders of magnitude less volatile than that which surrounds the naming of China-related and Taiwan-related articles. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the Germany article isn't titled "Federal Democratic Republic of Germany", France isn't titled "French Republic", Russia isn't "Russian Federation", et cetera, is that the full name of the country is just a description of the government, and includes the name of the country. This article as it is titled now would be the equivalent of if the article on Germany were titled "Federal Democratic Republic". The name "United States of America" means that there is one country, America, formed from a union of separate states. The most correct title of this page would be "America". Let's not kid ourselves, when someone types "America" and hits "Go", they're most likely looking for this page, and if not, they could go to a disambiguation page. R'son-W 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's kid ourselves: visit the America dab and its talk page for a counterargument (no pun intended!) regarding prevailing usage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your argument, and guess what: If someone types "America" and they mean the region, they can be redirected from the top of the page that says "This article is about the country called America, for the region called 'the Americas', see Americas". Guess what, chief? Your argument does not work. The name of the country formed by Alabama, Alaska, ..., Washington, and Wyoming is called "America", and no matter how opposed you are to the current administration of that country, or opposed to its culture, it's still a fact. And let's really, truly be truthful with ourselves on this at least: That's the only reason why America doesn't redirect to a page entitled United States of America. R'son-W 08:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And your argument does work? Arguably no: this is but one way to skin a cat, and we agree to disagree. Usage depends on context no matter where you are, and your commentary above obviates that. And in Wp, it's not necessarily about "truth" (nor justice, nor the American way ... as admirable as though qualities are): it's about what everyone can verify, objectify, and all the other good stuff. Otherwise, see above and below. And please refrain from insinuating disdain for the US where it doesn't exist and in making pejorative references like "chief", 'son. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

just use google to get past disambigs like that [3]. PC or not, the prevailing use is what it is, but I guess providing the facts isn't our mission here if it conflicts with other agendas... keith 03:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's review some facts (and I won't belabour this): as per cited entries and ordering in even reputable US publications, not to mention the note in the US article, usage of America varies – in isolation or as a compound term/modifier and in either hemisphere. Apropos, exercise caution when using Google tests: there are more than just a few entries for North America, South America, Northern America, Central America, Anglo-America, Latin America, Ibero-America, Middle America, Americas, Free Trade Area of the Americas, North American Free Trade Agreement, not to mention the namesake, derivatives, et al. So, I guess Wikipedians shouldn't invoke neutrality and insinuate impolitic when they provide arguable "facts"? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to use any caution in referencing the google "test" since it produced the obvious result. Do you dispute it? There are 6 billion people in the world. what is your ballpark estimate of people using "America/American" for meaning #1 vs. meaning #2? Now restrict it to english. I don't see POV coming into play there. Nor do I need to assume any kind of faith, good or otherwise, as I have citable statements made on talk pages as to peoples' reasons, which are much more concerned with protecting a minority sensibility, or correcting a percieved injustice. Do you dispute any of this? your arguments seem predominantly rhetorical. keith 07:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, you do need to proceed with caution. I don't deny possible prevalence on this side of the pond about usage (I do live in the Great White North, after all); however, I do dispute presentations of information that do not objectify topic matter (as done above) – this is a POV, which is dealt with herein. I've cited publications which you can easily verify either way, not possibly subjective opining from Wikipedians. Nor will I estimate and predicate my decision-making solely on Google tests that Wp advises to treat with a grain of salt. As for rhetoric: pot, meet kettle.

But I agree with G. below to move onward (and have included information for our mutual benefit): I've stated reasons further above why the current simpler article name is sufficient, which seems to work for other reputable compendiums like the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's dictionary, the CIA World Fact Book, et al. – to move the article to the long form is simply superfluous. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why has this discussion deftly and imperceptively morphed from being about "United States" to being about "America"? That has nothing to do with this article. -- Golbez 07:56, 8 February 2006 (

back to the article then, I don't much care about the name but I don't like having a footnote in the intro. Why in the land of futuristic wiki technology do we need a 500-word foot-noted essay to summarize something spelled out on another page already? The use of america (right where it's footnoted..) could just link the disambig page which covers it all. keith 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, Kd: there are specific articles in Wp that deal with the topic, and top-level articles needn't be overloaded with rehashes of details that can be substituted through a mere note/piped link to the sub/article itself. This article is more than twice as long as recommended, and it's time to clean out the kitchen sink. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why (if you had bothered to read the previous posts, you'd know this), is because the name of the United States of America is not "United States", just as the name of the Kingdom of Spain is not "Kingdom", or the name of the Federal Democratic Republic of Germany is not "Federal Democratic Republic". Not so imperceptive, is it? R'son-W 08:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The chaps at United Kingdom would like a word with you. -- Golbez 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion switched from "United States" versus "United States of America" to "United States" versus "America", and therefore I have put this discussion in its own section.

While I support a change to "United States of America" for reasons I stated in the corresponding section (above), I do not support a change to "America", which would be just as improper as the "United States". Arguably, it may be as common as "United States", but I don't see any reason to swtich from one bad article name to another. JonathanFreed | Talk | 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of this page being at United States of America... America would be a terrible place for the article, IMO; why have an ambiguous name when you could have a clear one? (I still think America should redirect to USA, but putting the article itself there is a dubious idea.) But I have to say that "United States of America" is the name of the country, and we should have articles at the proper names of their subject whenever possible. ... Before too long, I'd like to have a straw poll on whether or not we should move it. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it should titled "America", either, but I do think it should redirect to "United States of America". I think people misunderstood where I'm coming from on this. R'son-W 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It will likely fail, like all the other polls taken on this subject. This really should simply go under perennial proposals. -- Golbez 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to modify the cities table to include land area and density (this has been done to Sweden). It makes perfect sense to do so - for example if Salt Lake City were to be extended the same land area as Phoenix it would have 1,000,000 residents. For this reason I believe we should add the two new columns. The current table is misleading, given that cities such as New York are extremely dense while cities in places such as Texas are huge in land area. 144.35.254.12 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Misleading? I dunno. Still, the more info, the better, right? Right? Matt Yeager 02:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Metro areas give more information about the USA than artificial city boundaries can -- JimWae 02:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But at least there are boundaries. Metro areas have less easily defined boundaries. We could go with the census area definition I suppose. That has a certain outer bound to it - it can't be wider than a certain area, otherwise you can't commute in. So the census-defined metro areas are probably generally the same physical size. -- Golbez 02:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the metros would be best and more accurate. However, I will not make such a large change until others have had time to comment. And its not to make a point, its to be more meaningful. I find it highly unlogical at the moment - especially Jacksonville. 70.57.93.147 07:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the point that metro area is more accurate, but I am still not convinced that we need density info. While I wouldn't mind it (being a SimCity fan) I suspect most people (as in people who are not fans of SimCity) would consider density to be too much information. -- Coolcaesar 07:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

--I'm fine with the added info, but then it should be trimmed to just the top ten. Otherwise, it just looks very uncharacteristic for the article as a whole to have this huge, detailed table taking up so much space. I also replaced the "land area" column with the Metro area population estimates, as this info is far more relevant than just knowing the extent of a city's boundaries. -- Jleon 12:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

--I notice an anon has modified the Metro area populations to reflect the table of Primary Metroplitan Statistical Areas (PMSA). I had been using the figures listed on each of the city articles, which I beleive are all Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) figures. I don't really care which ones we use, but it's going to lead to some confusion as people see different numbers in different places without understanding what the deal is. -- Jleon 00:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would ask that this page be semi-protected again. It's heavily vandalised and needs help and the protection was removed without explanation. Thanks. Gator (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The explanation was in the protection log, as the explanation usually is. A good number of the edits to this page from anonymous editors are not reverted. A good proportion of them we evidently want to keep. Thus, we should not prevent anons from editing the page. (At present, a bug in the sprotects implementation restricts it only to anons. I would object much more strongly to also locking out new users who appear to be hardly ever reverted on this article.) Semi-protection is for temporarily stemming vandalism without having to lock everyone out of an article. George W. Bush might be an exception, but this article doesn't exhibit those kinds of problems. Splash ^talk-15:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the courteous reply. I disagree and think this article does exhibit these kind of problems. 9/10 when I see an anon edit, it's vandalism and time must be taken out for it be reverted. Any thoughts from another admin? Gator (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since we've decided, for better or for worse, only to use semi-protection for temporary protection from vandalism, I don't think we can justify semi-protecting this. Personally I'd happily prevent all anon edits to pages like this, though. Mark ¹ 15:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that some may edit? - Dec 22, 2005

Anyone can. android 79 17:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a bold claim, what about those people who are unable or unwilling to register and log in? I suppose that they just don't have anything to contribute? I stand by my statement. - Dec 22, 2005

Anyone has the ability to contribute, but on Wikipedia's terms. If social or technical issues prevent someone from being able to log in, well, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Anonymous users have been restricted from moving pages or uploading media for a long time, and recently they've been restricted from creating new pages. This isn't much different. android 79 18:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this article currently undergoing a large amount of anonymous vandalism? If not, there's no real reason to semi-protect, especially since semi-protection isn't technically ready to prevent new-user vandalism, either. android 79 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There was an anonymous editor who put an ad hoc "unreferenced" note at the top of this article, which was promptly removed. I think there are plenty of sources for the information available via the "External links" but it would be helpful to set aside a "References" section to hold a few that are specifically related to the content so as to discourage others from adding related notes. User:Ceyockey 17:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the article is based on its sub-articles ( Geography of the United States etc.) rather than on the external links. Many of our country articles are in the same situation, and AFAIK we don't have a real answer to the referencing problem yet for them. Possibly harvest references from the sub-articles (but which ones?), or direct the reader to the references section of those articles (but then the references on those articles may change, and may not be the ones from which we got the information which is in this article). Mark ¹ 17:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Cite-through" from sub-articles is a good idea and I don't think that the references would need to be pulled through to the main article. This might be a useful thread to pursue in discussion at WP:CITE with the potential to enhance the citation-related guidelines. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Two quick questions: I'm sorry if this is already addressed in the archives, but why does this page use the term American football which in unheard of in the United States? And, is "'American football' (shudder) the most popular spectator sport in the United States" as the photo caption says? I don't doubt that it is, but I was just wondering if whoever put that in had a source for it... Hope I'm not rocking the boat too much here! - Parallel or Together ? 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The term "football" is used in the USA, instead of "american football". Reasoning is because, its in America anyway, so it would be redundant to say "American" infront of football. However, I am surprised that with the recent surge of patriotism since 9/11, that it hasn't been called "American Football". Football, as the rest of the world knows it, where the ball is kicked around a field, is referred to as soccer.

2. You better believe (american) football is the most popular spectator sport in the USA. See Super Bowl

praetor_alpha 14:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought NASCAR was considered the bigger spectator sport, since the smallest speedway can seat more people than the largest football stadium. Also, while the article is about America, that's just it - the audience is likely international, and would be confused by simple "football". -- Golbez 17:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That's super, except pages about other countries refer to soccer as "football" without any clarification (e.g. United Kingdom). It's assumed that if one's talking about "football" in the UK, one means soccer, and in Canada and America, one means gridiron. R'son-W 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Logically, the person most likely to read an article about the United States stands a good chance of not being from the US, and it never hurts to be accurate. Wikipedia is emphatically an international project, so just as it is in Wiki-style to use metric system consistently, it is appropriate to say 'American football' in the article. There's my two cents. As for the claim that American football is the biggest spectator sport, this is based on combined domestic and international television audiences as well as physical spectators. American football soundly trumps NASCAR in those numbers.-- Primalchaos 22:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

>>> It might be considered to add a few other things about the country's culture, as, though American Football and Apple Pie are the stereotypical loves of America, that we might reflect more about the actual culture of the United States. (which is really quite diverse)

It's worth reminding everybody that American football was invented by an American and a Canadian. Preceding unsigned text inserted (with inverse bolding and full capitalisation) by 70.27.46.241 17:51, 7 January 2006

Its also worth pointing out that the use of the word football is not used exclusively for soccer all over the world. Here in Australia the word football usually refers to Rugby League in NSW/QLD and Australian football usually refers to Australian football. see the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football

Soundabuser 13:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is worth reminding people that a visiting team of English Rugby (then called Rugby Football) players visited Cananda and taught a University in Canada how to play, it was then the Canadians who taught the Americans the game and changed it slightly to what we now know as 'American Football'.

I would like to ask you how is it computed the number of Americans? This number 297,700,000. Is it so that are counted the people with valid US passport, citinzenship? -- Bonaparte talk 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That number is just extrapolated from the current assumed rate of growth. The actual 2000 census count was a simple headcount of every household, or in some cases, extrapolated from neighborhood patterns. -- Golbez 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

On the "prehistory" section related to the number of Native Americans before and immediately after European discovery/conquest, I've edited it to be "are the subject of continued research and thus are open to debate" rather than just "are open to debate." Ryanluck 21:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I see this is back. I appreciate the modifications, which seem to be aimed at the criticism that the EU isn't a sovereign state with its own military forces. However, comparison of the military spending of the US with that of "the Member States of European Union, as the second-largest military force when combined" misses the point that there is neither the political structure nor will to effect that combination - therefore, the comparison is specious.

Also, is "comparisation" a US English form of "comparison"? -- Countersubject 15:33, 26 December 2005 (GMT)

My spell checker says "comparisation" is wrong, and I agree. -Barry- 21:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Google finds it in lots of statistical documents. Specialist term? Mark ¹ 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on "comparisation". I didn't want to correct a perfectly good US English word in an article on the US!

As to the main point, I've been thinking about possible modifications that would preserve some kind of comparison, yet remove a misleading implication about the political and military nature of the EU. One way of doing this would be to cut "as the second-largest military force when combined". However, this clause seems to have been inserted to justify the comparison, so without it, what's the point of the sentence? We're left with a comparison of US spending vs that of a random selection of other nations, having a variety of foreign and military policies, including neutrality. What they have in common - membership of the EU and geographical proximity - has little or no bearing on their military budgets. In addition, the comparison comes with no backing references. -- Countersubject 15:26, 27 December 2005 (GMT)

The names of boxers and wrestlers were deleted because individuals aren't mentioned for other sports. I think some athletes of the most popular one-on-one sports should be mentioned. It's not as necessary for team sports, but I wouldn't object to some team sport athletes being mentioned too, like Michael Jordan. -Barry- 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "There is also a subgroup of sociology/anthropology popular in American colleges and universities today called American studies" at the end of the "Education" section does not tie in with the text above it and in fact absolutely does not belong in this section. It has been removed once, [4], with a perfectly valid edit summary. It has then been speedily reversed, without any explanation. Why??? 131.111.8.101 01:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your point that "American studies" does not belong in this general article on the United States. Practically any large country will have a social sciences specialty dedicated to itself; that goes without saying. If "American studies" ought to be mentioned at all, it should be in the Education in the United States article. -- Coolcaesar 20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The section on "Education" discusses concisely the general structure of education in the US: kindergarten, schools, colleges, universities, the various types of schools (public/private) etc. The last sentence on "American studies" does not belong in this section (why sudden emphasis on one subject alone?) and I therefore will remove it. 131.111.8.99 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence about 'Military schools' at the end of the second paragraph didn't fit with the paragraph at all, and there really isn't a place for it. I've commented it out. ArglebargleIV 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again all links to democracy, representative democracy, constitutional democracy, and liberal democracy on the page have been removed -- JimWae 05:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The US has more than a "strong democratic tradition". Though not an explicit part of the original Constitution, democracy is now enshrined in several amendments -- JimWae 06:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently American people redirects here. Does everyone like this, or should it redirect to Demographics of the United States instead? Or perhaps a new main article, in the fashion of articles for other countries? Shawnc 10:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a separate article about the people of America, as there is for english people, for example. R'son-W 09:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support The United States' society is at a point where groups such as the Generation Y have the ability to be so soberly unfathomably diverse that they are thus rendered American by default. Salluste 22:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The section on the Civil War in this article is unacceptable. It doesn't paint a correct or full picture but rather a narrow one with inaccuracies.

This article makes it appear that the entire reason for the Civil War was abolishing slavery. While slavery was an issue,it was not the defining issue but rather the economic stranglehold the North held over the South. Lincoln himself said that he had no wish to abolish slavery, he did want to prevent it's spread. Even without the issue of slavery, the secession would have been inevitable as the South tried to escape the tariffs the North imposed.

I don't the think the word tariff is even mentioned in the section.

It also says that the Emancipation Proclamation was to free all slaves in rebel states. It did not. It only freed slaves of acting rebels.

And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court. ...

Either rewrite it to include all the facts and fix the errors or omit it from the article. Obviously it's meant as a summary, afterall it's a general page of the US. At least summarize correctly.

How about linking to the better written articles on this site concerning it rather than making up your own?

The E.P. freed all slaves in slave states: " all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free . . . ." it further penalized any person who rebelled against the Union by, among other things, freeing their slaves, but it clearly' freed all slaves residing in slaves states. Gator (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You missed an important part of that - that if the rebel states returned to the union within 90 days (IIRC), they would be able to keep their slaves. -- Golbez 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Intereting, but just read it again and I found nothing that said anyhting other than "forever free." Are we readng the same thing? "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free. Would you please quote that language from the EP? Thanks. Gator (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To whom are you responding? Me? -- Golbez 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw nothing on the verson I just read satying anything about 90 days. Please direct me accordingly. Thanks! Gator (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The 90 days was an extrapolated figure. Note: "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free." In other words, this only applies to those states which are in rebellion against the USA on Jan 1 1863, and the proclamation was issued on September 22 1862, a distance of about 100 days. If a rebel state had rejoined the union by Jan 1 1863, then the Proclamation would not have applied to them, and they would be allowed to keep their slaves. -- Golbez 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Interesting loophole. I doubt Lincoln actually thought that a rebel state would be coerced to rejoin the Union under such conditions, so I think the EP was mean more to undermine their war effort or for other reasons (whole different topic) and than it was to coerce them to trejoin, but very interesting. They wouldnt be able to keep them long even if they did rejopin, given the 13th amendment, but interesting. Thanks. Gator (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Except, if enough slave states had taken Lincoln up on his offer, then they would have been able to prevent the passage of the 13th Amendment. All told, the EP was an empty promise. -- Golbez 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

'But that didn't happen (so it wasn;t "empty") and no one, including Lincoln, expected it to and Lincoln, most likely, would have forced the slave states to adopt the 13th amendment just like he did when they eventually returned, so that "empty promise" critque is a little unfounded and smacks of revisionism in my OP. Just trying to reframe Lincoln as a pro-slave guy, when he just wasn't. Thanks for the info though and the interesting persepctive. Keepign me on my toes, for what it's worth. Gator (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So what about the part about tariffs rather than slavery being the main motivation behind the South seceeding to start the Civil War rather than the North's opposition to slaves like the article makes it out to be? That's the kind of misinformation you'd hear in elementary school. They always make it out to be the great North's crusade against the wicked slave owners and that's all it was about.

One Confederate leader said that "Slavery was the question, but not the principle." Southerners wanted to self-determine their economy, and saw that the North could force its will on the South, as the South lost any ability to ever control again the Congress or the Presidency. Thus, they seceded.-- Bedford 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of this claim: "Polls estimate that just under 80 percent of Americans are Christians of various denominations, a decline from 90 percent as recently as 1990."

The 1990 number seems unlikely to me, and I (at least as a casual reader) was unable to determine its source and/or a diversity of studies.

71.208.123.139 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) user:kkinder

The numbers in question probably come from the "American Religious Identification Survey" (ARIS) by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, which states that "the proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001." These numbers can be found on a number of websites, including the CUNY one. - Parallel or Together ? 10:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did the information on Sikh population come from? this pdf document says "It is estimated that about 500,000 Sikhs live in the US but no breakdown of Sikh population at the county or state level is currently available." Number 12 on this page puts the total number in the U.S. at 500,000 too. -Barry- 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The stats I found in the American Religious Identification Survey are much different than those from the Sikh organizations mentioned above. The Self Described Religious Identification chart in exhibit 1 on this page says there were only 13,000 Sikhs in the U.S. in 1990, and 57,000 in 2001. A footnote is definitely needed in the article, whatever figure we come up with. -Barry- 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and while I'm sure you think you've got a vastly original and socially unacceptable idea, please read what you're typing...carefully. "USA was founded by indians...." Eh, no. The USA was founded (depending on your definition of founded) in 1776 or about 1787-1789. The Indians colonized North and South America thousands of years before the Europeans, but this article is titled "United States." Furthermore, everyone knows this stuff, except for the knowledgable bit about the "USI." JHMM13 ( T | C) 03:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition. The United States of America means many things to many people, but to the CIA is means many things: a democracy, a federal republic...(many see it as an unprincipled quagmire of acquistion, control, and protection of government authority)

A constitutional republic is ahistorical but logical in the sense of a social contract.

social contract n. An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.

The preamble implies the same, but the body of the constitution has been interpreted, missinterpreted, and used for purposes other than those prescribed by the preamble.

Perhaps, The republican form of government, that governs the republic for which the US flag stands, is the American experiment. It is a process that requires not party members, but republicans to fullfill democratic obligations though education, participation, and contribution, so as to perfectively form a union. -- education

Democracy in America before the formation of the United States existed amungst aboriginals. (somebody please support this statement with research into the Native American confederacy inhabiting New York State and originally composed of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca peoples, known as the Five Nations. After 1722 the confederacy was joined by the Tuscaroras to form the Six Nations. Also called Iroquois.)

Knowledge transfered from one generation to the next, which is the chain of trust, secured a House with True Authority. A House was responsible for its members. If a member committed a wrong to a member of another House, Houses, represented by House Chiefs through circle sentensing with the wronged and the wronged doer, restored justice. Disperse cultures dispersed as population saturation demanded it. They were happy and characterised by reason and tolerance. They were free until economic ties culturally decimated their liberty by replacing True Authority with economic authority. The ensuing material disparity proved carcinogenic; wars were inevitable. user:noknow

I'm supporting having the Vice President named as Richard B. Cheney on this article, since the White House seems to prefer this on official documentation and uses it as the primary name on the VP website - [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primalchaos ( talk • contribs)

I see your point, but I disagree. He is overwhelmingly known as Dick Cheney - in every newspaper article, on television new programs, in everyday conversations. His "identity" on wikipedia is Dick Cheney (Richard B. Cheney is a redirect). Just as Albert A. Gore, Jr. was Al Gore and James D. Quayle was Dan Quayle, our current Vice President is Dick Cheney and not Richard B. Cheney. - Parallel or Together ? 01:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously correct to list him as Richard B. Cheney, just as it is to list "William Jefferson Clinton" instead of just "Bill Clinton" or "James E. Carter"

i mean, who doesnt hate this country?

It would be a POV fork, and I don't. -- Golbez 08:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus we already have such an article! See Anti-Americanism. -- Coolcaesar 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I love my country. America is the best country in the world.

go america!-- 209.7.118.199 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked Americans don't hate themselves. You can't assume everyone thinks in the same way. Tennis Dynamite 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"I love my country, it's the government I hate" -Anonymous R'son-W 08:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

God, you're such a tool. -- BaZ 14:27, 14 March 2006 (EST)

There were a number of issues, especially economic ones, that were part of the reason for Southern secession, but slavery was the key issue. It's highly doubtful that any other one would have led to secession. The reason is that slavery was a moral issue and passions ran deep on both sides. Granted, its defenders claimed its necessity as a "peculiar institution" for the South, but this was pure propaganda. They knew that slavery was morally wrong. They knew that they could hardly defend its institution, even from a biblical point of view, because it was race-based from the start. That is why they struggled to come up with reasons to justify it--cultural, historical, and economical. However, those arguments proved false, in reality. "King Cotton" vs. "King Wheat" did not inflame the passions like slavery did.

Maybe it was just a tantrum thrown by the Southern Democrats for losing power in the Federal government "after decades of nearly continuous control of the presidency and the Congress." Ruby 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

is slavery really the cause for the civil war, or just the main motivator. i think the main cause was the issue whether or not it was constitutional to secede. slavery, however odious and reprehensible it is, was just the underlying issue. lincoln surely had strong feelings about slavery, but he wouldn't have fought a war over it alone. he fought a war to keep the nation together. lincoln never would have gone to war over slavery had the south not seceded. i think the section is pretty good as is. Tenunda 06:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that a single cause can be identified for the civil war. Several important ones were, of course, slavery, but also sectionalism, the breakdown of compromise, and disagreements over states' rights. It is simply not true that "slavery was the key issue". Bobburito 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

the main reasson was just federalism. Thats all. As in many wars, the excuse here was slavery (theres always a public reasson for going to war, surprisingly the REAL reasson is often very trivial, in WW1, it was to end all ongoing wars and because everyone, for some reasson, had a romantic view on war. On the independence of America, it was because taxes went up, because of England's war with france). Always, no matter where, Federalism will always turn into a civil war, its very hard to unite a large country and to do so federalism takes place. There were economical reassons, hatred here and there, but they all trace back to the fact that it was a big country united by federalism. Of all reassons, the one that is the least true was slavery.

Why does the article say "... total gross foreign liabilities of over $12,000,000 million as of 2004"? Why not say $12 trillion? Why do other debt "clocks" on the Internet report something above only $8 trillion?

Oh, maybe because we can't just put anything we want, we have cite sources, and use a NPOV.-- Dp462090 01:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The little section on human rights is much too vague. I agree that it should be short and refer to another article; however, it should state that most of these criticisms have been over the War on Terror. It also needs to be a bit more concrete. For example, to what does the following passage refer? ". . . as well as some restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press . . ." Joey1898 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on that it was vague; concerns of human rights in US is a major issue internationally and the debate is currently represented neutrally. For "...as well as some restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press...", see the references to American Civil Liberties Union and Reporters without borders criticm about questions such as white house control of major media outlets or journalists punished for refusing to reveal sources. The section would be vague if it was too long, so I think we shouldn't include detailed criticism. I agree that War on Terror should be represented as the US pov for balanced discussion. Klaam 10:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should replace the little section on human rights with the first paragraph of its "main article":

While the human rights record of the United States of America has featured a strong avowed commitment to the protection of specific personal political, religious and other freedoms, it has also had a long history of legally-sanctioned slavery, and both de jure and de facto racial and ethnic- religious discrimination, and occasional violation of those freedoms, particularly in times of " national security" crisis. In the early 21st century, most notably following September 11 and the ensuing War on Terror, invasions of privacy, intrusive inspections, and questionable detentions under the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as allegations of torture at prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay represent predominant issues.

Bobburito 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I put this, but somebody deleted it:

• The United States presently recieves some criticism from an assortment of NGOs, interest groups and mass medias; often as much from left-leaning friendly administrations opposed to the George W. Bush administration, as from hostile countries or movements and organisations with which the United States are engaged in conflict with. This negative publicity concerns allegations in an array of "illegal" lengthy detentions without trials, forced confessions, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, as well as some restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as being violations of human rights. There has been a history of culture wars dating back to the Cold War, which is extensively intertwined in political activism and often obfuscates the socially objective issues at hand in regards to fundamental human rights.

I believe mine to be more neutral. 68.110.9.62 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the criticm has anything to do with left-wing or right-wing politics, and definitely nothing to with the president, engagement in conflicts or culture wars (unless we are talking about anti-Western rage in middle-East and elsewhere - that doesn't belong to this section; the section now discusses the Western debate, which has significant influence). Critizing entities (such as Supreme Court of the United States, American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, etc.) are generally politically neutral, and on the other hand, members from the both ends of domestic political spectrum have engaged in criticism. Someone had vandalized the section and it's now reverted to the version prior to the above changes. Somebody should add the official U.S. federal government pov into the section. Klaam 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the edit "allegations of", because it's already clear to the reader, that the statement represents just a one pov. And on other hand, of most issues, there are cases which are recognized by all parties, i.e. all povs are consistent that five-year detentions without trial are "lengthy" or that government charging journalist is a restriction of free press; the debate is more about whether these are bad or good. Klaam 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See, I don;t think that any of that is clear at all. You might (I disagree however) be right that we can all (unlikely) agree that 5 years is lengthy but the otehr allegations. There is nothign damaging about having 'allegations" and it makes it more NPOV. PLease stop blindly reverting. Gator (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for participating in the discussion about the article.

The problem with using word "allegations" (twice) is that it makes the issues sound uncertain - in realitity, the article can fairly assume that they have happened and include possible conspiracy theories in separate context. In details: detentions over 5 year are unsual by any standards, well documented cases like Abu Ghraib scandal are universally recognized to have happened and sanction cases such as Judith Miller have been well-reported in public and can be by any logics recognized as "restrictions". So I believe putting "allegations of" in the proposed form is like NPOVing George Washington with "is claimed to be the first president of the United States". Klaam 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It currently reads (between the lines):

____________

In the early 21st century, most notably following September 11 attacks and the ensuing War on Terror, invasions of privacy, intrusive inspections, and questionable detentions under the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as use of torture, lengthy detentions without trial and forced confessions at prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay represent widely debated issues.

In recent years the government has enforced restrictions and governmental control to the mass media. Dozens of journalists have been charged for refusing to reveal their sources. Foreign journalists are sometimes denied access to the country, or enforced other penalties. Major domestic media outlets have been threatened with de facto sanctions if they refuse to censor or delay revealing of some sensitive political issues.

Many prominient domestic and international NGOs, as well as Western governments and the Supreme Court of the United States, have critized the federal government actions, often considering them as declines in human rights.

____________

The first sentence says that there's been a significant number of illegal invasions of privacy througout the early 21st century (significant enough to be included in an article like this). I don't think that's true. Do you know of any at all? I think the so-called invasions of privacy that are related to recent events are legal. It should be reworded.

The first sentence of the second paragraph makes it sound like every news broadcast is scripted by the government. It's much too biased.

Third paragraph: I don't like the word "many." How many? Also, something more familiar than "NGOs" should be used, or it should at least be spelled out. -Barry- 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the "Foreign relations and military" part of the article, and found absolutely no mention of Canada, apart for a mention of the Iraq war. Seeing that Canada is the US' most important diplomatic and economic partner, not to forget a very important military partner too, an edit is required. Since it's the middle of the night and my head hurts, I won't be doing it right now, but if it's not been done when I return, I'll take care of it. Dali 04:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that the U.S. and Canada have the longest unprotected border in the world. Tennis Dynamite 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea if on the article refrenced how americans evolved the language. Examples being color being spelled without a u "colour" or the use of Z instead of S. If someone could clarify and section this i would find it usefull.

That would rightly fall under American English. -- Golbez 21:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine you'd find it "usefull" [sic], seeing as you can't even spell that word, which isn't even spelled that way by the english. Sorry for being so snide, but i can't help it. Bobburito 02:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

'Evolved' makes it sound like the US has improved on the English Language, this would be POV as most English people would suggest that the US has destroyed the English language! -- Murphyweb 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily... one thing can evolve differently in two different places (English in both the US and UK), but that does not necessarily mean one is better than the other... in fact, biologically, it would most likely mean that each thing has adapted as best as possible relative to where it is (and of course limited by time restrictions) // MrD9 07:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that straight-forward. American English has retained a number of spellings and usages that English English hasn't. 'Z' instead of 'S' is a case in point, as is the English English contraction of 'gotten' to 'got'. Countersubject 13:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the use of the template back to Template:Infobox Country. As an American, I understand the comfort seeing things in local units brings, but it belongs in the footnotes; the whole point of the template is so that we don't have tons of seperate templates that all must be updated. That's the beauty of the MediaWiki software. Word the footnotes anyway you like, but please use this template.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The US did not clearly BEGIN as a "Democratic Republic" - many editors of this article deny it is one today (repeatedly removing any assertion that democracy is now entrenched). A suggestion has been made that "voting was commonly restricted to white men who owned land" belongs in another section. If such does not belong in a section on suffrage (& its history) then where? The clause changes the meaning of the old sentence - but is entirely consistent with the meaning of the paragraph & section. The clauses it replaces were drawing parallels and relationships to "Roman Republic" and "parliament" without explanation or even context. While the federal constitution did not restrict voting (except that Senators were not directly voted for, nor judges), state constitutions did - perhaps that could be added too -- JimWae 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are fighting with semantics here. Democratic Republic is a redundant term anyway, presumably meant to emphasize that some aspects of the legislation in fact handled by direct votes. I also assume the reference to the Roman Republic refers to the American "electorate", exactly the same point you were making regarding white male voters, only in not such an inflammatory way. In any event, applying modern sensibilities to history is unencyclopedic. keith 07:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In total area (which includes inland water and land), only Russia and Canada are larger than the United States; if inland water is excluded, China ranks second, the U.S. ranks third, and Canada ranks fourth. The United States' total area is 3,718,711 square miles (9,631,418 km²), of which land makes up 3,537,438 square miles (9,161,923 km²) and water makes up 181,273 square miles (469,495 km²).

I remember being taught in school that Canada is larger than the U.S. or China no matter how you take the measurements.

i agree with the canada being larger than the US part MichaelHa 02:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The figures are quite explicit – Canada is larger than the US in total area, but not in land area. Please cite sources indicating otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To make it clear for anyone who has doubts again; all figures from CIA World Fact Book as of 17 March 2006; top five countries by area:

Total Area:

1. Russia: 17,075,200 sq km (includes 79,400 sq km of water)

2. Canada: 9,984,670 sq km (includes 891,163 sq km of water)

3. United States: 9,631,418 sq km (includes 469,495 sq km of water) ("includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia")

4. China: 9,596,960 sq km (includes 270,550 sq km of water)

5. Brazil: 8,511,965 sq km ("includes 55,455 sq km of water) (includes Arquipelago de Fernando de Noronha, Atol das Rocas, Ilha da Trindade, Ilhas Martin Vaz, and Penedos de Sao Pedro e Sao Paulo")

By Land Area Alone:

1. Russia: 16,995,800 sq km

2. China: 9,326,410 sq km

3. United States: 9,161,923 sq km ("includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia")

4. Canada: 9,093,507 sq km

5. Brazil: 8,456,510 sq km ("includes Arquipelago de Fernando de Noronha, Atol das Rocas, Ilha da Trindade, Ilhas Martin Vaz, and Penedos de Sao Pedro e Sao Paulo")

President Lethe 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why use a number that the US made up and no international body recognizes at all? 9,363,520 is the real number, this is not a "land only" number either. Laomei 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

He provided a source; it's your turn. -- Golbez 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all: my point was the ranking, not the exact numbers—but, in order to support the ranking, I had to show a ranking of numbers. Sorry if my intention wasn't clear.

Second: all measurements of countries' area, whether including certain bodies of water or not, are "made up", because some human beings or group of human beings decides how to perform the measurement and what limits to confine it to.

When we compare the total area of China and of Canada, we find that a greater part of Canada's area is water. Still, a country's inland water is an important part of its geography and area. This is why rankings often include water, not just land.

Let us consider some sources other than just the CIA World Fact Book. These numbers show that not every source matches all the others; yet, the overall ranking of the top five remains consistent in most sources:

Infoplease.com, ranking the countries by land area alone, has these as the top five: 1, Russia (16,995,800 sq km); 2, China (9,326,411 sq km); 3, United States (9,161,923 sq km); 4, Canada (9,093,507 sq km); and, 5, Brazil (8,456,511 sq km).

Infoplease.com, ranking the countries by total area, has these as the top five: 1, Russia (17,075,200 sq km); 2, Canada (9,984,670 sq km); 3, United States (9,631,418 sq km); 4, China (9,596,960 sq km); and, 5, Brazil (8,511,965 sq km).

BBC News country profiles give these as the top five: 1, Russia (17 million sq km); 2, Canada (9.9 million sq km); 3, United States (9.8 million sq km); 4, China (9.6 million sq km); and, 5, Brazil (8.55 million sq km).

MSN Encarta encyclopedia online gives this ranking, counting total area: 1, Russia (17,075,200 sq km); 2, Canada (9,984,670 sq km); 3, United States (9,826,630 sq km); 4, China (9,571,300 sq km); 5, Brazil (8,547,404 sq km).

The Russian embassy to United States gives Russia's area as 17,075,200 sq km. A Canadian government commission, the Canadian Tourism Commission, gives Canada's area as 9,976,000 sq km. I'll use the CIA World Fact Book's figure of the total area of the U.S., which is 9,631,418. The closest thing I could find to China's official English-language declaration of its size was at China.org.cn, which gave the area as 9.6 million sq km. The Brazilian embassy to the United States gives Brazil's area in square miles, a figure that can be converted to 8,511,918 sq km. In this case, when each country provided its own total-area figure for itself, the ranking was Russia, Canada, United States, China, Brazil.

In the case of Russia, there was complete agreement (17,075,200 sq km) among the CIA World Fact Book, Encarta, the Russian Embassy to the United States, and Infoplease.com. The BBC says 17 million sq km.

In the case of Canada, the American sources (CIA World Fact Book, Infoplease.com, and Encarta) gave a figure (9,984,670 sq km) somewhat bigger than that of the Canadian Embassy to the U.S. (9,976,000 sq km). The BBC says 9.9 million sq km.

In the case of the United States, the CIA World Fact Book and Infoplease.com agree (9,631,418 sq km); MSN gives 9,826,630 sq km. The BBC says 9.8 million sq km.

In the case of China, the CIA World Fact Book and Infoplease.com agree (9,596,960 sq km), and Encarta gives 9,571,300 sq km. China.org.cn and the BBC say 9.6 million.

In the case of Brazil, the CIA World Fact Book and Infoplease.com agree (8,511,965 sq km), Encarta gives a bigger figure (8,547,404 sq km), and the Brazilian embassy to the U.S. gives the smallest figure (8,511,918 sq km). The BBC says 8.55 million sq km.

"9,363,520 is the real number, this is not a 'land only' number either." This is the "real" number for which country?

Which international body's figures would you like us to use? Please, tell us the body and the figures and tell us which source to consult so that we can verify that those sources do give those figures.

Encyclopædia Britannica gives this ranking of total area: 1, Russia (17,075,400 sq km); 2, Canada (9,984,670 sq km); 3, China (9,572,900 square km); 4, United States (9,529,063 sq km); and, 5, Brazil (8,514,877 sq km).

Other than Britannica, the only websites that I have seen in my search today that say that China is the third-largest country by total area are Chinese websites. However, I'm not saying that my search was perfect or thorough.

An encyclopedia shouldn't cite itself—but the English-language Wikipedia article on China also gives its area rank in the world as "4th".

These are various sources' areas for the United States, gathered today (17 March 2006) in descending order: Encarta, 9,826,630 sq km; BBC, 9.8 million sq km; CIA World Fact Book and Infoplease.com, 9,631,418 sq km; Encyclopædia Britannica, 9,529,063 sq km; Laomei (Wikipedia contributor), 9,363,520 sq km (for the U.S.?).

President Lethe 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • It's possible that some US sources did not include the island of Taiwan as Chinese territory. Encyclopædia Britannica is a much stronger source than Encarta, Infoplease, et al; it is also more independent than the CIA World Factbook. If you are going to deny the legitimacy of Chinese govermental sources, than you should do the same for American governmental sources. Nishishei 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Good point about Taiwan. We should check on that.

2. On what is your claim of Britannia's superiority based? I'm not disputing it, just asking about it. Around December 2005, the journal Nature reported on a study comparing Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica; it said that reviewers "found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively." I love Britannica, but am perfectly willing to admit that it contains errors—and that it is as subject to the same "made up"-ness about country size as any other source is.

3. I don't deny the legitimacy of the Chinese government sources any more or less than I deny the legitimacy of other sources; I simply point out which sources (and these are only a few of the zillions of sources available) agree and disagree about the ranking. Of course, there is also the issue that some sources simply get their information from other sources.

4. Anyone else want to chime in?

My posting on March 17 included this paragraph:

The Russian embassy to United States gives Russia's area as 17,075,200 sq km. A Canadian government commission, the Canadian Tourism Commission, gives Canada's area as 9,976,000 sq km. I'll use the CIA World Fact Book's figure of the total area of the U.S., which is 9,631,418. The closest thing I could find to China's official English-language declaration of its size was at China.org.cn, which gave the area as 9.6 million sq km. The Brazilian embassy to the United States gives Brazil's area in square miles, a figure that can be converted to 8,511,918 sq km. In this case, when each country provided its own total-area figure for itself, the ranking was Russia, Canada, United States, China, Brazil.

That paragraph summarizes my attempt to get each country's own declaration of its size—simply its size, not its ranking in comparison to other countries' sizes. As I said in March, "when each country provided its own total-area figure for itself, the ranking was Russia, Canada, United States, China, Brazil." I might add that a review of my March 17 posting also reveals that some of those top five countries actually listed themselves as smaller than the CIA listed them: the CIA says Brazil is bigger than the Brazilian embassy to the U.S. says Brazil is; the CIA says Canada is bigger than the Canadian Tourism Commission says Canada is.

I would be curious to know the exact sizes assigned to these countries by each of these countries. In other words, how big does the Chinese say each of the five countries is, how big does Canada say each of the five countries is, etc.?

President Lethe 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote from the CIA World Factbook; one or more of these territorial disputes may be affecting the different measures of China's area (which, in turn, affects China's ranking as the 3rd or 4th largest country, which, in turn, affects what this article says about the United States' ranking as the 3rd or 4th largest country):

in 2005, China and India initiated drafting principles to resolve all aspects of their extensive boundary and territorial disputes together with a security and foreign policy dialogue to consolidate discussions related to the boundary, regional nuclear proliferation, and other matters; recent talks and confidence-building measures have begun to defuse tensions over Kashmir, site of the world's largest and most militarized territorial dispute with portions under the de facto administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir), and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas); India does not recognize Pakistan's ceding historic Kashmir lands to China in 1964; about 90,000 ethnic Tibetan exiles reside primarily in India as well as Nepal and Bhutan; China asserts sovereignty over the Spratly Islands together with Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and possibly Brunei; the 2002 "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea" has eased tensions in the Spratlys but is not the legally binding "code of conduct" sought by some parties; Vietnam and China continue to expand construction of facilities in the Spratlys and in March 2005, the national oil companies of China, the Philippines, and Vietnam signed a joint accord on marine seismic activities in the Spratly Islands; China occupies some of the Paracel Islands also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan; China and Taiwan have become more vocal in rejecting both Japan's claims to the uninhabited islands of Senkaku-shoto (Diaoyu Tai) and Japan's unilaterally declared equidistance line in the East China Sea, the site of intensive hydrocarbon prospecting; certain islands in the Yalu and Tumen rivers are in an uncontested dispute with North Korea and a section of boundary around Mount Paektu is considered indefinite; China seeks to stem illegal migration of tens of thousands of North Koreans; China and Russia prepare to demarcate the boundary agreed to in October 2004 between the long-disputed islands at the Amur and Ussuri; demarcation of the China-Vietnam boundary proceeds slowly and although the maritime boundary delimitation and fisheries agreements were ratified in June 2004, implementation has been delayed; environmentalists in Burma and Thailand remain concerned about China's construction of hydroelectric dams upstream on the Nujiang/Salween River in Yunnan Province

Other parts of the article make it unclear to me whether Taiwan was included in the CIA's measurement. One part seems to include Taiwan as the 23rd province; another lists Taiwan as a trading partner (seemingly separate from China).

Wikipedia's own List of countries by area also discusses the disputed ranking.

President Lethe 02:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

US' GDP BY PPP IS ESTIMATED AT 13.1 TRILLION DOLLARS , IFM SEPT 2005 WORLD ECONOMIC DATABASE. International Monetary Fund THE UNITED STATES WILL HAVE THE 2ND LARGEST GDP PPP PER CAPITA IN THE WORLD ACCORDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THAT SAME REPORT.

This article is often vandalised, ie: 138.88.36.84 claimg that the US has killed more people than Hitlers 30 million & Stalins 50 million, if we have absurd claims like this from people who failed maths in the 4th grade & cant spell, I think this one needs to be made so editing can only take place on request, does anyone else agree? ( Khan 03:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

• No, there are a 1000 people that have this page on their watch lists. Anytime it is vandalized or nonsense or unsubstantiated drivel is added it is changed back within a matter of seconds. There are still alot of future wikipedians that could make some great additions to this article. No need to turn them off immediately because they cannot access the pages they want to edit.-- Looper5920 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats great! If 1000 people police it then there should be no need to do what I have stated. America has enough problems without people of dubious mental abilities just making things up. ( Khan 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

• Happens to hundreds of pages on the wikipedia all of the time. Just part of having an open encyclopedia. Revert it, block vandal if necessary and move on-- Looper5920 03:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually its probably more frustrating for the vandal going to the effort of writing what they write then being barred & their edit being removed so quickly.( Khan 03:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps it would be best to start a criticism section, where users can include justified additions...
Please comment. Shane 11:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am quite sure that English is the official language of the US at a federal level, everything I have read indicates this to be true, does anyone have any issues if i change this?( Khan 10:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunately, you're being quite sure doesn't make you correct. The U.S. has no official language. - Nunh-huh 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well im only sure because Ive read it, I didnt just make it up, can you provide a link? ( Khan 10:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

The US does not have an official language. It has been debated over the years and politicians have threatened to raise bills to make it that way but that has never happened. Some states have enacted legislation declaring an official language but the federal gov't has not.-- Looper5920 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On re-reading I seem to have missed the "un" in official language, sorry. My bad ( Khan 11:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

the first government seriously considered making the official language German due to a general distaste of anything English at the time, but also due to an influx of immigrants from German speaking countries as well, suprisingly the German speakers were less enthusiastic than the Irish Americans, who saw it as an attempt to insult the British Empire. The measure died in Congress where it lost by just one vote, but was adopted by the state of Illinois (where English was quietly rehabilitated in 1969).

How is this POV/& or badly written?( Khan 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

It's certainly badly written, I'm afraid. 'surprisingly' is POV, and the whole thing needs sourcing. Mark ^{your words} 14:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

yes this version is actually badly written but this how I copied it off the net before I edited it. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/question.htm ( Khan 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

This version doesn't seem to actually appear at that URL: in fact that page debunks the German myth. - Nunh-huh 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, in addition to being POV and poorly weritten it's also a potential copyright vio. The current version is fine and the ability to take a little criticism of your writing is necessary here. No big deal. Gator (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Yes, but it least it was not poorly written by me, how many sentences qualify as copyright violation?( Khan 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

If you use that link asa source and signifcantly change the wording, I would not be opposed to something NPOV and short being added. Gator (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be opposed to it, because it is not true. German was never contemplated as an "official language"of the United States, and the imputed motive of insulting the British Empire is imagined, as is its attribution to "Irish Americans". There was never such a bill, there was never such a vote: the only proposal remotely corresponding to this was a petition by German immigrants that certain federal laws be translated into German and printed in 1795. Search for "urban legend German language official United States"; you'll find plenty of sites, such as [6]. Similarly, the "one vote" claim is false. [7] - Nunh-huh 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

--Nunh-huh is right, I believe the only language ever considered in place of English for the U.S.'s official language was French. If I remember correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin who proposed the idea but quickly dropped it. -- Jleon 15:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with all of the above criticism. User Khan badly needs remedial courses in English writing, critical thinking, and basic research skills (most scholars use professional databases like LexisNexis and ProQuest). Wikipedia is not a rumor mill and should not be republishing old urban legends that have been repeatedly disproved. -- Coolcaesar 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already stated I copied it & was about to edit it when it was removed so "User Khan badly needs remedial courses in English writing, critical thinking, and basic research skills" is a void comment as i was not the author. Unless someone here is immortal, none of us were alive around the time of the founding fathers when the language debate was alive, most of what I have read seems to indicate that German was considered as an official language at one time and it was mainly because there was a massive influx of German speakers in the early 19th century. We can only base our opinions on what we read, I have never heard of Ben Franklin suggesting French should be an official language(thats not to say it is not true), but have heard plenty re the German language scenario. How do you know the one vote claim is false? And how does this story classify as a "rumor" & an "old urban legend"? I am only basing this on what I have read, I am happy to be proven wrong, but I would like an actual link or something that backs up what has been stated, that it is just a rumor & an old urban legend.( Khan 00:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

This is getting nowhere. He offered links, and the links offer sources and other materials. Click them. -- Golbez 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that criticism seemed rather harsh. But to hopefully add something to the discussion, the US govt is very transparent and you can find primary sources for just about anything on govt pages over the internet. There was a big patriotic push for English about 20 years ago. I think now the group is called called "U.S. English", and bills keep getting proposed but ultimately go nowhere (I suspect both parties are more interested in the hispanic vote these days). keith 01:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh OK, those links didnt work before, but they did this time. Im convinced! The link seems quite plausible.( Khan 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Wow — WOW. Khan TOTALLY missed the point. I was NOT criticizing Khan as the author of that text, I'm criticizing Khan's inability to understand why that text is not appropriate for Wikipedia. So it's not a void comment. Two different things. Not that hard.

To restate my point, most Web pages are not reliable sources; one has to distinguish between the average individual's Web page and pages offered from reliable sources like government agencies, museums, libraries, and private databases like LexisNexis and ProQuest. The latter are slightly more reliable in that they are produced by bureaucracies where there is some sort of editing function going on (at least one or more other people are reviewing the text), while the former are inherently unreliable because in the case of most personal Web pages there is no professional editing before publication. This is all very basic stuff taught in high school, of course. -- Coolcaesar 17:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow — WOW. When I get to High School I will try to remember that, LexisNexis and ProQuest seem quite good I will use them in future thanks for the tip. :) ( Khan 12:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

This is actually one of the great things about Wikipedia, I had always thought the German language scenario mentioned above was fact & because most Americans would not know and/or care about this, the people I have told did not question it & now I have been educated on the matter. Stupidly, I realise now that the first time I heard this urban legend was from my cousins in Germany. And they would love to think such a thing was true.( Khanada 07:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

I made some edits to the Government section, particularily Republic and Sufferage, because I felt it assumed prior knowledge of the American government (what is the House of Representatives, for example? The article dosen't cover it until the "Legislative branch", below). Fact wise, I only added that the US Senate votes two-third majority to impeach the President, and I think the President actually can introduce his own legislation to Congress - US Constitution, Article 2, Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..." I'm not entirely sure if this means he can introduce legislation, per se, but how else does he deliver the annual budget? 155.143.212.168 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, can somebody revert the vandalism of this bastard?

The article says: "It should be noted that the United States is one of the few industrialized countries to not provide a free university education to its citizenry." is that actually true? I know it's not true for Canada and Britain, and I always thought free university was the exception rather than the norm in the first world in general. Does anyone know more? TastyCakes 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia used to - now it's just subsidised. I'm pretty sure most of the Scandinavian countries do though. "Few industrialised countries" is probably an overstatement TMac 00:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This article refers to Indigenous Americans as "Native American". As quoted directly from Wikipedias own definition of " Native": "When used as a noun to refer to a member of an indigenous ethnic group, it sometimes carries pejorative connotations." We all know that the United States of America was founded on land stolen from Indigenous people and prosperity garnered through repression of non-Anglo humans, but are we still living by these flawed ideologies of old? I certainly hope not. I am changing the ten or so words that still utilize this terminology to better reflect fact and increase the words descriptiveness. -- VinnyCee 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't. Indigenous American is not a recognized term. Native American is. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Native American is the proper, recognized term. You can even ask a Native American, and they will tell you that they are proud to be Native American. I have never heard this term indigenous used for the native people of this country.-- Adam ^{( talk)} 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You are currently typing with an Indigenous American. I (along with all other Indigneous peoples that I have known or ever conversated with) consider the term "Native American" to be inaccurate, undescriptive, and in most cases, slander. Are you contesting the definition of the term " Native"? If so, double-check the Wikipedia article describing it's proper usage. -- VinnyCee 04:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • What tribe are you? I've never heard anyone I know feel that "Native" is inaccurate. I'm an Alaska Native of Kwigillingok, not an "Indigenous American". the iBook of the Revolution 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• It is not Wikipedia's job to promote a new term. "Indigenous American" is certainly a new term. Our options are "Native American" and "American Indian". Pick one. -- Golbez 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This term is by no means new. In fact, Indigenous Americans has it's own Wikipedia article. In addition, the terms you are proposing as "the only choices" are out-dated and pejorative. Again, the term " Native" used to describe an Indigenous person, or people, is slanderous and libelous. Do you people seriously consider leaving such a term in the Wikipedia definition of The United States of America as more productive or more concise? -- VinnyCee 04:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say use "Native". I said you had a choice that did not include "Indigenous". -- Golbez 05:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

VinnyCee created Indigenous Americans less than two hours ago. Dcandeto 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Potentially visit/read Native American name controversy (I have no time at the moment to nor wish to become involved in this argument because I do not feel I have the right to comment on this issue... but this may/hopefully will help.) // MrD9 04:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I remember when Native American was introduced because American Indian was the common term and that was considered offensive and "westernist." I find it ironic that the PC term Native American is now controversial. We have seen the same thing with Negro then Colored (as in NAACP) then Black the African American. Be that as it may, Wikipedia should not be using the words colored or negro. If "scholars" consider Native American to now be offensive then let's to a search and replace and use Indigenous American. Or let's go one step further and name the article something like Tribes and cultures that lived in North America prior to 1492. MPS 06:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Tribes? "Tribal" can also have negative, primitive connotations! And how dare you use the imperialist European name for the continent! ;) ahh the glory of being politically correct. -- Golbez 07:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither Native American nor American Indian are incorrect. American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian is the most complete and version to use. It's easily shortened to American Indian. The problem here is that to be utterly correct, one wouldn't lump all 563 tribes into one group, but would instead refer to people under their tribal names (Choctaw, Wampanoag, Ajumawi, Kwigillingok, etc.). Native American tribes is fine and convenient. Tenunda 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The box on the right has a link to Flag of United States. I can't find how to fix it. Georgia guy 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This can't be easily fixed as long as the page uses this infobox template, which just uses Flag of Countryname, which is correct for most countries. Since the link goes to the right page through the redirect, I don't see this as such a big problem, though. Kusma (討論) 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, K. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone fixed it, by changing "commonname" to "the United States". -- Golbez 02:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I inserted the words "alegations" into the following pargraph and was blindly reverted: "The United States is often under criticism from Western NGOs, and intermittently governments, concerning allegations of lengthy detention without trial, forced confessions, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, as well as some allegations of restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press, as being violations of human rights."

The way it read before presumed that these things were occuring and there is a great deal of debate about this (as we all know), so they are just allegations. I think my version was more NPOV (I personally don;t favor it being in at all, but am willing to compromise and promote consensus)and shouldn't be blindly reverted, but should be discussed. Thoughts? Gator (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Barry. Much better and NPOV. Gator (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reply written under the earlier topic:

The problem with using word "allegations" (twice) is that it makes the issues sound uncertain - in realitity, the article can fairly assume that they have happened and include possible conspiracy theories in separate context. In details: detentions over 5 year are unsual by any standards, well documented cases like Abu Ghraib scandal are universally recognized to have happened and sanction cases such as Judith Miller have been well-reported in public and can be by any logics recognized as "restrictions". So I believe putting "allegations of" in the proposed form is like NPOVing George Washington with "is claimed to be the first president of the United States".

What comes to Barry's edit: the debate is not exclusively related to terrorists or Iraq. Klaam 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the section so please comment it. Klaam 23:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing a lot of allegations with a few facts and claiming you can call the whole lot factual. I don't think this level of detail about isolated and very recent complaints is appropriate for this broad article. It reads like a pov-pushing attempt to smear the present administration and the revert-warring thus far should have clued you in to that. I'm adding the npov warning. keith 02:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Anyway, the section takes way too much space relative to it's importance to the reader. I believe the previous version , which just introduced the debate briefly, was better. Klaam 09:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is certainly is way too long and doesn't even have counter-arguments yet. And I don't see how you have addressed the problem with stating allegations as facts. For example "reports of torture are common". come on... keith 14:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed a bunch of stuff, but disregard my comment about footnotes. I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Footnotes and I think it's better to be more specific with regular text (regarding foreign journalists being banned from the U.S.) than use a footnote. Or to place a reference at the bottom of the article, if it's easy enough to tell what information from the article relates to the reference. -Barry- 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This section likely needs to be removed or cut way down and put as a one or two sentence part of another section, leading the reader to the overall article. For now, I have cut it down considerably and left it where it is. It was semi-ridiculous citing individual cases and the like on this page... that level of detail needs to be reserved for the main article about the subject. This page is already too long. Uris 17:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the evidence for Norse settlement before Columbus was pretty strong. Did I imagine it or does anyone have some solid facts to support this idea ? Springald 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the only confirmed site of Norse settlement is to be found at L'Anse aux Meadows near the northernmost tip of Newfoundland. The Wikipedia articles for "L'Anse aux Meadows" and "Newfoundland" confirm this. Sorry for the lack of direct links, I'm really just a curious bystander, not a contributer.

Why are there two sections about language? One is a sub-section under Demographics and the other is its own section. It seems odd. Can't they be merged? MJCdetroit 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should just remove one of them yourself. Georgia guy 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On another language point, doesn't the idea of a de facto official language seem like an oxymoron? keith 14:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this, but why isn't it fixed yet? ;) -- JohnDBuell 17:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• If this is an encyclopedia I feel empirical linguistic accuracy, rather than modern shorthand should be employed. The United States of America reflects and coincides with U.S.A. national and historical documents. This article is posted on the internet, a global medium and should heed all diplomatic and international formalities, be you a citizen of the U.S.A., Brasil, China or Nigeria rather than relying solely on a nation's contemporary reputation. The world is approaching globalization and the internet should reflect that.

138.243.201.4 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC) / Aminatam 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• You might want to check out the rather lengthy discussion of this issue above. Sdpurdy 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• But do we really need to list "U.S. of A." as an option in the introduction? It is very colloquial looking, very unprofessional looking. -- Fastfission 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And some people call it that. Wikipedia does not dictate what other people say. It presents that information. bob rulz 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Bob rulz. Although I personally consider U.S. of A. to be a very informal usage (and rarely use it myself), it is regularly used in American English slang and therefore should be mentioned. -- Coolcaesar 01:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Any Issues with my putting the foot note back in ? Bo 20:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that you don't. First, it does not look right in the footnote section. The superscript in the figures really makes it look odd. Secondly, nobody in the U.S. can really relate to metric measurements. It is best this way— a good compromise for everyone. MJCdetroit 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

* 27,000 Americans commit suicide.
* 5,000 attempt suicide; some estimates are higher.
* 26,000 die from fatal accidents in the home.
* 23,000 are murdered.
* 85,000 are wounded by firearms.
* 38,000 of these die, including 2,600 children.
* 13,000,000 are victims of crimes including assault, rape, armed robbery, burglary, larceny, and arson.
* 135,000 children take guns to school.
* 5,500,000 people are arrested for all offenses (not including traffic violations).
* 125,000 die prematurely of alcohol abuse.
* 473,000 die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses; 53,000 of these are nonsmokers.
* 6,500,000 use heroin, crack, speed, PCP, cocaine or some other hard drug on a regular basis.
* 5,000+ die from illicit drug use. Thousands suffer serious debilitations.
* 1,000+ die from sniffing household substances found under the kitchen sink. About 20 percent of all eighth-graders have "huffed" toxic substances. Thousands suffer permanent neurological damage.
* 31,450,000 use marijuana; 3,000,000 of whom are heavy usuers.
* 37,000,000, or one out of every six Americans, regularly use emotion controlling medical drugs. The users are mostly women. The pushers are doctors; the suppliers are pharmaceutical companies; the profits are stupendous.
* 2,000,000 nonhospitalized persons are given powerful mind-control drugs, sometimes described as "chemical straitjackets."
* 5,000 die from psychoactive drug treatments.
* 200,000 are subjected to electric shock treatments that are injurious to the brain and nervous system.
* 600 to 1,000 are lobotomized, mostly women.
* 25,000,000, or one out of every 10 Americans, seek help from psychiatric, psychotherapeutic, or medical sources for mental and emotional problems, at a cost of over $4 billion annually.
* 6,800,000 turn to nonmedical services, such as ministers, welfare agencies, and social counselors for help with emotional troubles. In all, some 80,000,000 have sought some kind of psychological counseling in their lifetimes.
* 1,300,000 suffer some kind of injury related to treatment at hospitals.
* 2,000,000 undergo unnecessary surgical operations; 10,000 of whom die from the surgery.
* 180,000 die from adverse reactions to all medical treatments, more than are killed by airline and automobile accidents combined.
* 14,000+ die from overdoses of legal prescription drugs.
* 45,000 are killed in auto accidents. Yet more cars and highways are being built while funding for safer forms of mass transportation is reduced.
* 1,800,000 sustain nonfatal injuries from auto accidents; but 150,000 of these auto injury victims suffer permanent impairments.
* 126,000 children are born with a major birth defect, mostly due to insufficient prenatal care, nutritional deficiency, environmental toxicity, or maternal drug addiction.
* 2,900,000 children are reportedly subjected to serious neglect or abuse, including physical torture and deliberate starvation.
* 5,000 children are killed by parents or grandparents.
* 30,000 or more children are left permanently physically disabled from abuse and neglect. Child abuse in the United States afflicts more children each year than leukemia, automobile accidents, and infectious diseases combined. With growing unemployment, incidents of abuse by jobless parents is increasing dramatically.
* 1,000,000 children run away from home, mostly because of abusive treatment, including sexual abuse, from parents and other adults. Of the many sexually abused children among runaways, 83 percent come from white families.
* 150,000 children are reported missing.
* 50,000 of these simply vanish. Their ages range from one year to mid-teens. According to the New York Times, "Some of these are dead, perhaps half of the John and Jane Does annually buried in this country are unidentified kids."
* 900,000 children, some as young as seven years old, are engaged in child labor in the United States, serving as underpaid farm hands, dishwashers, laundry workers, and domestics for as long as ten hours a day in violation of child labor laws.
* 2,000,000 to 4,000,00 women are battered. Domestic violence is the single largest cause of injury and second largest cause of death to U.S. women.
* 700,000 women are raped, one every 45 seconds.
* 5,000,000 workers are injured on the job; 150,000 of whom suffer permanent work-related disabilities, including maiming, paralysis, impaired vision, damaged hearing, and sterility.
* 100,000 become seriously ill from work-related diseases, including black lung, brown lung, cancer, and tuberculosis.
* 14,000 are killed on the job; about 90 percent are men.
* 100,000 die prematurely from work-related diseases.
* 60,000 are killed by toxic environmental pollutants or contaminants in food, water, or air.
* 4,000 die from eating contaminated meat.
* 20,000 others suffer from poisoning by E.coli 0157-H7, the mutant bacteria found in contaminated meat that generally leads to lifelong physical and mental health problems. A more thorough meat inspection with new technologies could eliminate most instances of contamination--so would vegetarianism.

Yours, sincerely, 82.120.215.112 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere. -- Golbez 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Are these statistics found on other countries' pages? No? Then I concur with Golbez. Also, raw figures look bad, it's true. (100,00 get ill from work-related diseases?, for example) But you have to realize that there are more than three-quarters of a billion people in the USA. If you were talking about your native country that'd look a lot worse. And if you think that we're just simply the worst people on the face of the planet, and we should be systematically eradicated (but for the betterment of mankind, you promise!), please write your MP and tell him or her that your nation should rise up against the worst nation ever to exist in human history (that's us!). And make sure you record on film how your nation completely eradicated those American rats, pigs, or dogs (your pick of demeaning names!), because one day the nations of earth will watch these and just applaud the bravery of a nation to finally rid the world of them, and the video evidence will make them so very, very proud. And don't worry, when the citizens of the United States hear that some nation wants to destroy them, we'll just take that lying down, as we have in the past (As you know, Japan owns Hawai'i and Alaska, and Germany owns the eastern seaboard, and plus the Confederate States of America just simply exists).

But besides all that, you should honestly come to the States. Believe it or not, we're not all baby-rapers. R'son-W 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea where you can insert them. sorry couldn't resist. keith 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

--Maybe rotten.com is looking to hire a statistician. :-P -- Jleon 23:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

--What 82.120.215.112 truly needs its a blog site....America and no place else ...Realize until it lasts!!! -- remrex 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are meaningful figures included in that list. About firearms, for instance. Although they don't necessarily belong on this page, they do point out many of the problems that the American society is facing today.( MrDeBeuker 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Obviously, the statistics appear better in context (some in this article, some in other articles), rather than simply in a table. One point, though: "more than three-quarters of a billion people"? 1,000,000,000 × 0.75 = 750,000,000. And more than that? Actually, more than one quarter; about 29 percent of a billion. President Lethe 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 13

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 15