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 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Both the map and the introductory geographical section ignore the existence of Alaksa and Hawaii (ie, "from the Atlantic to the Pacific...") This is clearly inaccurate.

We've been over this before. Yes, technically the US streches from the Eastern hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere. The map does indlude the 2 States, but the area occupied by the US is simplified as stating that the US streches from Atlantic to the east to the Pacific in the east would a bit confusing. (Somewhere below or in the archives we did go over this before.) Signature ^brendel Now under review! 05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked but didn't see a reference to this. I guess my thought is that it would indeed be awkward or confusing as you put it, but that at the very root of what's confusing about it is the awkwardness of the *fact* of Hawaii and Alaska's presence in the Union in the first place. The idea of "sea to shining sea" makes a kind of intuitive sense; why and how a formerly sovereign island nation in the middle of the ocean is part of the United States is less obvious. I made this point once among some fellow history teachers and it was suggested that I was making politics of geography. My response then, which seems relevant here, is that geography is political (for example: try to explain Europe's status as a continent using purely geological arguments. Not easy to do.) I think it's worth it to suffer the awkwardness of any effort to describe the location of the United States, simply because it is inaccurate to do anything else. One could simply use the existing language and add something like "xxxxx; the United States also includes the states of Hawaii, a mid-Pacific archipelago, and Alaska, located in the northwest corner of North America. In addition, the United States claims sovereignty over the island of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, parts of Micronesia" and whatever else I'm leaving out. It's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.96.152 ( talk • contribs)

I've added parantheses around the aliases, as the introductory sentence is so long, and becoming more difficult to read. Richard Allen 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is still not clear what the name of the USA is. Is it "The United States of America" or "United States of America?" Did this ever change. I thought I remembered something about changing a preposition or something.

We've met the required number of participents to start the project. Jaxad0127 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the project is now online. I'm very busy in my non-virtual life this morning so you'll have to help me built the project page as it needs to be expanded. I have built some of the basic framework and the project US is now open for business! Regards, Signature ^brendel 15:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if I understand how the FA nom went, the main complaint is that it's too long, (Though when I read it, it seemed much shorter and more engaging that other long articles) and now it's 98Kb or something. Is anything being done about this? Homestarmy 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Add that they are at war, and that they are a warlike people.

Maybe the article should include the fact, that the US, as a nation is in war. Just a suggestion. Thunderhawk89 23:36, 23 sep. '06 (CET)

> Whereas the freight rail network is among the world's best (and most congested)

This statement from the article is bullshit. US railways are not electrocuted, they all ran on diesel and that is both technically backwards and eco-politically incorrect. If you consider that even the broke and humiliated ex-soviet russians managed to finish catenarizing their entire Trans-Siberian freight-passanger railway by 2004, it is gross and silly to call the US freight rail network one of the best. 195.70.32.136 16:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 195.70.32.136. Sometimes, the 'quality' of a transportation network is a measure of its ability to connect many different points, not the efficiency of what moves the vehicles along the paths. By this measure, a network that requires a highly tangled/circuitous route to get from one specific point to another specific point is 'worse' than one that allows a direct, or nearly direct, connection between the same two points. Maybe the article should be more specific about the way in which the U.S. freight train network is among the world's best. (I would have to do my own research before feeling comfortable about making the edit myself.) — President Lethe 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well America's rail network certainly isn't technologically as advanced as that of Europe or Japa-it was neglected to long. It does however move goods efficiently from A to B, which is its purpose afterall; thus perhpas "best" should be replaced with efficiency or "ability to connect many different points." The term "Best" maybe too subjective and therefore often misunderstood in its intentions. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Europe and Japan have excellent passenger networks. What of their freight networks, though? -- Golbez 23:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are modern than in the US, largely because of government subsidy. They are however, not more efficient in getting goods from A to B than the American system, at least that's as far as I know. Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's important to understand that the article mentions the freight rail system. Europe and Japan certain have much more availability of public passenger transportation by train, but the United States has a very efficient freight rail system. It's actually improving too as many companies are choosing to ship goods via train instead of plane and truck due to traffic congestion and fuel costs. There lies our inefficiency...with our passenger vehicle transportation infrastructure. --Thethirdperson, 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

195.70.32.136, you should be aware that "electrocution" is a promanteau of "electricity" and "execution". It only refers to execution by electric current, so you used it incorectly. Just thought I'd tell you. :)

United States is one of few places in the world where railway companies are making profits. Although intercity passenger train service is a dead issue in the US, freight train service is thriving. Conrail and Amtrak are notorious for their unreliable services, but freight companies like BNSF and SP are still generating impressive profits through intermodal freight services.

See more on class I railway in North America.

Historically, American railways are steam locomotives in the 19th century, then switched to electrified locomotives in 1900s, switched again to diesel engines around WWII. I am not a mechanic, but I believe there should be some sane reason to switch from electrified ones to diesel ones, so electrification did not necessary mean to be more "advanced".

Bear in mind that the American railways have to compete with trucks and ships, if not the Interstate Commerce Committee. And that most railways in the world are operated and subsidized by the Government. It is easy to see why the American railways are really economic if not efficient.

There is no mention of Islam or Muslim-Americans in the article. Perhaps a link to the article on Islam in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalil78 ( talk • contribs)

If you look at the statistics given, the amount is apparently so low that mentioning it wouldn't really help the article. Homestarmy 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Muslims in the U.S. are very interesting topics (say I). But, aye, Muslims make up less than one percent of the U.S. population, and their portion of the population grew by 76.71% in the period 1990–2001; the criteria for mention in this article section were (1) the group represents at least one percent of the population and/or (2) the group's portion of the population grew by at least 100% in the period 1990–2001. The linked article on religion in the U.S. should have more info on Islam in the U.S. and should link to an article that concentrates on that very topic. — President Lethe 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the stats for Islam and a few of the other top minor U.S. religions because this does not take up much space and they are very interesting to many readers. (If only because the numbers are surprisingly low compared with current media attention.)

Couldn't the history section use at least some form of subsections? I realize we want to keep the article trim with the split-off to the main history, but it jumps over thousands of years of Native presence in a couple sentences (one I just added with a ref from the History article) to the first European. Staxringold _talk ^contribs 01:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article on the political history of the United States of America have to retroactively address thousands of years of indigenous history pre-USA? Indigenous history is obviously treated at length in other articles. It is only relevant here as it affects the topic of USA. Links to indigenous peoples of the Americas and others should suffice. NoraBG 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is USA the main article on the geographic region or is it just about the political entity? The word "country" in the first sentences could mean either. If we removed this ambiguity your question could easily be answered based on WP policies. Fourtildas 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Um...USA redirect to United States. Jaxad0127 03:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, United States of America should talk just about the political entity. For one thing, the geographical region of the US doesn't really make any sense except as a political entity (the Canadian border is mostly just a line drawn on the map, as are many of the state lines, especially in the west). As well, it's not really the proper size to be useful from a historical perspective. It covers a huge number of regions and climate areas, so it's not useful to discuss early development of civilizations, and if you want to do an overview of the regions, it would be more appropriate to do that in something like North America rather than just focus on the United States. - Flooey 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'll ask another question (not in response to the previous two). Does the recent addition about Amerindian cultivation of goosefoot, squash, and sunflower really belong in this article? Agricultural developments interesting me, but I'm not sure they're among the highlights that this article is supposed to cover. — President Lethe 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No they arn't. This article is suppose to give a comprehensive snapshot of the United States. Seeing the complzity of this article's subject matter, only the most essential attributes of this country may be mentioned. The Amerindian Amerindian cultivation of goosefoot, squash, and sunflower is interesting but should be mentioned in a seperate US article- I am personally not familiar with the topic but perhaps there is even enough for a whole seperate article on that-if the main editors wish to create such an article. Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Indigenous peoples" section should be entitled "Indigenous History" since that is the only subject matter of the section - it doesn't talk about Aboriginal government, culture, language, military, economy, religion, demographics (Hawaiians, Iroquois, ...). Also, the "History" section should be entitled "White History" because that is its subject matter. Also, these two sections should be adjacent and in a logical order (chronological). And it should be mentioned what happened to 97% of the Aboriginals during the White colonization. (Some might prefer the terms "European" or "Caucasian") Fourtildas 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Fourtildas keeps bringing this up on the NPOV page, I'll chip in. While I would normally agree with the principle that a country article should cover the history of that region, what Flooey says here is perfectly accurate when he states it would not be useful to do so in this case. America is far too large for its individual tribes to be covered in this article, and including them makes as little sense as having a major section on the Visigoths in the main Europe article.

Fourtildas, this is not an NPOV issue, though your proposed racial divisions of the history section would be a huge violation. Stop bringing it up on WT:NPOV, and instead work to improve the appropriate sub-articles if you wish to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the American Indians. -- tjstrf 08:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I still advocate, as I did here, getting rid of this special section for Amerindians and instead integrating such data into the appropriate sections of the rest of the article. This section's presence has the effect of either elevating Amerindians to some special, superior status (no other group gets its own section all to itself in the article) or shoving them into a Wikipedia reservation (no other group has almost all of its mentions conspicuously crowded into one area). — President Lethe 18:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2 separate parts contradict "Native American 9000BC" (no citation, I have now requested one), but header claims 15000 years (with reference)! My Maths goes like this: 9000BC +2000 years = 11000 years =/= 15000 years! Widefox 19:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that the Iraq War should have as large of a section as the American Revolution, or that it should even have a section at all (given that the other sections are things like "colonization" and "civil war"). Tulane97 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly agree - I've shortened the Iraq War section dramatically and merged it with the 9/11/2001 section. - Barfooz 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, the current war in Iraq may be a controversial issue reight now, but is it really such a defining feature of the US? No. This article is already very long, we need to narrow the info we mention down to what is really essential in describing the US. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me - My initial concern was that they were grouped because of the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It is now presented much better so they are two events just under the same heading for grouping purposes. I should have read more of the article before jumping in and adding such content. Morphh ^(talk) 00:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the climate section is a real mess. I read it but i can't figure out HOW is the climate of the USA. The only information I get it that is very variable...what a guess! in a continental size country! how couldn't I figure out. Seriously, that section is not about climate but about extremes and trivia. If someone could elaborate, it would be great. Not me, I'm no expert and I don't even live in the USA. David 12:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the USA is so large and weather fronts aren't spaced wide enough to cover the whole country, so at any one time you won't see a single similar pattern over the U.S., unless it's like some continental size heat wave like we had this summer. (And even then, the panhandle was cooler than the rest of the U.S. almost, that was really weird.) Homestarmy 23:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want specifics, we have many regional and state article. But it would be akin to asking what the climate of Asia is. -- Golbez 03:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two many climate zones in the US, to describe the climate in the same manner as one would do for a smaller country such as France. There is Reainforest in Hawaii, Desert in Arizona, Artic parie in Alaska, Continental nother forest in the north-east, etc... In Chicago it snows and temparatures are routinely below 0 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter, while one can wear short-sleeved shirts all year long in souther California or Hawaii. A country the size of that of the US has many different climate zones and a description of the national climate is therefore going to be correpondingly complex. Regards, Signature ^brendel 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David, plus, the geography section in general is far too long. The terrain sub-section is longer than most geography and climate articles on other countries, and the whole section is longer than the geography articles of Australia and Canada combined; and both those countries have very varied climates too. Needs to be cut down a bit. (Also, how do you get the size of the article in kbs?) I like Radiohead 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To see the length, you click edit this page, and a message pops up at the top of the edit window saying "This page is 101 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." You can also enter the page's name in the search box and press Search rather than Go. -- tjstrf 16:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed the problem of describing extremes but not typical climate by swapping info with Geography of the United States. I'll add the size problem to the article's todo list.

Request: Please change rain in cm into mm. This is the international standard.

Done. -- Beland 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add the word "controversial" to the last sentence of the lead: Today, the U.S. continues to play a leading and controversial role in world affairs. But everytime User:MONGO reverts my edit arguing that it's POV. The controversiality of USA foreign policy is undeniable in all parts of the world (you can see it by anti-Americanism, protests, even terrorism). And by not citing the huge criticism the USA is getting by the tiny word controversial (which I think it's the most NPOV term) is POV itself. What do you think? CG 07:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, CG.

Yes, there is controversy about how the U.S. plays its role its leading role. So, yes, the role is controversial.

I would question the word "leading" - by definition this means they are being followed, but arguably they are not being followed by many. Fourtildas 06:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But the things to mention about a county in the opening of an encyclopedia article about that country are the things that make the country somehow special. That the United States' role in the world is controversial is not something special about the country. There is controversy surrounding the role of every country in the world (though some controversies get more attention in certain areas, times, contexts). Something that is special is that the U.S. is a leader in world affairs. Not that many countries are leaders in world fairs.

As I see it, the argument over your inclusion should not be about whether it is POV (as I see it, the controversy about the U.S. role in the world is a plain fact): the (or my) problem with your inclusion is that it's stating the obvious and stating something that's true about every country, rather than something special (in a good or bad way) that readers should know about the U.S.

President Lethe 18:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm ok with removal of any criticism in the lead of countries' articles. But that means that we should remove the The country is led by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose foreign policy has often brought him into conflict with the West sentence from the Lybia article, and maybe the last paragraph of the People's Republic of China lead. CG 08:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not "ok with removal of any criticism in the lead of countries' articles". The point isn't to remove anything that shines a negative light on things. The point is not to include the mundane. If a country is the rainiest in the world, or has the smallest land area, or has one of the longest continuous monarchical bloodlines, or plays a leading role in world affairs, then this is a remarkable trait worth mentioning. A country's being the subject of controversy is unremarkable. A country's geographic location is unique; an exceptionally large or small population or geographic area is worth mentioning; its basic form of government is worth mentioning. Undescribed controversy, which is an obvious general fact true of every country, is unremarkable for an intro. The statement about Gaddafi is specific and tells something unique about the country; no other country is headed by Gaddafi, who has his own remarkable relationship with the rest of the world. (And we are all free to edit the Lybia article too.) — President Lethe 16:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But the role and influcence of the US and its huge amount of controversiality and criticism it's getting is far more than any other country. You could find newspapers articles criticising US foreign policy in every country, while, for example, the Ukrainian interactions with the world is not much cited. Anyway, I won't go further in the discussion if there's a consensus not to put any criticism in the lead. But I'll try to remove the implied criticism from Lybia's lead. CG 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's because the US is the largest industrialized country with 300 million people; which has resulted in it being the only supepower country. You would expect the actions of the world's largest developed country to be more controversial as that of the Ukraine. The US is the most influencial country on earth (due to the reason mentioned above) thus the chances for controversy increase. Of course there are some small countries who cause(d) a lot of controversy, (e.g. Serbia, Israel, etc...). Nonetheless you'd expect America's foreign policy to be more controversial than that of nearrly any other country on earth as it is more extensive with the US due to its position in the world being involved in more international conflicts that any other country. I agree with Lethe, stating that US policies are controverial is true, but not remarkable enough to make it into this article. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late. Brendel's points are valid. And to try to clarify my view for CG:

1. This is not about keeping criticism out or keeping it in. For me, anyway.

2. What happens at this article doesn't necessarily have to influence any other country article, and vice versa.

3. Your wording didn't say something exceptional/remarkable (such as "The U.S. is one of the biggest subjects of controversy in the world"—which is remarkable in the way in which "The U.S. has the third biggest population of any country" is remarkable): it just said something unexceptionally/unremarkably true of every country (that the U.S. plays a controversial role in the world—which is as unremarkable as "The U.S. has some human beings living in it"). See? One statement is about something notable, while the other is not.

I hope that helps.

President Lethe 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers, but I'm still unconvinced. Anyway, I'll just drop it. cheers. CG 14:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unconvinced of what? I even offered an example of a statement about controversy that would pass the 'notability' test. I find this misunderstanding strange ... — President Lethe 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

New York City's population should be 8,213,839, but the 8.104 figure from 2004. If Los Angeles has grown to over 4 million officially now, I think its also time to update New York City's population, even because its been out LONGER. CHANGE NEW YORK CITY'S POPULATION TO 8,213,839.

Just a few things, I'm not comfortable editing a large article however. First of all it should be "Department of Commerce" not "Departement of Commerce", and the footnote given at this same point (no. 69) refers to a Yahoo article which no longer exists. Stazed 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of people that have migrated in the nineties from Ex Yugoslavian countries such as Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia and I just wanted to add those countries where it says Slavic countries such as Poland and Russia.

Yes there are. The US truly is one of the most diverse and pluralistic countries on earth and its ever changing popluation includes many from Slavic countries such as the former Yugoslavia. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 07:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More research should be done on the European heritage of American whites. I find it hard to believe that English ancestry is not the largest ethnic group among whites. I understand that these figures were self-reported in the 2000 Census and may very well be underreported; as a former British colony with a great percentage of Anglo names, one would think that the largest white ethnic group would be English. unsigned comment left by: User:Mego2005 10:24, 22 September 2006

I think it depends whether you combine English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish. If you don't then German is the largest group (the large percentage of German names is quite noticeable to Canadians). Fourtildas 05:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you combine Irish, English and Scottish you would have about 30 to 40 percent being from the UK. But it is important to note that these are ethnicities in their own right and are commonly not combined. For example, the Irish faced severe discrimination upon their arrival in the United States; thus the history and ethnic identity of Irish Americans differs quite extensively from that of English Americans. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmmh, so you're saying that you would expect the largest ancestry to be English becuase the US used to be an English colony. Makes sense, but there are factors that you must consider. The present day US was actually colonized by three Eruopean colonial powers. Only the east coast (the first 13 states of the union) was colonized by the English, the west and Florida was Spanish and the Mid-west was largely French. The other thing is that most Americans are the descendents of immigrants who came in the 19th and early 20th century. These immigrants came mostly from Germany and Ireland. So, unlike other former British colonies such as Australia, most Americans are the descendents of immigrants who were not present during the time of British rule on the east coast. In other words, most Americans are the descendants of non-English immigrants who came to the US in the 19 and 20th centuries. Also, many Germans, Dutch and French tweaked their names in the 19th century to sound more English. For example, Eisenhower, used to be Eisenhauer; Hoover used to be Huber. Many German and other Germanic names such as Heinz, Beck, Rosenthal are also often mistaken to be Anglo. And of course Irish and Scottish names such as McDonalds are very, very common in the US. So if you factor in the massive immigration numbers of the 19th and 20th century, when only few immigrants arrived from England, and the tweaking of names, the demographics shouldn't be so suprising after all ;-) Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brendel.

Also not to be forgotten are the facts that, (1) in the case of the census, this is self-reporting; (2) people may be unaware of certain nationalities in their ancestry or choose to report only a fraction of the nationalities in their ancestry; and (3) some choose to identify their ancestry as simply "American".

(I have traced many lines of my ancestry. All but one of those lines along which I've been able to go back several hundred years has been of people living in the U.S. and Canada since the 17th and 18th centuries. One line I can trace to the 14th century. But, even with the dozens of lines I've traced to some degree or another, I still have way more than half of them untraceable (usually because the mother's side was not as well recorded). (Go back just eight generations and, unless there was some intermarriage, you should have 510 distinct direct ascendants to keep track of.) What I do know is my ancestry came from England, Scotland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, the U.S., and probably some other places—and it's hard to put all that in the little box on the census form.)

President Lethe 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

True, many many Americans are of mixed ancestry after all and some people may just report the most prominent part of their ancestry or may not actually be aware of all their ancestries. Here is the Census Bureau's report with the answer box featured on the first page: [1] Signature ^brendel 03:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Brendel's first response is a fine explanation of the issue, although the pedant in me must point out that McDonald is a Scottish name, not Irish, and that the 19th century immigrants from Ireland were also immigrants from the UK, the former being part of the latter at the time, so there were more than a "few immigrants...from the UK." As I say, pedantic, but I hope most would agree that's not necessarily a bad thing regarding history. Paul 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I write my posts very quickly-I meant England instead of UK in the second quote. I am also sorry for confusing Irish and Scottish names, both are common in the US and meant to say "Irish and Scottish names such as McDonalds." Thank you for poniting out what I meant ;-) (I have made the corrections to my post above so the point isn't lost on other users). Regards, Signature ^brendel 17:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S. there are living lots of ethnic groups wich settled in Russia. In North America are living ca 2.000.000 Russian-Germans (Rußlanddeutsche), Russian Jews (Russische Ostjuden),... . Wich ethic tribes from the former Soviet-Union immigrated to U.S.? In 2004 a lot of Turkish families from Caucasia went abroad (to the U.S.), because they were persecuted by Russian population. Are this groups assimilate in the society? Simon. PS: Please correct this text if something is wrong!)

The degree of assimilation depends on each individual. Also, to what part of the American culture should they have assimilated?- it's a difficult question. I would say there are probably several "ethnic" communities similar to Brighton Beach, New York in the US where these people have retained their ethnic identity. Signature ^brendel 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone added the "Weasel word" tag. Could the reasons for adding this tag be discolsed in further detail please, as I am doubtful over whehter this article really uses any more "Weasel words" than an article should. Please also consider that some things are of vague and sbujective nature, which needs to be reflected in the used termonology. While I am not saying that I favor the use of weasel words, I certainly do not, I am doubtful whether or not this article really contains so many weasel words. Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Being that its at the top of the article, and not in a specific section, I think they are refering to this paragraph:

Today, the United States is widely considered to be the world's most powerful nation and as such, plays a major (some would say, the pivotal) role in world affairs.

Jaxad0127 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see "(some would say, the pivotal)" is kind of a weasel wording, of course, then again, power is a subjetive matter. Nonetheless the US is the world's most powerful country. Perhaps, we should just get rid of the "some would say" and simply provide a citation with the statement. OF course the sentence is redundand as the above statement already makes a statement over the US being very powerful. My problem with the tag is that it may make readers doubtful over whether or not they can trust the article as a whole; thus my fear is that this tag would compromise the integrity of this article. Thanks for clearing things up though. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 01:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How about: "The United States has maintained a liberal democratic FOR WHITE FOLKS political system since it adopted its Articles of Confederation on 1 March 1781".

I have argued before that "maintained" is misleading here - it has not just preserved things the way they were, it has expanded & developed further from a base -- JimWae 05:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We agree on "misleading" - what would you say? Fourtildas 06:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

mmmh... true, for a long time the freedoms outlined in the constitution only applied to European-American males, later to women were "included" and only in 1965 did all African Americans enjoy the same rights as European-Americans. Perhaps the sentence should read: "The United States has maintained a liberal democratic political system since it adopted its Articles of Confederation on 1 March 1781, that over the course of history has gradually embraced all citizens. Good compromise? Thoughts...? Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1781 AND in 1787, the word "democratic" was a term of disapprobation among the "founding fathers" - at that time it meant only mob rule & it was only later, with the qualifier of "representational democracy" that it gained widespread acceptance -- JimWae 06:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, democracy certainly did not mean the same thing back then, and the American revolution wasn't near as anarchcistic as the French revolution. The problem is as you outlined that the US wasn't really a liberal domcratic republic for much of its history as essential rights such as voting and particiaption and equal representation were not acheived. What is your suggestion for revising that sentence? Regards, Signature ^brendel 07:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The excerpt is trying to make 3 points at once 1> that the US was constituted in 1781 & reconstituted in 1787-9 2> to make a statement about continuity, 3> characterize the form of gov't further as democratic (a term that keeps going missing from the article, and is worth trying to preserve) -- JimWae 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

perhaps something like: The United States was first constituted with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781, and re-constituted in 1787 with the Constitution. Since its establishment, the liberal democratic nature of the government has grown as the franchise was extended to more of its citizenry.-- JimWae 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It adresses the issue without going into too much detail. Jaxad0127 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perfect; compact, yet accurate. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like an attack of political correctness and historical revisionism to me. What nations existed in 1781 that practiced universal sufferage? What nation in 1781 was more liberal and democratic than the infant United States of America? Liberal democracy does not necessarily include universal suffrage, and no one in 1780 would have thought so. It is poor history to hold the political events of the 1780's up to a mirror of 2000 standards. If you are intent on changing the existing wording which seems perfectly reasonable and accurate just the way it is, my suggestion would be: Since the adoption of the original Articles of Confederation in 1781, the United States has been continuously governed as a liberal democracy. As standards changed over the years, suffrage was extended and now includes all citizens over 18 years of age. ....but that is really awkward and ugly, as is the suggestion above. -- Paul 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the US did not have "Universal suffrage" until after the civil war for sure. It had suffrage for property owning European-American males. The fact that the constitution was originally built in such a way as to make slavery part of this country, contradicts any statement that there was "Universal suffrage" then. You can't have slavery and universal suffrage at the same time. Of course, by 18th century standards (A time when people not of European descend weren't considered people-e.g. 5/3 compromise-Jefferson's race theories) the US was a liberal democracy and did have universal suffrage. By 18th century standards, Jefferson was a humanitarian. You're right you can't view policy dating from 1780 with 2006 standards. Nonetheless the current sentence is misleading as a reader might very likely fail to consider the historical implactions on the statement. Now, I think the sentence by JimWae is clearer and easier to understand. Your prosal is okay, but you need two sentences to say what JimWae said in one, quite frankly nicer sounding sentence. Thanks for your suggestion though. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you may have missed the point I was making, that "liberal democracy" does not necessarily imply universal suffrage; indeed, even today we don't allow people under 18 or convicted felons to vote. The suggested language implies a direct linkage between extending suffrage and the amount of liberal democracy. This is misleading and historically incorrect. The U.S. has never been anything other than a liberal democracy, and it has led other nations in extending suffrage. More specific to the suggested language:

1. Why are we mentioning the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in the introduction? This seems needlessly pedantic in the overview and makes the paragraph awkward. Wouldn't it be better to defer this detail until the body of the article?
2. That leaves the issue of liberal democracy. Since its establishment, the liberal democratic nature of the government has grown as the franchise was extended to more of its citizenry. This clearly has the "liberal democratic" <--> "suffrage" linkage that is misleading and it clearly judges "....policy dating from 1780 with 2006 standards" which you seem to agree is bad practice in writing history. At its founding, the United States was unique among nations as a liberal democracy. Why not leave it at that in the intro, and deal with the details of suffrage in the body of the article. No one is going to be confused by a statment that declares that the U.S. by forming a government under the principles outlined in U.S. Constitution established the world's first liberal democracy.

-- Paul 00:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I got your point. I understand that by 18^th century standards the US was a liberal democracy and that truly unviersal suffrage does not neccesarily equal a liberal domcracy when discussing history. My problem is that I do fear that people will mis-read and mis-judge the statment. I think we need to be clearer that we are stating the US in 1780 to be a liberal deomcartic country by 1780 standards. Of course moving this sentence from the intro to the history section is fine with me. Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Maintained" has to go
• While I can see some concern about linking liberal democracy to the expansion suffrage, the link is not made that strongly in my proposed edit - no implication is made that it is the SOLE requirement. Furthermore, there definitely is a link between [[liberal democracy] and suffrage - suffrage is ONE requirement, and as it grew, so too did the democratic nature. My text acknowledges there was some degree of liberal democracy at the start, but that it has developed. We could remove the entire 2 sentences - but then we would lose the 3 points I mentioned above - started in a year, continuity despite new Constitution, some mention of democracy (a term that keeps getting deleted from the article)-- JimWae 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a link between suffrage and deomcracy, but the definition of both has evolved over time. Democracy didn't mean the same thing in 1780 as it does in 2006. That said, the sentence you proposed above is fine, as it reflects the changing nature of democracy and suffrage. Signature ^brendel 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• my wording says nothing about universal suffrage - but yes, as suffrage grew, so too does our estimation of the US as being democratic. Nobody THEN would have called it democratic. There is no revisionism here & no attempt to hold them to contemporary standards. Neither should there be an attempt to deny that the term democratic no longer means what it meant then -- JimWae 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that your wording said anything regardinf Universal suffrage-that was in repsonse to Paul's post. I am assuming good faith on your part and we seem to agree that "the term democratic no longer means what it meant then," but instead history needs to be viewed in the appropriate context. That said I think the sentence your proposed would be a good solution-to me it reflects the subject matter in an easily comprehensible manner. Signature ^brendel 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• yes, my comments were directed towards him -- JimWae 03:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is The United Empire not mentioned in the U.S. Article? Especially in the American Revolution section? About how on the American Revolution, a significant proportion of the population of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia and other states was determined to remain loyal to the crown, and desired to remain within the British Empire. The reasons were as varied as the people themselves, but the overriding principle was loyalty to the King.

Or how, Loyalist soldiers and civilians were evacuated from New York and resettled in other colonies of the British Empire, most notably in the future Canada: the two colonies of Nova Scotia (including modern-day New Brunswick, receiving in total some 32,000 Loyalist refugees) and Quebec (including the Eastern Townships and modern-day Ontario, receiving altogether some 10,000 refugees).

We are missing a VERY IMPORTANT part of how the United States was created. It is auctually the FOUNDATION of how the United States was created and it should be added. Intuitionz 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can add in the Intro under "fair governance" the elaboration of "The United Empire".

"On 4 July 1776, at war with Britain over fair governance of the United Empire, thirteen of these colonies declared their independence. In 1783, the war ended in British acceptance of the new nation. Since then, the country has more than quadrupled in size: it now consists of 50 states and one federal district; it also has numerous overseas territories. Intuitionz 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please check out the Article United Empire Loyalists for more info. Intuitionz 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to read in the Intro...

"The present-day continental United States has been inhabited for at least 15,000 years by indigenous tribes. ^[1] After European exploration and settlement in the 16th century, the English established their own colonies—and gained control of others that had been begun by other European nations—in the eastern portion of the continent in the 17th and early 18th centuries. On 4 July 1776, at war with Britain over fair governance of the United Empire, thirteen of these colonies declared their independence. In 1783, the war ended in British acceptance of the new nation. United Empire Loyalists, soldiers and civilians were evacuated from New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia and other states and resettled in other colonies of the British Empire, most notably in the future Canada. Since then, the United States of America has more than quadrupled in size: it now consists of 50 states and one federal district; it also has numerous overseas territories." Intuitionz 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Although important, I think that the intro is not the best place for this information. It would seem better suited to the American Revolution section. What do others think? Sdpurdy 03:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. This is a bit too deep for the intro. I still support it's inclusion, just in a better place. Jaxad0127 03:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove "United Empire" from intro - hardly anybody will know what it refers to - I am not even sure myself -- JimWae 06:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The evacuation of the Loyalists or Tories after the war is a very minor point in American history (and I studied American history in college in a course taught by a winner of the Pulitzer Prize). -- Coolcaesar 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreeed, move to revolution. The fact that the two southernmost and two northernmost colonies didn't join the revolution, and had their 'post war' populations bolstered by the fleeing loyalists is important, but may not be appropriate for the intro. Bo 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut from demographics section:

Thirty-five million Americans, about 12.6% of the population, live in poverty.

I think this should read, have cash incomes below the poverty level.

The phrase "living in poverty" implies that one's standard of living including gov't benefits is poor. But are food stamps, welfare payments, subsidized housing, free government schools for children, etc. taken into account?

• The official poverty measure counts only monetary income. It considers antipoverty programs such as food stamps, housing assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid and school lunches, among others, "in-kind benefits" -- and hence not income. So, despite everything these programs do to relieve poverty, they aren't counted as income when Washington measures the poverty rate. [2]

If there's a dispute about this (and I think there is a liberal vs. conservative split on this), we can use the following source for one side of the dispute:

• Nationally, poverty afflicts 12.6% of the population, or 34.4 million people. Imagine—34.4 million equals the entire population of Indiana times six, and they all live in poverty. [3]

See also Poverty_level#Problems_with_using_a_poverty_threshold. -- Uncle Ed 19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

They live below the politically-defined poverty line, but I know a few folks who supposedly live below that line who have cable internet, two computers, own a house, and a car. That is not poverty. It should be objective - "Live below the poverty line", not "live in poverty". -- Golbez 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only objective guideline we have is the federal threshold. Of course there are numerous flaws, but all other definitions are less authorative and highly subjective. For example, the treshold for what is poos certainly shouldn't be the same for Arkansas and California. I takes far more to live if Cali than it does in Arkansas. In my neck of the woods the income needed for a middle class lifestyle, that is the ownership of a 3 bedroom house and two cars is about $125,000- here where a "house" or "cottage" in the ghetto runs for $380k, people far above the poverty level life in a state of poverty. In Arkansas a household making $40k will likely be able to have the lifestyle of a household making $100k in costal California. Just look at these two homes: [4] and [5]- (the latter is in suburban Chicago, Naperville is America's 2nd most livable city; the former is in a neighborhood I don't dare drive through after dusk). Thus the idea of applying a national threshold itself is somewhat of a doubtful venture. Yet it is the most objective source we have on poverty. Some say poverty is overstated, some say its understated, depending on location and exact circumstance, both may be right or wrong. That's why we have a contoversy section in the Poverty article. For the figure let's just mimic the government as that is the current authority on the issue. Signature ^brendel 20:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You make an excellent case for your viewpoint, but unfortunately unless you are a published author, we cannot incorporate your views in the article (see the Wikipedia:Original research policy). If, however, you are restating someone else's published views, we can include those.

Please rewrite the above, as a summary of a published author's point of view, and add it to the article. Be careful not to assert it as "fact", but as that author's POV. Thanks! -- Uncle Ed 14:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what I say above is kind ot OR (I haven't published anything that backs up my statement above). I'm sure, however, if I wasn't so busy I could find quite a few published articles of authority to include as references. But for know I am saying we need to just stick with what the Federal Gov gives us, becuase that's only objective thing we have. I have contributed to the Poverty article and will perhaps add something similar to the above there once my schedule allows. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently added Homeownership in the United States to the list of "Main articles" relating to the economy in the United States. Now, however, a problem has occured. There are six econ articles but there is only place for five in the template. The following are the six articles:

1. Economy of the United States
2. American middle class
3. Household income in the United States
4. Homeownership in the United States
5. Science and technology in the United States
6. Transportation in the United States

Which should be omitted? I have three recommendations:

• Move American middle class to the culutre section
• Move Homeownership in the United States to the Demographic section
• Omit Transportation in the United States as it related to the national economy the least?

Please share your suggestions and insights. Thank you. Signature ^brendel 06:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Solution found ;-)

And I found an answer. I noticed that in the demographics section we use the {{main|...}} template in sub sections. I have applied to same principle to the Economy section and have to say it seems to be working great. There are not only less than five articles in the first template, the list of related article if now much more comprhensive and easier to read. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Many immigrants also hail from Slavic countries, such as Poland and Russia, as well as from French Canada.[75]

This sounds weird. I support a change to something like:

Many immigrants hail from French Canada as well as Slavic countries such as Poland and Russia.-- 72.94.90.144 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the first sentence does sound a bit akwards. Go aheas and change it ;-) Signature ^brendel 06:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When the estimated population reaches 300 million, will this article get a lot of extra hits? Just in case, I installed an automatically-updating template to provide a population estimate.

If anyone needs help "tuning" this population estimate template ({{ uspop commas}}}, just ask me. -- Uncle Ed 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't automatically update if the article is printed or mirrored. Please make sure you include "as of [date]" when you make reference to the time when the article was rendered. -- Tim Starling 10:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. What's the best way to do that? Some sort of template giving the current date? -- Uncle Ed 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It should probably list the current date/time UTC. Jaxad0127 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You could use {{#time:F j, Y}}: "April 11, 2024". -- Tim Starling 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing to have indicated only PPP, while an argument is divided about the credibility of GDP(PPP). You should also carry GDP(nominal). This comment was left by 222.146.222.142.

True we should include nominal as well as PPP. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think this article could use a criticisms section? It doesn't read as a bias article but I think a section devoted to that could make it better. TrevorLSciAct 07:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We have actually discussed this before. Doing so, would be kind of strange. There is criticism for the actions of every organization, including countries. The larger the organization, the more controversial and there more ciritisism. It goes without saying that a country as large and unfluential as the US is going to be critised. Besdies, criticisms for the US are feature in the numerous ...in the United States articles. Also, consider that this article is supposed to give an overview of a very complex subject and is very long as is. There is really quite little to justify a seperate section just for criticisms. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 08:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Small point which many of you colonials seem to be unaware of: English is NOT synonymous with British. First paragraph says english colonies: strictly speaking they were British colonies. England is part of Britain but Britain is more than England. Retsudo

I think it was named England back then though, the formal name changed several times throughout history. Homestarmy 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhpas the phrase you read intenitionaly stated English instead of British. I am German and I also do know the difference. If you could tell me precisely where the phrase is that was according to you factually incorrect, maybe I could fix it or explain its meaning. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at history, (some of) the colonies were founded under England, but the revolution happened under Great Britain. So, you're both correct and incorrect. — Jaxad 0127 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well acutally the colonies were Dutch and English in the beginning. The revolution did happend under GB. I just feel the need to point out that not all of the 13 colonies were founded by the English; they were, however, all British by 1777. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. But if I remember correctly, only the city of New York (and surrounding areas) was founded by the Dutch. — Jaxad 0127 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well New Amseterdam and the sorrounding area was one of the most populated areas-then and now. But actually as far as I know parts of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania dutch country) and Delaware were also dutch colonies. Regards, Signature ^brendel 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely forgot about those two. I vote we change the wording from English to British. — Jaxad 0127 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the Swedish founded new Sweden. So it was the Dutch, the English, and the Swedish who colonized America. So to sum it up: America was colonized by the Dutch, English and Swedish and in 1777 gained independence from the British. Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, the Pennsylvania Dutch weren't Dutch, they were German. (Minor problem with the word Deutsch) Karm Locke 05:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that makes a lot of sense; I was wondering a part of the US predominantely settled by Germans was called Dutch country ;-) Signature ^brendel Now under review! 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The leading settlers of the present day continental US would have to be Britian, France & Spain. While the Dutch & Swedes had a few colonies, saying they led the colonization of the area is misleading - and just too much detail for the intro -- JimWae 06:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, they did settle key areas of the 13 colonies and they did lead. True Spain was the first but none of the areas in the 13 colonies was ever under Spanish control. Also, in the beginning Dutch and Swedish settlements rivaled those of England. Many people often forget that key parts of the area later part of the 13 original colonies was colonised not by the English but also by the Dutch and Swedish. The Dutch and Swedish colonies are significant enough to justify one humble sentence in the intro. Mentioning only English colonisation is wrong and misleading. We either have the choice of mentioning the "Big three:" England, Spain and France; or we can concentrate on the area that later became the 13 colonies-obligating us to mention the Dutch and Swedish colonisation. Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article says:

The present day continental United States has been inhabited for at least 15,000 years by indigenous tribes.[2] In the 16th century European exploration and settlement began, led by the English, Dutch and Swedish.

There is no indication anything other than the continental US is being discussed at that point - and it is just too much detail to get into & explain even further that early in the article. Intros are supposed to be an overview of what's to come. -- JimWae 15:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if we're talking about the continental US altogether, we need to mention the French and Spanish. I live in California and the local history here is that of Spanish and not English colonization. (So much that the city of Monterey flies a Spanish Flag in front of city hall) In other words, only naming the British is a quite New-England centric approach. It fails to mention the history of California, the entire South-West, Delware, New Jersey, the Mid-West, as well as that of Florida. Thus I beleive that we cannot just name the English. As I have saind, if we are indeed mentioning the history of the entire continental US we need to mention France and Spain. (Perhpas then we can leave out Sweden and the Neatherlands, as their colonies were very small) I have made some changes to the section to reduce the amount of detail. Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed, "Since its establishment, the liberal democratic nature of the government has grown." There may have been a time when this was true, but it isn't any more as the United States is now a country where the President can have anyone he wants tortured on a whim. The article needs to be amended to reflect the termination of America's former image as a champion of democracy. ReeseM 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ture the exectuive branch has gained power and is IMHO too powerful. Nonetheless the US is till a liberal democraticy which in recent years has grown. For example in 1960 there was still a massive lack of civil rights in the South and as late as 1933 there were still publi lynchings. Since then the US has incoperated a broader definition of civil rights and made them a reality for more and more Americans. People in the US today enjoy far greater liberty and freedom than in say 1930 or even 1960. Thus it is fair to state that the "liberal democratic nature of the government has grown." Rather small recent set-backs in federal policy are not sufficient cause to change this particular sentence. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been little acitivity on this page, so I was thinking about archiving all disucssions up to the one titled "September 11, 2001 and the War on Terrorism." All these discussions seem inactive now, I just want to see if there are any objections. (If there arn't I'll go ahead in 48h). Best Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 04:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This phrasing seems a bit misleading:

"The President ... acts as the commander in chief in times of war and national emergency."

The President is Commander in Chief all the time, no? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, that does sound misleading. So go ahead and change it. Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 03:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done, and capitalized to conform to the way the term is used in the Constitution. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the picture of the lanuch of a space shuttle is too vague when describing the national space program. The picture is also used in the NASA article. Instead of the shuttle, we should have the logo of NASA instead. 198.111.167.130 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but isn't the picture of the Space Shuttle a lot more attractive than just logo. I mean you have to admid, that it does add esthetical value to the article. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

whats the % of foreign born people in usa? for example, germany is 20%, uk 15%

According to the US Census Bureau, Foreign born Americans constitute roughly 12.3% of the US population, numbering roughly 35 million. That is, however, only counting legal foregin borns. If one considers that there are roughly 12 million undocumented workers who weren't born in the US in addition to foregin born Americans the total number of foregin borns jumps to 47 million; roughly 16% of the population. Also, I'm German and I really doubt that 20% of Germans are forgein born. (It's more like 7% max.-I don't have the actual figure right now) Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Census Bureau had the duty to count all persons, whether citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants? The apportionment of congressional districts is based upon actual headcount, regardless of legal status. Kevinp2 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No its isn't. Undocumented workers are not counted. The population clocks do not count illegals, who also don't count in determining political representation. The official population of the US is 301,000,000. The actual population is 313,000,000. The things is that illegals do not have a legal status. That said, undomcumented persons are counted by the Bureau but are not included in the offical figures used for representation nor are they included in the country's offical population stats. Signature ^brendel Now under review! 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

cheers on the data. i got the 20% stat from here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France

When do we want to revise the government/politics section to reflect the recent party shift in the midterms? I favor a hold on it until all the results are official.-- Primalchaos 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, its pretty sure that the Democrats took the House (That wasn't even a close race! ;-)). The problem is the Senate, as of now its tied-it all depends on the results coming in from Virginia. As soon as we get those, we can go ahead and make the according changes. Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Biminis in the Bahamas are 50 miles from Florida. The article intro states there is a sea border between the US & the Bahamas - which would not be true if international waters were in between. Google Earth does not show an international border there. Even if 25 miles were the territorial limit (which some countries do claim) I do not see any need to mention sea borders in intro at all anyway - as the purpose is to locate the USA - not ALL nearby countries -- JimWae 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to some claims, there would also be a border with Cuba & perhaps several more Carribean countries. There's no need for sea borders in intro -- JimWae 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the mention of sea borders with all Carribean nations is not needed, the location of the US is sufficiently described. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Where it lists the GDP/capita of the US, it says that it is the 8th highest, with a link to the list of countries ordered by the same statistic. The list indicates, however, that the US is the 3rd highest, not the 8th. 71.82.149.83 04:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there are two ranks. In terms of nominal GDP the US ranks 8^th; according to GDP PPP the US ranks 3^rd. Measuring the expanses of something as complex as an economy is no simple task and it shouldn't be suprising that there are two different, prominent and equally valid ways of measuring. As it says in the GDP per capita article:

“

Great care should be taken when using either set of figures to compare the wealth of two countries. Often people who wish to promote or denigrate a country will use the figure that suits their case best and ignore the other one, which may be substantially different, but a valid comparison of two economies should take both rankings into account, as well as utilising other economic data to put an economy in context.

”

That's why we have both figures in there-the reader needs to make up his or her own mind; we just provide the info to the best of our abilities. See: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita and List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel Now under review! 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)