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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

The URL says "United States of America", the title at the top of the page only says "United States". How do you change the title of the page to match the URL and say "United States of America"? All national seals and legal tender sport this title, this page should as well. Genisc 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• That is probably because you entered United States of America in the search box so when it redirected here. The title changes when a page is redirected the URL does not.
• The FAQ answers you 2nd question.-- 71.170.41.7 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A minor quibble, but it relates to neutrality. In most Commonwealth countries,1783 is considered to be the year of the United States' independence from Britain due to the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which ceded British sovereignty over the colonies to their inhabitants, in September of that year. Mentioning the treaty in the introduction alongside the Declaration of Independence would help ensure a world view. G. C. Hood 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The USA wasn't given sovereignty since they had to fight for their independence, doesn't seem relevant.

It would only leave people to believe that Great Britain "gave" the USA freedom and independence.

Just because "most Commonwealth countries" (which aren't even part of the United States) decide to recognize the United States sovereignty on a different date (which may make them feel more comfortable with losing, thus giving the indication that the independence was settled with a "treaty", not a defeat), doesn't mean it's remotely relevant and is not a NPOV.

"The Declaration of Independence was an act of the Second Continental Congress, adopted on July 4, 1776, which declared that the Thirteen Colonies were independent of Great Britain". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence Nbbs 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the proposal. US independence being somewhat disputed for seven years does seem like something worth mentioning. 85.224.197.10 10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nbbs. In short, Commonwealth countries see 1783 as the date of independence because Great Britain lost. Americans see it as 1776 because we won. This is really a political discussion on what sovereignty is. Wikipedia already covers the War for Independence sufficiently, we don't need any more information (which will only lengthen this already long article) on the fact that independence was disputed. The simple fact there was a war fought over it is sufficient evidence of that. Bruin03 07:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the infobox has both dates listed, both declared (1776) and recognized (1783). That is more than sufficient. Bruin03 07:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You say that it should be added in order to show neutrality but it would really be showing british usage over American usage and thus would be ANTI-American completely. 1776 is accepted by all of the poplulation of America as the founding year regardless of what your queen tells you. It is also accepted by every country in the entire world as the correct year except for you and your queen. You are wrong and the year 1783 has no place on this article in respect to this issue. Not even in the info box. Stop being Ethnocentric and Racist thinking that you can tell Americans when we had independence. We didn't need your permission thank you very much. -- Billiot 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't use words that no body can understand like "quibble".-- Billiot 05:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell people what words they can and cannot use. And you are quite incorrect, almost every nation has different 'declared' and 'recognized' dates. Our declared is the declaration of independence; our recognized is the Treaty of Paris. Prior to the treaty, no one knew if this plucky (there's another hard word) young nation would survive. You need to learn a little civility. -- Golbez 05:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You state that as if you think I don't understand it. I mention that it shouldn't be used because most ENGLISH speakers wouldn't understand it. And futhermore, you are wrong. American Independence began in 1776. and it doesn't matter what you think or say, that historical empirical fact can not be altered. You are just plain wrong. And you are the one that needs to learn some civility before you go around telling the native peoples the States that you think we are nothing and you are better then us and can tell us when we had permission to be independent. The Treaty of Paris is nothing and only allows British vessle our permission to re-enter our waters. -- Billiot 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're making less and less sense with each rant you post. -- Golbez 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On another note, since legally speaking each State is a Soviergn entity that has of its own choice entered into a Union, exactly what had their Independence RECOGNIZED by Britian in 1783? Words mean things and you should be clear about what you mean before you put something in an article and publish it to the world as fact that could potentially upset a lot of people and be factually wrong. I suggest someone read the Treaty of Paris before responding to this.-- Billiot 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Once you have read the Treaty look up the words Foederal, Confoederation, treaty, state, nation, country and sovereinty.-- Billiot 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone think either the Senate Majority Leader or the President Pro Tem should be listed in the infobox, and if so which? -- Random832( t c) 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fewer is better than more. After all, why stop there? Include all justices, perhaps the joint chiefs of staff, the cabinet? -- Golbez 10:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

True, having the four leaders of all three branches (congress has two, one for each house) is the best solution. Otherwise you could have a long, long list. Signature ^brendel 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We already have the leader of the senate, the VP. The President pro tempore is almost entirely ceremonial, except for the line of succession (which does not include the chief justice). -- Golbez 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, you have it backwards. On the contrary, the President pro tempore is the real, working power; it is the President of the Senate which is largely ceremonial, and who never participates in Senate business except on those rare occasions when he gets to vote to break a tie. Gene Nygaard 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"President of the Senate" is the vice president (and functions as Gene Nygaard says for the most part). President Pro Tem is somewhat honorary, since you get it by default (longest serving member). The Majority Leader ( Harry Reid for example) holds the real power, usually. I would think it's more important to point out the majority leader than the Pres. Pro Tem in the infobox. -- W.marsh 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

True, Harry Reid does carry the real power and the VP/president is largely ceremonial. Many people, however, expect to see the VP in the listing of leaders and as he is the "ceremonial" leader of the Senate we might as well list him. Signature ^brendel 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"After many failed U.N. resolutions" is wrong. It was US unilateral sanctions that Hussein said no to exactly because they weren't endorsed by the UN. The UN sanctions were about to be lifted because they were complied with and the US made up its own rules in order to have an excuse to get into Iraq. Is wikipedia rewriting history? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.85.107 ( talk) 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

When has wiki NEVER re-written history? If enough people believe it to be true, then it must be true... according to wiki.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 ( talk) 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The article is very long because the same information is repeated over and over again. The first sentence does not say the United States is a country, but lists the abbreviated forms. There are a lot of long sentances that with a bit of thought are covered in articles elsewhere or could get to the point in less words. Every section should be reduced by about half, or two-thirds. -- Dlatimer 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long, but some useful tidbits of information were removed in recent edits to the introduction so I've restored them. Perhaps additional efforts should be made to prune the body of the article. Corticopia 08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the shortening was a bit to extensive and some sentences need to be worked out here frist. The intro is actually not the worst part. The article is overall too long but the intro is OK. Regards, Signature ^brendel 08:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Great contribution. Lets revert to the previous boring, repetitive, rambling, over-qualified introduction. A useful, interesting, concise version is provided below: -- Dlatimer 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The United States of America is a country in North America extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and sharing land borders with Canada and Mexico. The total area is over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²) and makes it the world's third largest country.
The United States is a constitutional republic and a democratic federation consisting of fifty states and other federally administered areas, including the capital, Washington, D.C. It is the third most populous nation, with over 300 million people, primarily due to large-scale historical immigration. The nation has extensive ethnic and social diversity, and with a gross domestic product (GDP) of over $13 trillion, has the largest national economy in the world.
The United States was founded by thirteen colonies declaring independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776 and through the Articles of Confederation, ratified March 1, 1781. These original states ratified the current constitution on September 17, 1787. American power and cultural influence grew throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. became the only superpower and global affairs are predominantly influenced by its political, military and economic power to the present day.

I disagree with several parts.

1. Leave this sentence in tact: "The result of large scale immigration and home to a complex social strcuture and a variety of household arrangments it is one of the socially and ethnically diverse nations on earth." You took out any mention of variety of households arragments (something mentioned nowhere else in the article)-which is at least as important as the GDP (which is mentioned in the infobox to begin with!)
2. There is no mention of Spain's role in the nation's history. It must be mentioned that other nations played a role in America's history besides Great Britain. The version above is very East-Coast centric (There is no mother England out here in CA)
3. Is mentioning the area and GDP and land area really neccessary (They're mentioned in the infobox already and America is much more than that!).

There is no consensus on the above version until it is further revised. Regards, Signature ^brendel 02:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Brendel: boredom and length aside, the 'concise' introduction is generally less useful and informative than the 'detailed' version for various reasons. For one: the first sentence, with alternate names, is prescribed in the countries wikiproject. As well, the brief version eliminates necessary precision regarding the location of the U.S. (which is not just limited to North America) or its constituents (50 states, etc.); some of this doesn't currently live elsewhere in the article (e.g., Alaska's relative size). Morever, a couple references were removed in the pruning, which can't be useful in any event. Lastly, said changes weren't at all discussed or agreed upon despite notes to the contrary. There is a lot more to prune or refactor in the rest of the article foremost (perhaps moving/consolidating some content), but the version of the intro above is far from definitive or preferred. Corticopia 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points! Signature ^brendel 02:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Corticopia 02:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The sandpit says the article at 116KB, which is too long according to Wikipedia standards. This instruction demanded action, which I took. It says "check the talk page before editing" which I did. No effort had been made for months. Long-winded, repetitous articles get pruned. Let's not get all sentimental. That's how it is. -- Dlatimer 11:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

True, the sandpit also notes that "[i]f you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it", so yes: let's not get sentimental. There is much more to prune than worthwhile information in the introduction. Corticopia 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The intro is fine for now. The article itself needs to be pruned! The Sports section for example-does it need to be so long? There are several section. Just make another proposal fpr pruning. This is not about getting sentimental, but edits need to yield an improvement and certain things need to be mentioned. There are things to be cut though in many places (again, look at the sports or eytmology section). Signature ^brendel 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The location of the US is now clearly stated in the introduction, instead of two descriptions. I discovered afterwards the Britannica reference uses the same structure. Now there is more useful information and with less repetition the intro is concise. Thanks for the advice. I'm now ready to go through the next section. -- Dlatimer 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored some tidbits from the prior version -- now its location is more clearly stated. However, I was tempted to also indicate that the Pacific Ocean is to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to its east (or similar) ... because Africa- Eurasia is also between those two oceans, just the other way.  :) Thanks. Corticopia 05:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that this article is already too long, but I really think that Mark Twain should have at least a mention in the literature section.( Lucas(CA) 05:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

I agree; done. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Signature ^brendel 07:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jim Douglas and Signature Brendel!!! Major YES!!!-- Coltbaby210 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of literature, I absolutely do not think that Beloved should be mentioned over works like the Catcher in the Rye, The Bell Jar, Lolita, As I Lay Dying, and Moby Dick. What the hell? I understand the idea here, keeping the section short, but Toni does not deserve the mention, quite frankly, until the main page, with all of her contemporaries, and with her much more talented predecessors. This is a clear act of literary activism, and it has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with satisfying the urge to give the nod, so to speak, to contemporary works of fiction. Can somebody please remove this? -- J.Dayton 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)-J.Dayton

I tried to clean up a mammoth paragraph in the section on healthcare, as it didn't really read right. One thing that struck me was this: it is stated that 14.2% of the population were without insurance for at least part of a particular year, then that one third of these were from well-off households (income >$50000) and one-third were eligible for public insurance but had failed to sign up. Then it's stated that only 2% were "truly without access" to insurance. I'm not sure where this figure comes from as 14.2% - 2*(0.333*14.2%) leaves almost 5%.

Also, what exactly is the cutoff on household income before a person is "truly" unable to afford insurance? Many people will choose not to have insurance so they can afford something else; others who are not among the 14.2% will have chosen to go without cars, vacations or whatever to pay for what is in their view an essential.

I think that in this section care must be taken to provide only verifiable facts. Attempts to influence the reader's opinion on the desirability or otherwise of a healthcare system funded (partly) by private insurance belong elsewhere. I got the impression that this rather confused paragraph came about as people with opposing views attempted to counteract one-another's arguments, and this is not an appropriate forum for those discussions to be aired IMHO.

Any views?

— Casper Gutman 19:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia nearly always does a poor job of having controversial articles not reflecting viewpoints. Why Wikipedia needs a "criticisms" section for every article is beyond me. But "healthcare" is a controversial issue and the US is a controversial... you put two controversial issues together and Wikipedia will really fall flat on it's face and attract the biggest idiots this site has to offer.-- 24.91.161.79 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well stated. I don't edit this article much but as a reader, this section has always bothered me as well. Healthcare is a "hot button" issue and promises to become even more so now with divided government. We have to be really careful with statistics as they can be manipulated very easily. Where the same statistic is interpreted differently we need to give the fact of the statistic and then provide the different sides' explanation of what those statistics mean (as long as reliable verifiable sources are given, of course). That is best done in the Healthcare in the United States article. There should just be a brief summary of pure facts at this page.-- WilliamThweatt 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed there's an item on the "To do" list that involves cutting this section down and removing some bits to the healthcare article. Should help! — Casper Gutman 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we are not supposed to discuss our "views" here. I personally diagree with your overly-optimistic assessment. As for editing the section considered that there are great variations within states, MA for example does have universal health care and CA may soon follow suit. But please try and not to have our opinions influnce the editing of the article. The neutral info is that 15% are uninsured anything beyond that is POV territory. We just spit out Gov stats- please live up to your own standard of not attempting to influence the reader (that goes for conservative POV as well). There are studies done by the UN that rank nation and there are stistics from our government-let's stick with just sputing out the numbers. I don't mean this as a threat or anything, but I will remove conservative POV when it attempts to sway the reader. Signature ^brendel 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on - my overly optimistic assessment? I didn't assess anything, I just tried to rearrange the things that were already here into an order that made sense. The paragraph I edited was reasonably well referenced and I saw no reason to doubt the truth of most of it. My problem was that it read like an argument, with different voices changing places with one another. If I have a personal POV on this it is most definitely not what I would think of as conservative: I'm British and a strong believer in the ideals behind the foundation of the NHS. If you see any statements you disagree with the neutrality of, be bold to rephrase or remove them! — Casper Gutman 09:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Apple pie picture is disrespectul to the United States, see it's discussion page. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from this page for being "offensive" to the subject. Does anyone else agree? · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have said on the discussion page, I don't find the image offensive. Let's see what the outcome on the image discussion page is (I'm thinking about starting an RfC to get more editors involved in the discussion). Regards, Signature ^brendel 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Poeple refer to the Untied States singlarly( ex. The Unites States is a nation in North America.) When in fact it is a collection of semi-sovereign states( a federation: A form of government in which powers and functions are divided between a central government and a number of political subdivisions that have a significant degree of political autonomy) (state: the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign state; "the state has lowered its income tax") Therefore, that same sentence used as an example above should read: The United States are a federation in North America). The latter example was the form used pre-civil war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.167.250 ( talk) 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

The key lies in the "semi-sovereign." The US a fully sovereign nation with a united foreign policy. Nonetheless you are right to the extend that US states have considerable autonomy- something that the name "United States" actually reflects pretty well ;-) Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can spin that on its head to say that the United States is a 'federation of [insert descriptor]'. Also note that the introduction indicates the US is a "federal constitutional republic. Corticopia 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can use "united states," descriptively as a plural subject, but when you're using it as the name of a single nation it would be used as a singular subject. "A government, a party, a company (whether Tesco or Marks and Spencer) and a partnership (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) are all it and take a singular verb. So does a country, even if its name looks plural." - Economist.com Research Tools: Style Guide Jecowa 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is an interesting subject of debate. The United States was (or were *wink*) always referred to plurally in its early days because of the independent nature of the states themselves. However during the 20th century, with increasing nationalism, it became more commonly referred to as a single entity. If a section can be written mentioning that, I'll try to find the source where I read that. Blaiseball 00:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NO. It's actually supposed to be "The United States are a federal republic." Look at pre-civil war literature.

We live in a post-Civil War era, remember? Besides, the autonomy of states has been drastically reduced in a practical sense, though whether that's a good thing is a matter of personal opinion. Ekoyek 19:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to edit the United States article. Why? Is there an ongoing dispute? Featuresaltlakecity 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is, as you might have guessed, a high-profile article. A lot of IPs and people just browsing the internet think it is funny to leave their mark on the US article. Just get a couple of edits somewhere else and after about 300 edits (that's less than what it sounds like) you should be able to edit this article. You could for example, create a user-page for yourself, afterwards you should be able to edit the article. Or you could describe things you want to change here. Signature ^brendel 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a HIGH-PROFILE ARTICLE!!!!!!!-- Coltbaby210 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Because its a very popular and important article. Bkkeim2000 01:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently another users remove the speaker from the list of leaders as she "does not rule the country in any significant way." There are two errors in this statement. a) the VP which is also listed does not have any considerable de-jure power either. b) The speaker is very powerful! The President is the chief of the executive, it is not superior or higher up than congress! Congress which represents the people makes the laws. Before congress votes on a bill (most of which are proposed by the president), the bill needs to pass comitte and before than get by the speaker. So when Bush makes a proposal for congress to vote on, Pelosi must first approve of it. If the pelosi doesn't like a bill submitted to the house, she can file it in the round bin and the bill won't even be voted on. The speaker may not be as prominent as the president, but congress is as powerful as the executive and the speaker does have a significant influence on the nation's day-to-day business. Signature ^brendel 07:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of my edit? It includes the most powerful individual in each of the three branches of the federal government of the United States. Do we really need to include the Vice-President? Has the article currently stands only one of three equal branches are represented in the box. Featuresaltlakecity 23:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the Senate is the higher house. And the Vice-President is the head of the Senate. However, I do agree for the most part that the speaker exerts a lot of influence on Congress. However, I think it should be recognized in a more informal way. Blaiseball 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the vice-president considered to be of the executive branch though? Featuresaltlakecity 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yet he's somehow head of a legislative house. -- Golbez 00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

True the VP is kind of an oddball- though he should be mentioned as technically he is head of the Senate. I do, however, want to make it clear that we absolutely must mention the speaker (and acutally the supreme justice as well). We can just mention the head of one branch, the executive as the only "leader." He may be the most prominent but he is not the only leader worth mentioning in the infobox. Signature ^brendel 01:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Blaiseball that the separation of powers mess in the U.S. federal government should not be incorporated into the infobox, and is best explained elsewhere, because it is so confusing. The last time I checked, the President and his officers are the representatives of the United States at the international level when sovereigns are talking to sovereigns (or in poli sci terms, he is both head of nation and head of state). Although the Senate holds the power to ratify treaties, it's the President (or rather, mid-level employees acting in his name) who actually go to international conferences and negotiate the details.

Also, most of the millions of federal employees technically work for George W. Bush; in legal terms, there is a principal-agent or employer-employee relationship. If he has good cause---say, if someone actually were to report it all the way up the chain to him that a particular employee were acting up---he can say so-and-so is fired and that person will be fired as a result. Pelosi doesn't have that level of power in terms of being in the direct chain of command (she gets to step into that chain only if she succeeds to the Presidency). Of course, she has a lot of power in terms of getting laws passed (especially if she can bring something to the floor to get it passed over the President's veto), but that is like the power the Supreme Court possesses to overturn illegal acts of the President. It does work, but only very, very slowly. As any legal aid lawyer can tell you, it is no fun waiting a year for one's case to wander up to the Supreme Court when your clients are starving to death because the Secretary of Health and Human Services decided to assist the President in shifting money to the Department of Defense by cutting Section 8 housing vouchers or by making it easier for Social Security to kick disabled people off the the rolls (both of these actually happened under Ronald Reagan and resulted in several hundred reported legal decisions). -- Coolcaesar 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What you say is very true, but I still that the speaker and chief justice ought to be mentioned. I do so for two reasons:

• They are powerful, especially the speaker (yet they may be considerably less powerful than the president by themselves, but are nontheless very influencial) Let me use an analogy. Japan has a very large GDP, very large indeed. The US has GDP twice as large as that of Japan. Does this mean Japan doesn't have a large GDP? No. Similar situation here. The speaker has a lot of power, the president has more. But the speaker is nonetheless powerful enough to be mentioned as leader.
• We do have three branches of government and they are leaders. Out of principle they ought to be mentioed as they reflect the three branches.

Of course we do need to consider that deciding who's powerful enough to be mentioned in the infobox is a non-factual matter. I am still of the opinion that devoting two puny little lines to the speaker and chief justice (who are powerful leaders) is something we ought to do. Signature ^brendel 07:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Speaker under "government" is factually incorrect. The speaker is not a leader of the government, the "government" can be defined a couple of ways (and she leads none of them, she leads Congress, which is a legislative assembly that creates the rules by which the government operates); first government can mean "ruler or ruling body/organization" (aka administration) - in which case the President should be listed exclusively. Congress's role in this definition is purely oversight, establish and enforce rules by which the government operates. The second is "legal authority" - of which congress has none - all law directs the legal authority (in this instance, executive branch) to behave in a certain way, not excercise any legal authority. The congress "represents the people" (Republic) - in the stead of a true democracy, the congress instructs the GOVERNMENT (Executive branch) on how to operate. Congress is seperate from the government.

Including the Speaker of the House confuses and muddles an already overly complicated article. The President fulfills the definitive requirement - to put the Speaker in the article would open the door to including all persons of influence, not just those who hold senior posts in the government. I will revert/remove this change without significant reasonable backing for its initial inclusion in one week. Sahrin 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Congress is seperate from the government.- well I suppose that depends on your definition on government. Congress is nonetheless a leader. The people are the leaders, they are represented through congress which instructs the president, the top civil servant on what to do. That makes congress a leading institution. And listen "the Speaker in the article would" not "open the door to including all persons of influence" as she is quite a bit more powerful than other persons of incfluence. She is one of the biggest leaders in Congress, the institution that ought to tell the prsident on what to do; thus she is definitely a leader worth mentioning in the infobox. BTW: We have not yet found consensus and a revert would be pre-mature- don't close discussion uni-laterally please. On a side note, how do you justify listing the VP w/o listing the speaker. Unless the predient is incapcitated, the VP doesn't have any more power than the speaker! Signature ^brendel 01:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Congress is seperate from the government in any definition. The government is the body put in office to execute the orders of the People. The People are represented in a Republican system by the Congress. (Elsewhile, they would be represented by themselves, in a democracy (greek, Demos Kratia, people rule)). Think about it like this: The people are 'in charge,' yes? But it is unconcionable to put the people in direct charge of every aspect of life on an individual basis (then we would be subject to every person's individual interperetation of law, right and wrong, etc) - so we instead elect a body of representatives (Republic) - who create the laws and specify the manner in which they are to be adhered. It is in this way the the Speaker is no more powerful than a person of influence, because theoretically - EVERY person has the same amount of 'power' in Congress (as they are a representative body - they REPRESENT the PEOPLE - and are subject to them, heck we could include me, and I'm more than willing to go on the list, but I don't think that is particularly reasonable, well-intentioned or accurate). The HEAD of the GOVERNMENT (Chief of State, First Citizen) is the President of the United States. He is subject to the laws of Congress, but as the Chief Executive of the Government, he is also subject to the Constitution. Including positions in the list isn't a 'power ranking' with the most powerful at the top, it is a definition, and by any legal one that I am aware of - the President is the head of the government.

As to the question of whether the VP should not or should not be included - this is a variable question, and I think constitutionally I agree with your assertion that the VP is not significant enough to merit inclusion. However, several laws (National Security Act in particular) specify the VP as a significant advisor on many foreign and domestic matters, and also places VP on the NSC. This makes VP the only other elected official that is not approved by indirect advice and consent of the people (congress) to sit on the NSC, making her a person of considerable "influence," if not power. In addition, the fact that she is the most senior official under the direct control of the Head of the Government makes her a reasonable inclusion. (Not to mention Line of Succession reasoning).

Finally, you state that my 'plan' to revert the article is improper. I am unaware of a WP against this - I believe the article is inaccurate, I believe that a change needs to be made to bring it back into accuracy, and given the significance of this article I believe it should be done as quickly as possible. However, I also understand that this is a contended point, and am delaying - leaving the article in what I believe to be an inaccurate state, out of respect to other editors. Because I have made my argument, and I believe it to be sound, I give a reasonable (1 week) amount of time for debate to either challenge or contradict my arguments - and if they do not do so I will go ahead with what I believe to be necessary changes. This is much more reasonable than simply making the changes and offering no reasoning or time for response to said reasoning, and it is far better than making the change and then justifying it. I am trying to avoid an edit-war, while at the same time maintaining the accuracy and brevity of the article. Thanks for your comments. Sahrin 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You beleive it is inaccurate- I don't. I do challange you argument (and definition of government) by stating that the speaker is powerful enough and that the US government consists of three branches not just the executive. The above is your intrepretation of our government. I beleive that all three branches are part of the government (who pays for congress, tax dollars). The President is the head of the executive branch of government. Your reasoning relies on only including the executive branch in your definition of government. Clearly the Legislative and the Judiciary are also part of our government. They consists of elected or appointed members, are paid for by tax dollars and here to serve the American public. Congressmen are federal employes, as is the President as are supreme justices. If you were elected and granted a large amount of authority by the people (as the president and the speaker is) and then we could list you too in the infobox. The "representative body" is the heart of our government. We are governmened by a body of people who represent us (as we cannot make all decisions ourselves). The president is our tool (or the tool of our representatives) to act on our behalf-do what we (as represented through congress) tell him, enforce the laws we (as represented through congress) make. He is the highest placed public servant but not the only leader. We have three branches of government and the speaker, though less powerful, is also a leader worth mentioning. Signature ^brendel 06:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt <<A link to a plain-text of the Constitution. In Third Grade social studies, they use the phrase "Three Branches of Government." They do not, however, use it in law school, courtrooms, or in the US Constitution (which, I would imagine, is the authority on this subject). The ONLY references in the constitution to "government" are references made about the organization which executes the will of the people. Who is the "head" of that organization? The President, assisted chiefly by the Vice President. The Speaker, President Pro Tempore, Chief Justice of the USSC etc. are all officials who are NOT directly related to the "government" - as defined in the constitution. If the factbox is to contain references to the "Head of Government" - then it is reasonable that it should contain those individuals, and not those that are extraneous to it. Remember, in theory, a Republican system places ALL of the people above the government (in terms of "power" or food chain) - by your logic (include people who are senior or powerful - we could include anyone with power). If we go by the definition of government (as outlaid in the Constitution of the US) and by the organizational structure of the government, we arrive at just the President (and possibly the Vice President). I believe it is inaccurate - however my belief does not make my point any less valid.

In response to your seeming contention that I was asserting that my point was unchallenged - I am here, debating the issue. I am not unilaterally doing anything, please do not assert impropriety for the sake of Pathos. Thanks for your comments. Sahrin 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox mentions leaders- it think we have been misunderstanding each other a bit here. The infobox uses the word government in a "Third Grade social studies" like manner and such needs to be considered when we discuss the addition/removal of persons from the leaders section. Here is my point once again: We have three essential branches of "government" (as the word is used in the infobox). All three have leaders. Who are the biggest leaders of the United States (and it's government in a simple sense), the leader of the three branches. That rule keeps the club of leaders quite exclusive as we only have three branches. I still fail to see why the speaker should not be mentioned- she leads one of the branches and is thereby one of nation's clearly defined leaders of "government."

That said, I think the main cause of our disagreement is that you want to follow the technical definition of government, while I propose the following the more commonly used, vernacular definition of government when it comes to listing leaders. My reason for doing so is similar to the justification for calling this article United States instead of United States of America. Wikipedia is directed at the general public and needs to be written in manner that people can easily understand. When people hear "government" they include congress in that definition. I am not saying that we should follow mob-rule and litter WP with popular misconceptions. Hell no! I am merely saying that in this particular case we should include all three branches in our definition of government, which does not compromise our credibility IMHO, for the sake of clarity. If applying the "common" definition of government, we need to mention the leaders of all three branches.

BTW: I am not intent on asserting impropriety- you have been nothing but professional throughout this discussion. I seem to have misread the "I will revert/remove this change without significant reasonable backing for its initial inclusion in one week." for an ultimatum. Regards, Signature ^brendel 07:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Changes have been made. Thanks for your comments. Sahrin 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Until the recent changes that led to this dicussion, the infobox has always listed only the president and vice president, and I support that arrangement for several reasons. Note that although the president leads only the executive branch, he is considered the head of the entire government, whether you consider Congress part of government or not. Please consider the CIA World Factbook, which serves as a reference for many country infoboxes in Wikipedia (at least regarding the heads of government section). Even in parliamentary systems, the head of government is still the person who holds the executive powers. For example, the head of government in the United Kingdom is the prime minister because he is the leader of the Cabinet, the executive body of Parliament. But the leader of the House of Commons is actually the Speaker, not the prime minister, and the House of Lords is headed by the Lord Speaker. The CIA factbook actually puts the prime minister in the executive branch section, not legislative. So the problem is, if you want to include the Senate President pro tem and the House Speaker here, you would also have to include figures like the Lord Speaker for the UK box, because technically the House of Lords and House of Commons are both equal chambers in Parliament. But in truth, the president is the sole head of govenment, just as the prime minister is the head of government. KeL 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In common understanding- the understanding of the average reader of this article- the US government consists of all three branches; thus all three leaders are mentioned. It is the same rationale as for why we use "United States" instead of the technically correct "United States of America"- the former is more common and more likely to be used. While technically the "the head of government is still the person who holds the executive powers"- the prez in the US. Common understanding of the US government there are three branches to the "government" and all three have leaders. Only stating the prez will be ignoring our audience's understanding of the US gov and therefore misleading. Signature ^brendel 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "United States of America" is not the technically correct name. The phrase "of America" is merely a prepositional phrase. Secondly, I've already said that the president is still the head of the entire government even if you choose to consider all three branches. It is commonly understood that there are three branches of government, but it is also commonly understood that the president is both head of state and head of government. This is the common understanding of the average reader, so I honestly don't see how it is misleading. If you ask the regular American who their head of government is, do you think they would name the president, or would they name the House Speaker and Vice President? Also note that by your rationale, we'd have to mention the Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the House of Commons in the UK infobox instead of the prime minister, because they are leaders of separate and equal chambers of Parliament. That's the sort of problem your rationale would create. KeL 10:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We aim to educate and further the understanding of the average reader. So we adjust our register in such a manner that he or she will understand us and build on what they already know to further their understanding. A lot of people, falsly beleive that the president is like an elected king and thus they may also beleive that he indeed is the only leader in their government. If we don't list the other leaders of the government, as our average reader understands it, we support misconceptions and are therefore misleading. The average American doesn't know how important the speaker of the house is and that she can kill a bill before it even reaches the floor. We don't repeat what the average American would say on the street (otherwise this would not be an encyclopedia) but merely use his and her understanding of what is the government and then educate him or her who the most important leaders in that institution are. As for the UK-I am not familiary w/ the workings of the British government, so you'll need to use another example-but I would not see a problem listing more than one leader. Signature ^brendel 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The common understanding of the average reader is that the president is both head of state and head of government, and that is also the correct understanding. It would actually be misleading to put the leaders of all three branches as heads of government, because that is neither the common understanding nor technically correct. Right now your rationale is supporting that misconception. There are three branches of government, and the president is the head of government. I am not sure why you think that's misleading. And your rationale would basically go against nearly every country infobox in Wikipedia. KeL 22:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How is the president the head of the legislative and judicial??? He is only the head of the executive (which you may argue is the most powerful, but sill only one of three). Also, it is still misleading as he is not the only leader. Note that the infobox asks for "leader" not just head. Signature ^brendel 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not understanding what I said. The president not the leader of the legislative and judicial branches. He leads executive branch and is also the head of government. He doesn't have to be the leader of all three branches to be head of government. I thought I made that pretty clear. The House Speaker, Senate President and Chief Justice are leaders of their branches of government, but they are not heads of government. Yes, the labels in the infobox reads leaders, but in Wikipedia it has always been interpreted to mean the head of state and the head of government. Note that until recently, the United States infobox also followed that interpretation. But with the recent changes we have a whole list of branch leaders, rather than a simple mention of the heads of state and government. This is misleading for people who expect to see heads of state and government in their place.

Also keep in mind that if you want to list each branch leader, you would get into a whole mess of identifying who is a leader and who isn't. For example, the Vice President is already President of the Senate, so the Senate President pro tem is not really the Senate leader. It's debatable whether the President pro tem should be mentioned at all. And then we also have to consider what this would mean for all the other country infoboxes in Wikipedia. KeL 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"The president not the leader of the legislative and judicial branches. He leads executive branch and is also the head of government"-how so? If you define the government as consisting of three seperate branches, as we have done here for the sake of our readers, than it is misleading only to list the head of the executive branch. The head of the executive cannot be the sole leader of all three branches and thuus cannot be the leader of the government. Signature ^brendel 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, we can debate this all day, but the fact is the president has always been considered the sole head of government. You can argue this is not fair to the legislative and judicial branches, but that's not the point. Virtually any reliable source (e.g. the CIA World Factbook) and elementary school textbook say, "The President of the United States is both head of state and head of government of the United States." It would be misleading to put Pelosi, Byd, or Roberts, simply because they are not, and have never been, considered heads of government. This is also for the sake of consistency across Wikipedia, because if you look at other country infoboxes, they list the head of state and head of government of the particular countries. I honestly don't see what's so confusing: the president is head of government, but that doesn't mean he must be the leader of all three branches of government. KeL 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I totally disagree. Who is making these considerations? The president is the head of the exectuive branch and that's it! Everything else is a misconception, perhaps a popular misconception but still a misconception. The president leads the executive, not the legislative and not the judicial. If our government consists of three branches we need to mention all three leaders. The statement that "president is head of government, but that doesn't mean he must be the leader of all three branches of government" is completely flase! The president is only the leader of the executive and thus not the head of government. Why is the president not the head of government? Because the government consists of three branches, not just the executive. The president can NOT be head of just the executive and the entire government! In order to head the government he would need to head all three branches. Saying "well most people on the street would only name the president" is not a point-neither is a comparison to other WP articles. Signature ^brendel 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in and attempt to facilitate this discussion, since for the past couple of days it seems to have involved only two people arguing the same thing. I agree that, traditionally, the president is seen as the head of government. I can cite to several sites that say as much, the most important of these being the aforementioned CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html. To argue against this theory on grounds of misconcepion you must show at least some authority arguing that the president is not the head of government. Otherwise it appears that the only reason you want to include the other branch leaders is because it offends your own sense of justice to exclude them. I think the misconception here is mistaking "head of government" as implying a lack of checks and balances. True, we have three branches of government, but the president heads that by means of enforcing the laws (both statutory from legislature and common law by the courts) and as representative at important functions where other heads of states gather (at summits such as the G8 it is the president who stands alongside the other nations' respective prime ministers and presidents). To further illustrate this, here are several other links:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9218450/presidency-of-the-United-States-of-America

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/government/national/president.html

http://nationalatlas.gov/government.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_exe_bra_hea_of_gov-government-executive-branch-head-of

That said, I personally don't think it's too egregious to include the House Speaker and Chief Justice considering their important roles in their respective brances. But I am basing this on the fact that the box says "government" not "head of government" so I'll leave that for other people to work out. But as a compromise for the moment, I would like to suggest at least removing "and President of the Senate" from the Vice President's profile and "President Pro Tempore" entirely. These functions are largely ceremonial, and anyone who wants to learn more about them can either check on the Vice President page or the page for the U.S. Senate. I don't think they belong in a box that is suppossed to inform the reader, concisely, of those who have actual adiministrative power in the function of the U.S. government. SpiderMMB 20:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

By the means of enforcing laws the president only heads the executive branch. The government does not soley occupy itself with the enforcement of laws. We have three branches of government and not mentioning all three leaders is misleading. I can life with just lisiting the Pres, V pres, speaker and chief justice. Signature ^brendel 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect it if you still disagree, since I've already said everything I could to change your mind. But you have to understand that every reliable source, from the CIA World Factbook down to elementary school textbooks, say the president is head of government. That's not a misconception: it's an undisputed fact. Even Wikipedia's own article on the President of the United States says the same. There is no rule, as you insist, that says you have to lead every branch of government to be head of government.

The most misleading thing to do is to mention the Speaker and Chief Justice in the infobox because that implies they are heads of government along with the president, which is false. And to SpiderMMB, although the box reads simply "Government", the section is intended for the head of government and head of state, as seen in the infoboxes for every other country in Wikipedia. Until recently, the United States box followed the same arrangement. We also have to consider the fact that other sources, such as the CIA World Factbook, feel it's okay to omit the Speaker and Chief Justice. So there's really no need to make a special case apart from every other country in the world. KeL 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And just to quote from Wikipedia's own article on head of government: "The Head of Government is the chief officer of the executive branch of a government". Hopefully this will refute the misconception that the head of government somehow must be leader of all three branches of government. KeL 23:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it states leader. There is no rule that other leaders should not be mentioned either. Perhaps we need to re-word the template to clearly state that we are only listing the head of a government executive branch-the nation's CEO if you will. Signature ^brendel 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, please take a look at other countries on Wikipedia. The section is used for heads of state and government. "Leader" is used because it's just a simple general term, to allow for the fact that different countries have different names for their leaders. I think it's a weak argument to say that just because the name happens to be "leader" rather than the clumsy "head_of_government", it means we can ignore standard Wikipedia practice and list whoever we want. KeL 02:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not a weak point. If we only list the pres in the current infobox in this article, people will assume that he is the leader of all three branches-thus it would be misleading. If we are going to curtail the list of leaders to the chief executive leader we need to be clear about that-indicating that we are not talking about the head of all three branches but just the top executive officer. Also, all WP pratices are subject to change-WP is a dynamic institution where all "standard" practices are up on the debating block all the time. Fact is that I am concerned about the manner in which present info to our readers in the infobox on this article-otherwise this discussion wouldn't have grown to 33kb in length. Signature ^brendel 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

People won't assume the president is the leader of all three branches. They are going to assume he is the head of government just like all the other Wikipedia country articles. That's the way things were until this article was changed recently. It will, however, be misleading to name the leaders of all three branches because they are not all heads of government. And yes Wikipedia standards are subject to change, but if you have a look at other articles, the current standard seems to be listing heads of state and government. KeL 03:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

<---moving the conversation back to the left To jump in again: I concur with KeL's points above. Signature, you need to understand that you are pushing a rather crude understanding of "head of government" that does not conform to the generally accepted definition (and violates Wikipedia:No original research). KeL is correct to assert that the term "head of government" commonly refers to the head of the executive branch. This is in common use in political science, law, and public policy studies. It sounds like you might not have studied basic political science in college. If you have a problem with the definition, take it up with the political science people. Otherwise, you're pushing a position that is original research in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is descriptive (we echo and restate knowledge in common use), not prescriptive (it is not our place to push the position that "head of government" should include the heads of all major branches). -- Coolcaesar 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the definition but with the way we present it. Let me make this clear- I am not pushing a definition-I am voicing concern that the average reader will get the wrong impression from how we use the term head of government- even we are using the term correctly. Unlike KeL I think poeple will "assume the president is the leader of all three branches" My concern is over how this article is read by others. This has nothing do to with how well I understand the US government I have studied political science in college but did our average reader? I think that we may very well be misleading the average joe schmoe who sits down browsing the web with a 10th grade knowledge of political science and who after reading this article is going to think that "Ahh... the pres is the boss of all government so he must be above congress and the supreme court." Perhaps we nned to figure out a way to explain to the average reader who only knows "a rather crude understanding" of the US government what is meant by head of government... perhaps I should take a look at revising the template to make the definition of head of state clear... I realize that I may not have expressed myself in the most "efficient" manner above but I this posts outlines my concern pretty well ( Sahrin seemed to have understood my concern though). Also, I have written multiple GAs solo, I don't need you to hyperlink the OR policy for me nor do need you to acuse me of being some sort of college drop-out-please keep this professional. Signature ^brendel 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think we could debate about this all day and all night. I say let's have a vote??? Anyone againist that. If so, just put yes at the end of this thing and whichever side has the most votes wins. Speak now or forever be forgotten!!!!-- Coltbaby210 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works- if you think it should work that way, see the community portal. Signature ^brendel 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I would like to make a few comments. First, Brendel I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that you expressed such little faith in the average American (I don't intend to offend you). Second, I agree with Brendel to keep the speaker in the infobox. SageAndroid 05:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the following sentence under Demographics. It seems completely unnecessary:

"The percentages of whites among the general population is, however, declining."

Regarding demographics, please note that African American is considered a race by the United States census, not an ethnicity. If you use their terminology, you must quote them correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.74.135.178 ( talk) 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

People (shakes head), they really love labeling... sigh... even the DoC particiaptes... Signature ^brendel 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be a table or chart that lists the 50 states at the year of their admission into the Union. It could also include other facts like population or largest cities, but definitely a table. There is not much I can find that chronologically lists something like that. I think that would be important to this article. What is the consensus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.31.106.187 ( talk) 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

That's in the U.S. state article and other articles, like List of U.S. states by date of statehood. -- Golbez 08:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Though it could easily be noted in See Also. So I have. :) Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Within American political culture the Republican Party is considered "center-right" or conservative while the Democratic Party is considered "center-left" or liberal" is a gross over-simplification of American political ideologies that history simply does not bear out. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" transcend left-right politics, and should be considered separately. For example, a person can be considered economically liberal, while maintaining a socially-conservative viewpoint, and so on. Simply put, right =/= conservative, and left =/= liberal. This is Political Science 101. A simple fix would be:

"Within American political culture the Republican Party is traditionally considered "center-right", while the Democratic Party is traditionally considered "center-left". O0drogue0o 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Very ture! A person's view on abortion has little to do with their view on labor unions. There is definitely a great difference between economic and social liberal/conservative views. Ever since the neo-cons came long, however, conservative seems to always mean right wing. In other words, the Republicans seem to have combined right-wing and conservative social/economic ideas. So now, being pro-school vouchers means being anti-abortion (yes it is crazy!). The Dems did the same, just the other way around. So the sentence is (unfortunately) accurate. If you have a proposal that would make it more accurate, however, please add it! Signature ^brendel 06:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Within American political culture" - The other 95% of the world considers these "parties" to be indistinguishable arms of their corporate owners. (so who "considers" otherwise?)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourtildas ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Those affilated with one of those parties such as myself. There are key differences (e.g. pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion) in their ideologies and social policies. Signature ^brendel 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This poll has been closed by an admin because (a) this issue has been tested repeatedly, including a very recent decision to keep this name (b) proceeding directly to a poll is not the prefered form of discussion on Wikipedia. The anonymous editor who wishes to move the page should first explain their reasoning here and invite discussion. It would be especially helpful if they have something new to say that has not been said before. Johntex\ ^talk 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What the...

Ok, this made me laugh. Fixing it now. PrinceForte 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Proper subject heading was "Geography." PrinceForte 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia by fixing that vandalism! Looking through the page history, it appears it was missed by another editor cleaning up vandalism yesterday, and went unnoticed (or at least uncorrected) until you took action. Good job on helping keep Wikipedia clean. — Krellis 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Though John Roberts is a Republican, his office is apolitical. He is unelected and his party is not mentioned in the context that it is currently seen on the leaders section of the country infobox. I'm removing the reference that he is Republican. -- R'son-W (speak to me/ breathe) 11:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the party mention of Roberts is uneeded. Signature ^brendel 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

John Roberts, should be undecided,until he can decide want he wants to be. WHy is his office apolitical???? I really need some answers!!!! This subect on him just flat out confuses me.. Why is that he unelected and why,I really do mean WHY!!!, is his party not mentioned in the context?? What context is R'son-W talking about?????-- Coltbaby210 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Should California be added as the largest state in the infobox? (SUDUSER) ⁸⁵ 04:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Largest state in terms of area is Alaska. California has the largest population. -- theSpectator _talk 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding the most populous state is actually not a bad idea- we're the gold standard for states anyways ;-) (CA is called the golden state-in case someone who doesn't know readers this) Signature ^brendel 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not, I mean, the way things are going, eventually we're going to move the whole article (and then some) to the infobox, so why stop now? yes this is sarcasm -- Golbez 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Got your point- we do need to draw the line somewhere-you're right. Isn't small text great? Signature ^brendel 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The CIA factbook : 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) [1]

So where does the number 300 million come from? Potaaatos 17:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

US Census Bureau, current (not July of last year) estimate. Go to www.census.gov and click on population clocks. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to go with Potaaatos on this. Really where do the three million come from???? Why can't the US just say the exact number. -- Coltbaby210 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The number comes from the US Census Bureau's current estimate. Just follow the citation link! As for "Why can't the US just say the exact number"- becuase you cannot count 300 plus million people, conducting an acutal census is impossbile in a nation with millions, let alone hundreds of millions of people. You can only have sample data (even the Census is sample data) and complex mathematical calculations to ball-park America's population. Any figure is going to be off by millions in a nation this size. Signature ^brendel 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a bit of browsing through wikipedia and found out as of 1990 to present the US has become a hyperpower because it has dominated militarily, economically, and technologically on a world stage, even though people most commonly call it a superpower, just thought I'd bring that up maybe for a change of wording, here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower

That's just one theory of several. Others argue that the US is the sole superpower, while yet other beleive in a multi-polar world. Signature ^brendel 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Because several sources have claimed the United States is a Hyperpower, I think that perhaps a vote should be held to decide whether or not this information should be mentioned on this page as such:

"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States emerged as the world's sole Superpower, or Hyperpower."

After all, the last time this issue was decided was quite a time ago so far as I know.

In order to keep track of votes easier, I think that it will be a good idea to copy and paste the following after you vote:

Votes For: Votes Against:

My vote is strongly support.

Votes For: 1 Votes Against: 0

Reticulum 00:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling a lot of people are unhappy that you hopped right to a vote, because voting is typically evil on wikipedia. -- Golbez 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Democratic system=partiality, which is something wikipedia I think would like to avoid. AllStarZ 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez on this one and have to say i am strongly against this. Really we should pick better subjects to dicuss. Anyone have a problem with that??? -- Coltbaby210 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that when I search for "USA," I am directed to the same information about the United States as I am if I type in "United States of America," with the exception of the presence of the Mexican flag instead of the flag of the United States of America? Is this a joke? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.198.42 ( talk) 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

No, it's serious. Of course it's a joke, or rather, vandalism. -- Golbez 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I really do not think that this is a joke. -- Coltbaby210 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did someone fix that, because that doesn't happen to me? 75.35.147.172 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has re-added the short names to the lead sentence, again. I believe I already addressed this a few months ago. Jay( Talk) 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I believe this subsection should include "Mexico" as a "Military ally of the US". It certainly isn't an enemy, and since it is spending 4% of its GDP, and losing a lot of personnel, fighting drug dealers that export to US consumers, I don't see why it shouldn't be listed.

I understand that the article cannot possibly list ALL of the USA's military ally, and I also understand that adding Mexico would be controversial, for a lot of reasons. That is why I wanted to discuss it before adding. What do you think?

My arguments in favor are the countless number of Mexican officials that die every year, (including the Mexican Secretariat of Public Safety, and close friend to President Fox, Ramón Martín Huerta who died fighting against drug criminals, who commit their crimes in the US). Another reason is the comparatively high amount of resources Mexico devotes to these issues, the long history (decades) of cooperation between the armed forces of both nations in common causes: prevent illegal immigration, prevent drug trafficking to the US, and keeping a secure border, and the closeness of the two nations. If anything else, the Mexican aid to the victims of Katrina...

Sure, the UK is America's closest ally, politically... But Mexico is America's closes ally geographically (along with Canada). The two countries share one of the largest borders in the world! And sure, Mexico's armed forces may not be as impressive as those of Japan, but then the GDP of both nations is not even comparable. Mexican officials die daily fighting America's most wanted (who have been recently extradited to the the US), while I don't think that the Japanese armed forces can say the same thing...

Hari Seldon 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are good reasons for including Mexico, there are good reasons for mentioning Canada. There are also good reasons for mentioning Japan and Germany. But this article is already too long. Details need to be mentioned in the forgein relations of the US article. Signature ^brendel 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Japan is menctioned, Germany, Canada, and Mexico are not. On the other hand, Germany and Canada are part of NATO, which is menctioned... while Mexico is not part of NATO and is not menctioned elsewhere. I understand that the article is too long, but adding Mexico is 5 letters and a comma, and perhaps brackets for wikipedizing it. Overall, it should not be more than 10 characters added. Is this really so bad? Hari Seldon 07:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your reasoning (Germany and Canada being mention under the NATO heading w/ only the UK being mentioned twice due to the "special relationship"). I guess adding Mexico can't hurt. After all living in California I see what a great cultural influence Mexico has on the US furthermore there is great economic interdependency. I'll try and figure out a way to mention Mexico in the section. Signature ^brendel 01:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I started another topic specifically on this which is still on the main U.S. talk page. However, I wanted to point out that Mexico, while it has strong ties to U.S. law enforcement is really in a war for their own country, not the United States. It would make more sense to mention Mexico in the economic and demographic sections as it has influence on the US ( and vice versa) via its large ex pat population in the U.S. and their economic relations, especially NAFTA. Since the article currently states countries with "strong ties" to the U.S. the existing countries should remain and Mexico should be left out only because the US has less of a feeling of brotherhood with Mexico than with the currently listed nations. Lockeian ( talk) 22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already, somewhat temerariously, made my point in the article on native Americans, questioned, as from afar, that article, and now come to this. My point is a simple one; it relates to balance. Looking at the history section, it effecitvely begins with independence, even though the ethnic mix of the union at that time must have included considerable numbers of native Americans with their own history, and culture as well as the very large numbers of African Americans. Both articles, as I read them are written by the descendents of the invaders. If I were to make a comparison, a history of Great Britain, a country which dates from the eighteenth century would be incomplete if it did not include the hsitory of the four constituent pre-existing countries and the various tribes and groups which made them up, and including the history of invasions which, in our case, go back two thousand years and more. That the Iceni etc. had no literature would not be a reason for including Boudicca and Caraddoc etc. A casual reader of the present article would not realise that it was a series of invasions which brought the United States into being or that the slave trade, which involved over a a hundred million souls, was integral to its establishment.

The inclusion of indigenous and slave peoples is of particular significant in this year which marks the two hundredth anniversary of the abolition in Great Britain of the slavee trade (March 25th. 1807). And in case anyone objects to the intervention of an outsider, it was, of course my ancesters, from the reign of Elizabeth I onwards who were responsible for the triangular trade which provided the work force for the sugar, cotton and tobacco trades as well as being responsible for the slaughter of native Americans.

I look forward to a response. It may be that I have got things wrong. I hope that an transatlantic view is acceptable and is reagrded as an attempt to be postive. Roger Arguile 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article on the UK only goes as far back as the 9th century, so I do think you're a little wrong in what you want. We have more detailed articles on the histories of each country and its predecessor entities. Perhaps a little more could be said on native americans, but no, there are two sections prior to independence. -- Golbez 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the United States, not North America. Did you apply the same reasoning to Mexico and put a POV flag on that article, Roger? Is the history of Latin America not one of "conquest" much as that of the English-speaking countries? And as for the English conquerors, did you also flag the article on Canada? Seems strange that you would single out the U.S., Mr. Arguile. Why did you? Clark Street 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I shall look at the history of the UK. Thanks for the note. However, three lines on pre-Columbian north America is not, in my view, enough. Roger Arguile 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for misspelling your name. Is it asking too much that we have 72 hours in which to see if I have any supporters. I know from experience that articles grow and one becomes myopic about them. Having had this pointed out to me, I find that time for reflection is helpful. But I shall look at the material on Great Britain when I have a moment. Sauce for geese etc! Roger Arguile 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Street, Thank you for your comments. One cannot do everything. It may well be that comments should be made about other parts of the Americas (though accoridng to WP Mexico is 'mesoamerica', I think. I am sure you are right about the conquest of south America. Likewise Canada. As for the reason for singling out the United States, you may disagree but I had always thought it a very significant country in the world's affairs and one that values freedom and democracy, whose principles it seeks to export. That being the case the article on the United States needs to reflect the whole of its history, which will include slavery and the expropriation of the lands of Native Americans. (Likewise, the history of England will include our terrible Civil war, the Highland clearances, the Reformation murders and much more. I am sorry if you are offended that the United States has been singled out. Roger Arguile 11:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The main article for the United States is a good place to make the point that Native American cultures pre-dated European colonization, but it's not the right place to inject substantial pre-colonial history. Some of that belongs in History of the United States, but the vast majority of it belongs on Pre-Columbian, an article which is in some serious need of help, I'll note. Yes, the history of the United States pretty much starts with colonization. No, that's not a problem. The United States was a fundamentally European phenomenon, being initiated by European colonization, defined by proxy conflicts between various European powers and patterned on the political and social development of Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a particularly good thing, I'm just saying that the extent to which the history of the United States involves Native Americans and other native populations is almost exclusively one of conflict, not inclusion. Exceptions exists, and if we're to discuss native cultures in any depth, I think that it would be in relation to Native Alaskans and Native Hawaians, both of which had and continue to have a strong influence on the continuity of their respective states' culture, history and politics, making it very difficult to dicuss the history of those states without including the native context.

On a more Wikipedia-focused topic, I'm not sure that slapping a POV tag on the article was the right way to ask this question. It's clear that there was substantial uncertainty on your part as to how strong a consensus their might be for such a suggestion, which makes me question why you would expose the debate to the casual reader before having this discussion on the talk page first. Article pages aren't the place to ask questions, and unless there's a clear bias, a POV tag doesn't seem appropriate to me. - Harmil 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your broad approach. I appreciate that the attitude of the Europeans who went was to take over, exclude and displace the Native Americans. Whereas in Europe, invasions did not , on the whole, completely displace the former civilisation, the case is different in the USA. However, Pre-Columbian, apart from being illiterate as a title serves to marginalise the place of the earlier culture. I would prefer an overview title with a name such as story of North Americawhich would then refer to the European histories of Alaska, Canada and the US, and to the histories of the various Native American tribes.

One thing I want to say without too much offence. WP is dominated by US contributors, or appears to be. I do not think they, or many of them, can have any conception of the European perception that 'Americans', as they call themselves, seem to lack a broad world view. Article upon article is written without any idea that the places and the events described may not have been heard of outside the Union. Your own quotation on your user page referring to a rock band does not say that it is not based in Australia (or that it IS based in the USA). Brits have been forced into a degree of humility by the decline of their country. I think they have become more qualified to write about their own country than 'USes' (there is no name for them except that which I am not prepared to use - Americans) are able to write about their own. Putting POV at the head of the article was, in part, a protest against what I perceive to be the parochialism of much of the material. The problem is what we Europeans did to North America. The peoples of the Inidan sub-continent were robust enough to throw us out;the Native Americans could not do so. Perhaps this difference of view is unbridgeable. Roger Arguile 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I want to say, without too much offense, is that as a Frenchman, I don't think many Europeans have any conception of the arrogance and superiority complex that we have towards Americans. I have lived many places, including a small town in Alsace called Ribeauvillé, Paris, Cleveland, and New York City, and I can tell you that such sweeping generalizations are unfounded. There are open-minded and parochial people everywhere, so stating that Americans and the articles they write are inherently narrow-minded is very bad faith.

Let me return to the issue at hand. The United States article is already very long, so the history section is obligatorily abbreviated. In my opinion, there isn't a clear bias to the article, but maybe that's because I was partially educated in America and am thus somewhat familiar with its history. If you have specific suggestions for changes, please make them, but simply labeling an article as POV doesn't help other editors address that concern. Given the length of the article and the broad nature of the "story of North America" you suggested above, I don't think such a section is appropriate, although it might merit its own article, or the renaming/expansion of the European colonization of the Americas article. - Confiteordeo 18:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this engagement should take place elsewhere. I would prefer to say that one can multlipy instances of a problem - as I have implied - without using the word 'inherent'. When opinion is offered with the implication of evidence and this is name-called 'bad faith', Iwonder.

The fact is that I regard the marginalisation of Native Americans as hard to justify and none of the justifications I have read are compelling. If, as some say, the native Americans numbered 100 million, that is a lot of people to ignore. Roger Arguile 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So expand that section! It's a good idea to add more information, and no one is saying that we should marginalize or ignore Native American history, but since editors have recently begun to express concerns about the length of the article, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't add paragraphs and paragraphs. If you think you can find enough information on it, start an article on Native American History or expand an appropriate existing article. There's no need to ask permission, but if you want help or ideas, you have to give us something to work off of! Confiteordeo 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)