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 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

The only major points I see in the old peer reviews and FA noms for this article that are still relevant are:

1. The citations are overwhelmingly web citations - Don't think I agree with this being a problem, however. Accessibility is key to verifiability.
2. Too long. People were opposed to FA over the article length when it was at 88k. Source is now over 106k, after much aggressive trimming. However, the size of the article when excluding the references, infoboxes, et al is considerably lower. See WP:LENGTH.

Thoughts? Feel free to add to the list. Just want to see if there's anything else we can take care of before requesting another peer review. For perspective, here's what it looked like around the last peer review. MrZaius ^talk 09:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the current length, stripped of wiki syntax, images, infoboxes, references, extlinks, etc, per WP:LENGTH - 58408 bytes - well, well within norms for an article of this importance/that's spawned so many others.

Updated MrZaius ^talk 09:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The only changes that have been really contentious over the last few weeks and not called for in FA peer reviews were minor tweaks to various infoboxes and a debate over a handful of words in the first sentence. Any objections at all to renominating for FA? MrZaius ^talk 05:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC) - Seeing none, renominated.

Btw, the TOC has been cut by ~25% in the last few days. MrZaius ^talk 15:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

if you really want to cut down the TOC (which I think is quite long) you should bold the subsections instead of using equal signs to removed them from the TOC (or if there is a way to not include them, then do that)-- 88wolfmaster 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe the TOC is overly bloated at this point. The sections that were merged over the last few days did a more than adequate job. To perform more such merges would make the page more difficult to navigate, and would, IMHO be pointless. MrZaius ^talk 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Although this is a minor problem, but throughout the article some photo captions end with a point (.), and others don't. I think there should be a universal structure regarding whether to end the captions with or without one. Thoughts? >> Abdalla 03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the US section of the List of official languages by state, there are several official languages in various territories and states of the United States, including Hawaiian and Spanish. As there is no de jure official language on the federal level, it is inappropriate (per the infobox country docs) and a little clunky to list 'none de jure & english de facto'. As such, I've replaced it with regional_langauges and a (presumably exhaustive) list of languages copied from the aforementioned list article. This is the most accurate way to address it in the infobox that I can find. MrZaius ^talk 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I suppose only listing regional languages implies that there isn't a dejure official language at the federal level. One problem: I can't see your edit? There must be some sort of syntax error-I'm sure you'll have that fixed in seconds ;-) Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's looking like an error in the template itself. I've posted a report of the glitch to Template Talk:Infobox Country, and reviewing the template's code to see if there's an easy fix. Doesn't seem to render any but official_languages, even if all three are included. It should be fixed shortly, however, so if we leave it be for now, we'll be fine. Better off with the language temporarily absent from the infobox than ambiguous or incorrect, assuming it gets fixed on the quick. MrZaius ^talk 05:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick update. The infobox is at fault. The spoken_languages option that I attempted to use earlier was completely missing from the template source, and the regional_languages option was only accessible #if the official_languages option was set. However, as in the case of this article, it certainly should be possible to do the one and not the other. Updated my post on their talk page. Given the intricate nature of the template, I'm reluctant to mess with it, but if it's not resolved by tomorrow, I'll just rig up a sandbox and fix it myself. MrZaius ^talk 05:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your dedication, Signature ^brendel 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:David Kernow fixed it! Looks like we're good, now. MrZaius ^talk 06:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Language section is completely horrible ... looks cluttered. Regional languages? In what sense? English is hardly a regional language in the United States, comparable to the others listed. Furthermore, it's misleading because the infobox template is about the United States rather than parts of it. On another point, its just fortunate that everyone knows already English is the official language of the Federal government, though by precedent rather than statute, so promoting legal fictions (that the US has no official language) is unlikely to misinform anyone. I understand the topic is sensitive politically, but that being said, I repeat, the infobox template is about the US as a whole. This article would do well to copy the box on the United Kingdom infobox, which confines "regional" official languages to a note, while stating that English is the de facto language (the same legal fiction is maintained to a certain degree in the UK; both the US and UK of course are older than the fad about declaring "Official language"s in the constitution). But this Regional languages thing really doesn't work. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox as it stands is highly misleading. As someone who pushes for the recognition of Spanish as a significant language within the United States, I have to say that stating the predominant language is anything but English is simply incorrect.

The infobox information for languages are languages spoken throughout the country. If you want to list regional languages, then you should list them in the appropriate article for that region. For instance, French, which is important in Louisiana, should be in the Louisiana infobox, but it shouldn't be listed for the United States where only 1.4 million people speak it, or about .04% of the population.

Based on the 2003 census information [1] I would say only English should be listed as the de facto language of the United States, with maybe a mention of Spanish as being spoken by a significant part of the population. This would also reflect the information listed on the CIA World Factbook, where English and Spanish are the only two languages specifically mentioned (with the exception of Hawaiian, mentioned as official in Hawaii). [2]

For the moment, I am going to change the infobox back to how it was. I would suggest a conversation and consensus be reached before any further changes are made, because as it stands it is grossly inaccurate. SpiderMMB 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that it is only accurate when discussing it like this. However, if you'd like to change it to spoken languages and only list the languages that are spoken by 1% of the population (ie Spanish and English), that would be acceptable. It's simply inaccurate to list an official language on the federal level, and kinda clunky to have to deal with having de facto and de jure spelled out in an infobox. PS, didn't see this note until after reverting the regional languages, but the list does accurately reflect the languages officially recognized by the United States and its territories. MrZaius ^talk 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FACTUAL ERROR: The following statement in the geography section is simply not true. I just cant figure out how to put this note anywhere else so please read this and correct the problem.

"The United States is the world's third largest country by land area after Russia and the People's Republic of China and just ahead of Canada.[16] By total area, including inland bodies of water, it is either the world's third or fourth largest nation, depending on whether one counts two territories governed by China but claimed by India.

The United States is smaller than Canada, period. The borders have not changed in a long time. Check your facts before you post erroneous information. Check the CIA World Factbook (where the following numbers come from) or just do a google search of anything but this website. It goes Russia at 17,075,200 sq. km, CANADA at 9,984,670 and then the US at 9,826,630. Fourth is China with a landmass of 9,596,960. These are facts and the integrity of this website demands someone correct since I cannot. On a side note, every respectable source I checked (US gov't pages and encyclopediae) states that China is smaller than the US.

That's precisely where the rankings came from in the first place. Had you verified the source [3] listed in the article before posting, you'd have seen precisely what's listed in the article. The numbers you cite above are not the total land area, but rather the total area inclusive of inland seas and lakes. Note that the article also plainly includes the ranking you mentioned, depending on the CIA-ref'd debate over the Indian/Chinese border. MrZaius ^talk 05:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article contains an economic fallacy. It cites the current median income level and then says this is comparable to current levels in Switzerland and the United Kingdom based on exchange rates. However, this is a well-known fallacious way of making income comparisons, because it does not does not take into account purchasing power and cost of living. While it is true that someone in the UK making 30K in British pounds could exchange those for approximately 60K dollars, this certainly does not mean that making 30K pounds in the UK is an equivalent income to making 60K dollars in the U.S. The relevant comparison is PPP-adjusted (purchasing price parity adjusted) median income. I suggest that the passage about income comparisons either be eliminated or replaced with a PPP-adjusted median income comparison. As it stands, this passage is misleading at best and will contribute to misunderstanding among readers.

The currency convergency rates are PPP rates right from the OCED. BTW: Income is not always representative of purchasing power even within a country of even state. Who is more affluent a household of five making $115,000 or a household of two making $90,000? Furthermore, $500,000 in costal California buys you a tiny condo, but a 2,500 sq. ft. in the Central Valley or a 3,500 sq. ft. home w/ 3 car garage in Chicago's better suburbs. Household income is an imprefect measure as are all other measures! Yet, the current comparisons are utilizing the best possible convergency rates and simply provide an overview of how much households make (how much they can buy for it is impossible to explain anyways-see above) - This is something people wanna know-they want to compare their gross annual household income. You can compare households in the UK to households in the US in terms of total gross annual households income just like you can compare households in SF to households in Chicago and a household of two to a household of four regarding gross annual household income. Signature ^brendel 06:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually im not sure you can, living space us often a problem in many areas of many countries, e.g. London, UK, it costs usually much more to live in the centre of the city than in its suburbs (not just food etc but housing) only generally for much less space. Although this is rectified to some degree (as I assume it is in the USA) by increasing salary, the salary increase does not compensate the increase in cost of living. The same may be said of Tokyo, one of the most expensive (if not the most) cities to live in, in the world. This does not mean that in London (although to a degree compensated for) the average person's salary is twice as great as it would be in a place where it would cost half the cost to live in. However when comparing the US to the UK it mght be true to say that someone working in the US would earn roughly the same VALUE of money as a person working in the UK, and so putting it as though everyone in the UK earns twice as much as people in America do because the pound is more valuable than the dollar dosent make any sense.

First, the section states that the UK has a median household income of roughly $39,000 - $7,000 less than the US. There isn't any mention of "everyone in the UK [earning] twice as much as people in America". What the article does say is that "someone working in the US would earn roughly the same VALUE of money as a person working in the UK" (though I need to mention that household income is not the same as individual income as 42% of US households have 2+ earners). The figures are not based on current exchange rates but on Pucharsing Power Parity rates obtained from the OCED - in other words they measure the "VALUE of money." Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 02:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit replaced the GDP info et al with CIA stats that seem to conflict with statistics found elsewhere in the article. We need to pick a source and stick with it. Anyone have a clear preference? MrZaius ^talk 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Use the IMF, it's the most neutral and independent IMHO. Signature ^brendel 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²) and with more than 300 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area (...)" Well, wich is it? 3rd or 4rd?

Having a section on War on Terrorism just makes the USA look stupid. Please change it to "Recent History" or something meaningful. 199.125.109.67 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) It should have its own section, it is one of the major attacks U.S has had in awhile, not having one would be treason and demoralizing troops.

"...not having one would be treason..." You're exaggerating, right? Scarian 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 'satirizing' is the word, not exaggerating.-- Primal Chaos 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added the word "Mostly" in front of English as the national language. My reasoning is the following:

• 60 millions Americans speak another language at home
• Any government agency can be dealt w/ in Spanish
• Numerous media outlets (radio and TV) that broadcast in a language other than English
• Adoption of "official" languages other than English by some states

English is the most commonly used language hence the word "mostly." Just mentioning English is relatively misleading considering the above. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a little problem with the nation language link. The article to which it link clearly states that "A national language is not to be confused with the predominant language". English in the US is, of cource, just that: the predominant language. So as I see it we can either re-work the WP article on national language or change the info box field ;-). Signature ^brendel 06:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if many people speak another language at home because all US citizens speak English and the people here that do not speak English are not citizens or are illegal aliens. In order to become a US citizen you must know English. "Mostly" is very misleading, especially for people that have never been to the US. The US is not like Canada where their are two main languages, Spanish and other minority languages are not spoken by the majority of the US population and if you were to walk up to people on the street and try to speak to them in language other than English most of them would tell you that they only speak English or just give you a weird look and walk away. English is spoken by 82% of the population as a native language and 96% of the population speaks English "well" or "very well. Every country in the world has minority languages and there is no country in the world where the entire population speaks only one language. The whole "Mostly" thing is unencyclopedic and just plain silly, would you put "Mostly" under the UK and Australia since they have many minority languages as well? No, I am sure you wouldn't. The US is an English speaking country and the only reason they have TV/radio stations and government agencies that can be dealt with in other languages is to help make new immigrants more comfortable. The US is an English speaking country and putting "Mostly" would make people think that the US is like Canada, which it is not. When I put English under the national language section you were the only one that seemed to disagree with it. The US is an English speaking country and the footnote explains that we have several minority languages, a thing that every country has. User:Daniel Chiswick 30 May, 2007.

The US is not an "English-speaking" country in the same sense as the UK or Australia-it is a multi-lingual country w/ English as its most dominant language-the most commonly used one. Not all US citizens grow up speaking English-in most California ESL classrooms more than half the kids are US citizens by birth (but growing up in Culver City they didn't need English growing up)- see the points I made above. English is the most commonly spoken and used language but not the one and only national language-which is why you can interact w/ the US government in Spanish (try dealing w/ the British gov in anything but English). BTW: Spanish speaking TV stations exsist becuase there is a large enough market and profit incentive, not to "make new immigrants comfortable." Signature ^brendel 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that because a language is broadcast or spoken by the government is not a legit argument. I am currently in Denmark where Danish is the official language, yet there are 10+ channels broadcasting mostly in English and only 1 full time Danish channel. Also most people here speak English as do ALL government officials, but that does NOT make English an official language of Denmark.

Firstly, Brendel, arguably the USA is more of an English-speaking country than the UK; non-English speakers, and by that you're meaning those who use a language at home other than English rather than those who can't speak English, in the USA consist mostly of immigrants. In the UK, Welsh, Scottish and Irish Gaelic, Lowland Scots, are spoken by several million in the population indigenously and have official language status; in Wales Welsh in the medium language for education for a huge percentage of that population, and although not in large numbers, Gaelic schools exist through Ireland and Scotland. England is the only part of the UK where English is indigenous, hence why its called English rather than British. Note also, British citizenship can be obtained with knowledge of Welsh, Scottish or Irish Gaelic; in Wales, you have the right to use Welsh in any official environment, in courts, government, etc. Welsh is taught in all Welsh schools. The UK in fact, in addition to these populations, has several million immigrants, who use of Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Punjabi, Chinese, etc at home, compares in percentage of population to immigrants in the USA who retain their pre-immigration language after settling. The UK is not a very good example to choose. Secondly, English is the national language of the United States, always has been; its lack of constitutionally explicit "official status" is only an issue because, while the fad for making "official languages" spread throughout the world with the rise of European linguistic nationalism from the later 19th century into the 20th, such a thing wasn't an issue in a relatively monolingual state like the USA, and stating English is official" would have been regarded as preposterously superfluous. It really was never thought the case until relatively recently that if something's not explicit in written law, it is not in the law. However, the official use of English is the USA has been established by precedent, and even by statute (citizenship, etc); the argument that because its not in the constitution, it is not official, is a legal fiction invented only in recent years, and drolly doesn't have much of a life ahead of it in any case, for those who currently take it seriously. Whatever solution is found for this page, it must 1) clearly state that English is the language of the people and government of the USA 2) Note the percentage of adult citizens who do not speak English 3) perhaps mention (in note?) that English, ignoring being the actual language it is written in, is not formally declared official in the US constitution 4) perhaps mention in note that other languages are widely spoken at home by immigrants to the USA, and "indigenously" in certain localities. 1) however is most important; wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia which should give clear information. Anything which gives the impression that English is not the language of the USA, independent of legal fictions and constitutional niceties, will be misleading. BTW, English has the same official status in the UK as in the US, but anyone who tried to make an issue of that in the UK would be laughed at. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well those are interesting points about the UK - I am not an expert on UK issues but always enjoy learning about different places ;-). As for being laughed at, consider that in the US "language" is a contentious issue, especially as it relates to immigration and the whole melting pot (social right) vs. salad bowl (social left) conflict. Nonetheless... Looking at the stats English is the "most" used language - using the word "mostly" does not suggest it isn't the dominant language of the US - something it obviously is. The fact that TVs in this country have an ESP button, the number of non-English media outlets, the fact that government agencies can be dealt w/ in Spanish -which is also the official dejure language of New Mexico- and the 60 million Americans who speak a different languages at home need to be taken into consideration. Fact is the US is huge country where 18% of persons adds up to roughly 60 million people -that is roughly the population of the entire UK. In some areas of the country Spanish is out-right more common than English -New Mexico and parts of California and Texas. The word mostly paints a very clear picture IMHO. It clearly presents English for what it is in this country: the predominant language - the defacto official language. Yet, it also takes into consideration areas where English isn't the most common language and the 60 million persons who don't speak English at home. Instead of mostly we could also use "predominantely" - wording that's a bit stronger. That said, Golbez has argued (in edit summaries) that the footnote is sufficient. Considering that the UK article also uses a footnote, I will not revert or re-insert the words "mostly" or "predominantely"-though I still beleive that they would make things clearer for our readers. Signature ^brendel 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish is not a de jure official language in New Mexico, nor is French de jure in Louisiana. Both are de facto official languages. Believe me, I spent a lot of time looking into this as several Wikipedia articles made similar claims. The only other language I could find that was constitutionally official in a state was Hawaiian in Hawaii. Spanish in New Mexico and French in Louisiana are recognized and protected by several legislative acts, but neither one is constitutionally recognized (see this talk page for more info on the New Mexico issue).

Frankly, I think all this back and forth editing is unnecessary. The box should say "English (de facto)," like every other English-speaking country (i.e. UK, Australia). I think the footnote more than adequately covers the issue of other languages within the United States. Any further elaboration should be done in the "languages" subsection of this article, and not in the info box, which is meant to succinctly convey basic information. For instance, Brendel, the "languages" subsection would be an ample opportunity to elaborate on Spanish in the U.S., etc. I've made a few edits to that section myself, but left it after awhile as no one else showed any interest. I think this debate is better resolved there. SpiderMMB 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the debate is resolved. I still have my opinion that "predominately English" w/ footnote is a better description than just "English" w/ footnote or "English (defacto)" w/ footnote, but I am not going to force my view on the article. At least I have learned a bit about languages in the UK, though I still doubt that Australia is as multi-lingual as the US... but nevertheless, let's leave at the footnote. As for dejure language in NM, I made a mistake- it isn't the dejure language of the state but is used -like English- by the state. Signature ^brendel 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SpiderMMB, keep it simple with English (de facto). — MJCdetroit 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, issue resolved since everybody else thinks "English (de facto)" is the best way to get the message across. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: Personally, I preferred the previous solution of listing languages spoken. English is not the "defacto" language in some areas of the U.S., and the footnote provided is about population clock, and does not support claims made. Btw, IMHO, a mere 12 hours is not enough time to develop a consensus and declare a debate resolved, especially one that has been discussed multiple times in the archives.... Leuko 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By "Debate resolved" I did not mean that you can't comment on this issue further-I have merely accepted that my idea to put "Predominantly English" or "Mostly English" in the info box hasn't been accepted by my fellow editors. Signature ^brendel 22:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How about adding a list of languages with percentages of the US population that primarily use that language? Leuko 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a list is already found in the Demographics table, corresponding perfectly with the "languages" subsection. As I suggested earlier, further elaboration and debate should focus upon that section. The info box is meant to succinctly convey information to the reader. Also, I am aware of no U.S. State or territory where English is not either de facto or de jure official or co-official. SpiderMMB 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ever been to ethnic neighboorhoods in NYC? English is definitely not the defacto language. Leuko 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That... is a single neighborhood in a single city. He said state. -- Golbez 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can read thanks. :-) However, if English is such a "defacto" language, then why does the government require forms/information to be printed in 40 different languages? Leuko 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The same reason every other country that actually has a national language does... people immigrate!

Do we really need a tag recommending this article by split. Two concerns:

• The article is already split w/ links to more detailed articles
• The actual article is only ca. 65kb long (excluding reference mark-up) -besides we're well aware of the article's length

I don't think the tag is really needed here. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see why it would be considered. Simply, look at the table of contents. There are 9 subheadings under history alone. Would it be possible to summarize that entire section and have a single link to History of the United States which would then have links to extended articles on each topic? See United Kingdom#History. - Martinman 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

True, 9 sub-sections are a bit excessive, though I am not that fond of having only one long section as in the UK article either -I like having relatively short sub-section that are easy to navigate. I think perhaps two, three subsection would be sufficient. That said, I too see "why it [the tag] would be considered," but don't think it's needed... any more thoughts? BTW: I will do some pruning on the article later on. Just a couple of weeks (or months ;-) ago I managed to get the article down to about 107kb... so far I've pruned about 2kb 3kb. But some sections such as "history" are outside my area of expertise so will abstain from pruning them for now. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The history section covers more than the history, however. Might be able to merge 'em two or three subsections, but I doubt it can be taken much further without compromising the article. The culture section, on the other hand, could probably be halved or cut by a quarter by moving one or two of the least important aspects to Culture of the United States, if not yet present. The Health section could also be trimmed a fair bit. Keep in mind that, for an article of this importance and that has spawned so many others, it may not be realistic to shoot for a size much under 100k. There are cases where length is warranted. Also keep in mind that WP:LENGTH does not attempt to regulate the length of the references/see also/extlinks, or, as I understand it, infoboxes or columns. Be careful when measuring the length of this particular article, with that in mind. Need to strip out the <ref>--</ref> and second <ref name> entries before making an accurate measure of this article's length when attempting to meet the article length guideline. MrZaius ^talk 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree as the total kb figure includes reference mark-up I don't think much smaller than 100kb is possible (see the length measurement comment by MrZaius above). One idea to cut kbs a bit would be to get rid of that somewhat oversized Largest cities table. The Germany article -which made FA- doesn't even have such a section and the UK article simply uses a couple of bullet points to infrom us of the country's largest cities (though some copyediting is required in that article as I prefer text-format). Signature ^brendel 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of places where the article can be trimmed, but there's nothing that really can be split - the articles already exist for the history section, and noone's suggested that anything else be broken off into a separate page. Removing the split tag. Feel free to replace with VeryLong, but should remove as soon as we hit the point where there's nothing left to cut. MrZaius ^talk 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick note - We're now back down to mid-April levels of 106k including all refs and the like. Aggressive cuts have been made throughout the article. Is there anything else left to trim or axe? MrZaius ^talk 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²) and with more than 300 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area (...)" Well, wich is it? 3rd or 4rd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.7.182.14 ( talk • contribs)

Check out the United States#Geography section, or its main article Geography of the United States. Both explain the discrepancy. The US is the third largest when only counting land mass, behind Russia and slightly behind China and Russia. The US is the fourth largest in terms of total area (counting certain bodies of water) when using realistic maps. When using maps that recognize Indian claims over lands governed by the PRC, the US it the third largest in total area. MrZaius ^talk 13:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Behind Russia and slightly behind Canada and China. :) FMB 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me if I've posted this in an inappropriate section of this discussion page, as I am usually familiar with only small article discussions; however, the small issue I moot is that it is stated in the economy section that "...Government activity accounts for 36% of GDP." According to the Burea of Economic Analysis (BEA), government at all levels (federal, state, and local) was valued at 12.4% of GDP to the economy in the year 2006. I'm not sure if the person who posted the 36% figure was intending to inform the reader of some other figure of government that would account for 36% of GDP, but for now, I'm going to post my information. I am open to arguments and edits, of course. Please reply here though, so I can see to what the 36% figure refers. thethirdperson 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like you caught an error in the section I recently re-wrote. Though I myself do not know where the 36% figure came from - I simply kept it w/o fact-checking it. Nice job, checking facts! Signature ^brendel 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the list of largest cities was reduced from 10 to three. Shouldn't this have been discussed first? If it was, then pardon my query, but I don't see it on this page. ++ Arx Fortis 02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hell, just do what the Canadians do (1st paragraph of section): describe and link -- after all that is the joy of the piped link. This article is too long already.  :) Corticopia 02:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent point and all the more reason why perhaps this might have been discussed first. :) ++ Arx Fortis 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I made suggestion above-no one sounded any opposition. I have also made the suggestion a while back-again no opposition. If you would like to revert my pruning of the "largest city" section and discuss changes here first-feel free to do so. I think the section was far to detailed-see my post in the "Split tag" discussion above. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, such a change was suggested before in multiple FA/GA reviews and the FA-related section above, posted myself earlier this month. MrZaius ^talk 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

--I disagree with the cut. In terms of containing a large amount of info in a relatively small amount of space, the expanded table was very efficient. If you want to trim the article, I think the place to start would be in History. For now, I made the table the top 5 as a temporary compromise. -- Jleon 12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Five looks a lot cleaner than ten. Nice fix. MrZaius ^talk 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this question has come up before, but shouldn't the senate majority leader be listed in the infobox? Black Harry 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The majority leader carries no special powers, and is not the head of the senate. He is, at best, third. -- Golbez 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Health section has been rather bloated compared with the other sections for a while, dating back at least to the last peer review. Finally got around to taking the scissors to it, and cut:

• Metrics specific to a couple of states in favor of newspaper report for simpler ref and more straightforward stat.
• Medical research - Warrants one or two sentences, but all we had before was a breakdown of funding sources, which are not so significant as to warrant coverage if the impact and history is missing.
• Minor fluff/crufty wording
• Obesity cruft (I believe I might have added this initially - Whoops) - Was lopsided, covering only one public health issue that wasn't rooted in funding problems. Absent mention of drug use & impact and other causes of illness and death, it didn't make sense to cover obesity in particular here, rather than the main article.

MrZaius ^talk 09:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks Good! I was thinking about pruning it myself - you did an excellent job. Thanks, Signature ^brendel 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The bias on this wiki is so thick I could swat it with a spatula-- RCT 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

mmmm... really? Is this an earnest comment? If so, I disagree, I think the article is really getting to be quite neutral. Signature ^brendel 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While only indirectly affecting this page, based on previous discussions on this page, there may be some interest in participating in the discussion about a request to move America → America (disambiguation) and ultimately replace America with a redirect to United States. older ≠ wiser 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I know its common sense but like all other countries listed in Wikipedia, it should state in the first sentence as it is a country. Wikipedia is used by all over the world, not just United States. So I think its nescessary to begin the article with the sentence: "The United States of America is a country of federal constitutional republic made up of 50 states, one federal district, and several territories."

Maybe it might not sound right but you can use another sentence. Even the United Kingdom says "is a country" in the first sentence.

PS. Please dont delete this discussion like before without an answer. I want a fair answer.( Icedevil14 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Certainly is with a common langauge, shared history, customs (ie. Halloween-Thanksgiving-Baseball-Football-Pizza those sorts of things) etc. But it's a COUNTRY in trouble from left and right and the false divide. So Yeah, we're a Country - a nation - a people. But, don't tell that to the multinationals who want cheap slave labor (recent immigration debate) to replace middle class aspirations or to the so-called neo-con artists who wish to dismantle both FDR's protections (called de-regulation) for our industry, jobs, nation and the original capitalism that built the country (called dirisively protectionism). Yeah, we're a country all right! Adams, Henry, Jones, Greene, Hale, Boone, Crockett, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Ruth, Mantle, Owens, Robinson, Gleason, Presley, King, Kennedy, Armstrong, Glenn, Einstein, Edison, Bell, Washington, Jefferson, Revere, Gable, Monroe, John Wayne and Mickey Mouse - NEED I SAY MORE! Good old American names - Chavez and Lee, Stonewall and Old Hickory! We're a country for sure! -- Northmeister 00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the US is a state, not a nation-state, consisting of several "peoples." Some would like the US to be a nation-state, but it isn't and shouldn't be. Now that we have seen both viewpoints, let's remember the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. So, as interesting as it is, let's take discussions of what we think the US should be to another venue. Thanks, Signature ^brendel 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First, know what your talking about. The United States, is a federation of several 'states'. It is a nation with a common language, history, and customs and identity as well and has always been thought of as such. As far as the above discussion - my response was to the query - period and entirely relevant - and not what I think it should be but what it is. Tone down your snide remarks and study history first. -- Northmeister 05:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what I am talking about very well and the US does not constitute a nation-state but rather simply a state (Yes, countries are refered to as states as well, even if they contain sub-units of government also called "states.") No sociologist in his/her right mind would call the US a nation-state. Not all Americans share a common identity, history or even language. Afircan American history, for example, is hardly the same as that of Irish-Americans and Muslim-Americans have a different identity than born-again Christians. This is also not a historical but a sociological issue-thus I suggest studying some sociology, ethnic studies and economics first rather than just history. BTW: Bashing mutlicultralists and globalization advocates such as myself by accusing us of advocating "cheap slave labor" is completely un-called for and utterly inappropriate. Signature ^brendel 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your using pyscho-babble or social-babble to try and redifine what a nation-state is. You could take out Americans and replace it with Germans or Russians, or French. All nations have different ethinic groups - some more than others. What you don't understand is that in America differences are set aside while the Individual is prized for who he is not by his group. Each individual together existing in the same mass culture that is distinctly national is a member of that nation. Economics - READ Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln - then Carey, economist for Lincoln to understand how America became the leading industrial nation by 1900 and the policies of FDR on how we maintained this prosperity until 1970 when the free-trade dogma began to take shape and de-regulation began - I know personally of the tragedy of free-trade upon my home state - the prospered under the former system practiced since 1860 and to some degree before that under Hamilton's wisdom. Sociology is a fascinating subject and I did well in those studies when I attended college some years ago - but it is not Fact nor absolutely scientific in a manner that History and actual culture is. Although people in my country indentify with sub-cultures - they are actually in the main culture every day and English is the language of unity -of our Constitution - Declaration of Independence - Bill of Rights - Gettysburg Address - King's Dream Speech and is interlinked with our indentity. To put people in groups and label them as such thus pre-judging them by that group rather than as individuals is inherently racist. As far as globalists - only stating FACT - its the worst threat since Communism against all NATIONS period - and it will fail like all tyrannies of the few do - especially in a land like America that prizes its Independence every 4th of July. -- Northmeister 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but social scienctists and their textbooks do not identify the US as a nation-state, so it will not be identified by this article as such. As for globalisation and the importance of nationhood we obviously have to very different viewpoints, but this is not the appropriate venue to discuss them. BTW: Please remain civil, calling my post "pyscho-babble or social-babble" is unprofessional and in violation of WP:CIVIL. Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The US is a country and there is no debate about that anywhere besides here, we are internationally recognized as a country and we identify ourselves as a country. The US is a country and that needs to be stated in the first sentence. Just because we are made up of states doesn't mean that we are not a country, Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, Russia, and many other countries are made up of states as well, does that not make them countries? User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

P.S. Globalization is awful, I do not know about you but I certainly do not want to see continents become countries *EU* *cough* *NAFTA* *cough*. User:Daniel Chiswick 3 June, 2007.

HERE HERE! Most Americans and people in Denmark, Sweden, France concur with what you said. To destroy nations and countries that have existed for centuries - including their distinct cultures with a mass unnecessary apparatus like the EU run by the few is inherently genocidal in nature and inherently wrong. I love a Diverse world made up of Diverse civilizations organized into unique nation-states - Diversity is positive for the world. It makes earth a beautiful mosaic. To undo this with globalization - to prevent devloping countries from the rewards of capitalism and freedom and independence is wrong. To prevent our Children from owning their own country, and the children of Nigeria from owning theirs, of Britain from owning theirs, of Russia owning theirs, of China owning theirs - but instead replace that with a few controlling all - is inherently wrong and undemocratic. That's how I see it. -- Northmeister 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are of course entitles to your opinion-but Wikiepdia talk pages are not the appropriate forum to air them-please see WP:NOT. Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BrendelSignature stated that the US does not consist of a single distinct nation - noone ever said it wasn't a country. MrZaius ^talk 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's parsing words. We are a nation, country, republic. Always were - are considered such by treaty and international law. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks or what sociology thinks - its what is in reality. -- Northmeister 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned what sociologists say is of the out-most importance to this article. We are a country, a republic but not a nation-state. Sociologist have long indentified that reality. So long as most sociology textbooks identify the US as a diverse country that is distincly not a nation-state, this article will follow suit. It is simply the dominant theory in academia that the US not a ntion-state - and this article will continue to reflect that. Signature ^brendel 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is also important what Historians and international law as signed and agreed to by the United States itself, to have to say on this matter and has equal if not more weight on an article about a nation-state like the United States of America; then a few sociological books. Both deserve mention to remain NPOV. We are a nation precisely because we share a common history, common traditions and holidays, a common language etc. all the criteria of nationhood. You already lack understanding of the dynamics of this country with your statement we are a 'state' only. If that were true, then the Confederacy was right and Lincoln was wrong. The Union could not be dissolved because it represented more than a federation of sovereign states - it was a nation. Your ignoring years of American history and the deaths of thousands for the very concept you state doesn't exist. Further, as far as civility I would take a look at your original comments and read a little on showing good faith. To go around quoting wikipedia policy, to charge that this discussion has no merit - is highly against the spirit of Wikipedia and ASSUMING GOOD FAITH on behalf of other editors who in particular ask questions on a talk page and those who answer them. What reliable sources have to say is important. If reliable sources - are behind your contentions - and they represent the consensus view rather than a rogue view - I have no problem. This is also true with my definition which is the legal definition by international law and treaty. As far as reality - well I live America every day. -- Northmeister 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are using the term nation-state correctly. The US is obviously a sovereign country-no one has ever argued that point. But it isn't a nation-state, it's simply a country, a state. Unlike countries, nations are not a concept defined by law, they are cultural concept used by the very same sociologists who point out that the US is not a nation-state. The WP article says it quite well: "state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity"- only the former applies to the US, not the latter. Not all Americans have common traditions or even common holidays (do Jews celebrate Kwanza?... mmm... I forgot) The US is home to a multi-tude of traditions, ideas, customs, values and cultures; thus, it is a country but not a nation. As for calling my posts babble and stating that I have any sort of "lack of understanding" - that is against WP policy as it represents some degree of out-right hostility. The sources are behind me on this one, so there actually shouldn't be a problem as the one thing we both can agree on is the importance of proper sourcing. You are, of course, free to disagree with me, most sociologists and anthropoligists (Who apperentaly also lack an understanding of this country). BTW: The editor asked a rehtorical question-he/she was aware that the US is a country (country, not a nation-state) and simply wanted to raise awareness that the first sentence could be worded better in his/her opinion. NOTE: I will no longer respond to NOR read any posts in this section as it has gotten too far off-topic. I am going to be on a 24h WP break from now on-when I come back I will simply ignore this section. Signature ^brendel 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't need books to know my country - nor am I ignorant of sociology, pyschology and all the 'ologies that study man - I know enough that this article should not rely on their definition alone. That said, we do agree on reliable sourcing. You're free to ignore what you wish. But, I am troubled by your POV pushing as I've seen it over the course of a year. We need balance and NPOV in this article. The view you present is not the only accepted one and is not predominant. -- Northmeister 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic, should we add the word "country"?

Putting aside this whole debate about whether the United States is a nation-state, would anyone have a problem with adding the word "country" to the first line so that this article matches all of the other articles on countries? -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Plainly no less than three people feel that the word, when used in the second sentence, results in a far better written paragraph. There are at least two words used in the prior sentence that plainly imply "country", and, again, it is the second word of the second sentence. There is no compelling reason to compromise the first sentence to clone other country articles. Focus on making this article stand out as well written and well thought out. Keep in mind that this article is currently an FA candidate, and that there are several much more significant topics to be dealt with. MrZaius ^talk 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just dont get why the first sentence differs from most of the other country topics. Just because it "sounds right" or is in "good style" doesn't make other topics more of the same. All topics about country should have the same style, especially in the first sentence. Stating that it is a federal constitutional republic in the first sentence doesn't seem right at all. The USA is a country. There is nothing wrong with putting itself as a country in the first sentence. There is no reason for it not to sound bad or blatant, as all other topics start off the same.( Icedevil14 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_States - The intro paragraph is sound and the problem was largely resolved. Ongoing debate in the two sections above this seem more off-topic banter than discussion of the article at this point. Note that there are several points that need to still need be addressed in the FAC. MrZaius ^talk 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right the discussion above has evolved far beyond what WP talk pages are meant for. Sorry-I'll try and ignore any further posts to that discussion and will take a 24h WP break. Once, I am back-I will concentrate on helping you get this article that I have put a lot of work into up to FA. Signature ^brendel 01:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: "These epidemics combined with violence by European settlers to marginalize the Native American population in the United States." in the history section among others done in other parts of the article are heavily biased and POV. They are not historically true - do not mention reasoning or reliable sources for their inclusion etc. I worked extensively on this article a year ago to prepare it for Featured status. We had made considerable progress by the time I took a year break. Although there was much work to be done. Since then, an overt bias has edged its way in several layers that is not acceptable for an encyclopedic approach to an article on a nation-state like the United States. In particular the section on culture and other wording changes to reflect a particular point of view not held by all scholars nor by Americans. Reading portions of this article I am amazed it is the same country I live in every day. There is to much emphasis on diversity and not enough on our unity. E Pluribus Unum and assimilation has been a constant factor in society and works every day on a level as small as McDonalds and Walmart - Mickey Mouse and Superman (Truth, Justice, and the American Way). The United States for example ethnically is roughly 70-75% European (most with mutiple ethinic ancestry) and 10-15% Hispanic (which is a European derived culture not entirely the same nation to nation) whose population is predominately European or mixed European/native - together they constitute 80-90% of the population. Roughly 12-10% are African or mixed African and European - whose culture is very southern and who share common roots with southern Whites at many levels. Large cities host ethnic neighborhoods, yes, but the vast majority of America is a melting pot where neighbors of different ethnic backgrounds live amongst one-another and their children intermingle at school, the mall, etc.; where as generations pass one to another the greater majority of people have diverse ethnic backgrounds and can not identify with one single root - except being American. On a personal note I am English-Dutch-Irish-French-Native American - lets see what am I in thise little salad bowl of ours. Well, I never thought of myself as anything but American. Further the vast majority speak English everyday another character of the country - although Spanish is prevelant in many homes the children of these new immigrants are in schools and a society where English is the predominant and de-facto official language - these children also share the same culture as other Americans in regards to sports/television/movies etc. etc. Reading past posts - I am amazed at the POV that has crept into the article here - particulary by those who have an agenda to push a POV - which is against wikipedia policy.

Every paragraph needs refinement - other nation's articles that have been featured should be used as models. The size of the article needs to be reduced and the POV pushing statements removed for what they are. The historic section should be pithy and precise - not POV. The other sections reduced to acceptable norms - and cleaned-up. -- Northmeister 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Largely fixed the NA complaint & removed POV tag - replaced the one sentence that you took issue with using two noncontroversial statements in later sections covering Indian Wars. . MrZaius ^talk 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite my contentions above - I do approve of the efforts of editors here to make this a featurable article. As far as the nation-state issue - it's not really important for the article and we should move on. The historic section needs improvement at certain levels - sentences like the one above especially. I second MrZaisus above on refinement for featurable status. -- Northmeister 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some info on the high level of consumer goods that the US enjoys, someone deleted it for some reason. The economy section needs more NPOV work, but this is a start.-- Rotten 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore your worthwhile info, while properly formatiing the cites.— DCGeist 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please us US, not U.S. El_C 03:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The FAC nominator and most engaged contributor to the article recently, MrZaius, has sought to consistently apply "U.S." It is a proper style, and the one most commonly used by U.S. publishing houses, periodicals, and the U.S. government itself. I encourage you to examine the official U.S. government webpages and online documents cited in the article--I believe every single one uses "U.S.," not "US." Please also consult the style of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press.— DCGeist 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to review Nationmaster#Criticism and controversy. El_C 03:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I will. Superior sourcing for the data may well be locatable, but this well serves the readership for the moment.— DCGeist 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Nationmaster itself says it's from the ITU... but some other sources indicate even higher levels of consumer good penetration, although they were a few years old. Anyway, I don't understand how the criticism of Nationmaster can be applied to my sources.-- Rotten 04:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to applaud the recent improvements to the 'culture' section by Signature - the article reads better now. As far as featured status - the format needs restructuring. History should come after 'orgin of name' etc. Reference Indonesia, Germany, and Japan (all featured articles) for format I am thinking of - as far a structure. The article size should hover in the range of 80kb overall. -- Northmeister 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Two quick points:

1. Per my comment in the FAC discussion, I do not believe that History should follow the Etymology section. The FA guidelines (and they are just that, guidelines) are not so strict as to suggest that the history section has to be precisely where it is in all other FA country articles. The history section, where it is, provides for a much cleaner transition to the government sections. Swapping it with Geography, as seems to be what's done in several other FAs, would result in a weaker article in this case.
2. The article size is still under 60k of prose. This article's a little infobox heavy, but they are well integrated with the article and are not relevant when calculating WP:SIZE.

MrZaius ^talk 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Careful not to let the culture section get too big. We're still within 5-10% of where we were before, however, in terms of the article's prose length. Are there any remaining grounds for an oppose on the FAC debate, or do any interested editors feel ready to grant support? Personally, I think we're ready - Could cut a K or two off by trivial tweaks to please the English majors, w/regards to active/passive voice, but, again, that's a fairly trivial matter. - Link to the debate: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States MrZaius ^talk 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I still have problems with layout. Geography and environment should not come before history-government-etc. This is not wikipedia standard nor a good fit or format in my opinion. In the name conventions section this phrase: "Citizens and residents often use the States to contrast it with other countries." is not true overall. The term "America" alone is the most common used term; it is also used in major newspapers etc. I could provide a list or just google the name. I never hear my fellow citizens use the term "the States" to refer to the country - more often Canadians do this. Most often it is simply "America" much like the songs "God Bless America" - "America the Beautiful" - and also "My Country Tis of Thee" which is properly named "America". There is also the phrase "Americas" which is awkward it should be either titled "New World" or "Western Hemisphere" or "North and South America" - Americans often refer to all that is south of the border as "Latin America" or "Pan American". - Further prior to the use of "United States" to refer to our Union - Americans (who called themselves this prior to Revolution) did not term the colonies collectively as anything but "America" when speaking thereof - or as De Toqueville wrote "Democracy in America" he was speaking of this articles subject the "United States". As this section reads now you would think the term "America" is little used - when it is mainstream as is the term "American" to refer to the country and its citizens - much like Canada/Canadians or Germany/Germans or France/French is used even though the official names of their countries are Republic of etc. I understand another languages use - but that is moot since in English we still refer to the Nederlanders as Dutch - and sometimes the country as Holland and Germany in German is Deustland(sic) etc. What other languages have as conventions isn't relevant here except as a sidenote and considering the length - should be removed. Overall the article looks good. But, I would like to see these issues addressed or discussed first. Especially format and America the name. -- Northmeister 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC) -PS. My proposal is to place Geography and Environment after Government-Foreign relations and before Economy - as Geography-Environment-Economy-Demographics-Culture etc. fit together. History-Government-Politics go together well. -- Northmeister 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That'd work, with the move - Go ahead. With the etymology section, if it gets any bigger, it'd warrant a split. All we need are a couple of sources and miner tweaks. Can't be hard to find for, in my opinion, 'the States'. In my personal experience, that's more common than any other phrase among expats. MrZaius ^talk 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead with move - although anyones free to tweak this further - I think the order is better now. With that, I remove my objections on the 'naming' section except as a brief note I still consider what Spanish speakers call themselves etc. is a trivial matter due to the reasons above. Hence, I endorse moving forward. I see the article is 123kb - very large! - but considering the topic it may pass. Prose wise I am unsure how you figure that or what it now translates into. -- Northmeister 13:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of writing an explanation of why I opposed this move, which I was about to post when it was executed. Having looked at it now, I'm unconvinced. I think it is a mistake to split History/Government/Politics--all primarily human matters--from Economy/Demographics/Culture--all primarily human matters. Testing my sense of this, I've looked through some Encyclopedia Brittanicas--indeed, placing Geography and Environment before the human issues is a well-established, perfectly standard format. In addition, there is no Wikipedia "standard" to date--look at France for instance, which parallels the structure we have been using. The placement of Etymology is arguable, and could well follow Environment, but this larger shift strikes me as ill-advised.— DCGeist 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The placement of Etymology is quite standard here. The others.... As I've said in three places, there are many, many other country articles, even if we're having a hard time finding one of the ~193 at FA, that list the geography section in the first three. Don't necessarily oppose a move if it's the cost of FA, but I don't see how it benefits the article. MrZaius ^talk 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis (DCgeist's). History comes first in every featured article I've seen - the France article is not a featured article. Although Encyclopedia Brittanica has that layout; which is convincing for arguments sake - I don't see copying their structure as any better or worse. What is important is that the article flow properly with subject matter. Readers - Get an Overview (the opening) of the article - then its origins of name - then its history - then its government and politics - followed by foreign affairs - all political science related matters. From here, we goto sections detailing the elements of the nation: - its Geography - its Environment - its economy - its Demographics - its Culture etc. which they wish to further explore beyond the Historical roots and governmental structure of the nation. Etymology, is more often placed before History in featured articles as well. -- Northmeister 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister, I have cited the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a leading, authoritative encyclopedia in support of my position that the structure we had should be restored, i.e. that discussion of the primarily physical and ecological attributes of the country should not interrupt discussion of the primarily human attributes of the country. Can you point to any leading reference works in support of your position?— DCGeist 14:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that standard 'encyclopedias' use a different format. I'm looking from the standpoint of Wikipedia and what is standard here - which I feel works quite well. Look at the articles on Japan and Germany both were featured articles and are well organized, crisp and clean. This is how I picture this article. Crisp, clean, straight forward and organized as the rest of Wikipedia organizes itself for readability for those using Wikipedia. I see no reason to buck the trend here or follow other encyclopdias unless it is advantageous to the article. As a sidenote - reducing some of the subsections with 'bold' would do much for the TOC and make the presentation better - but I'll leave that to others. I stand behind my observations. If you can convince me otherwise - then I'll change my mind on this. Why buck the trend here on featured articles? What purpose does this serve the community? Why is the Japan and Germany articles wrong in layout? -- Northmeister 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just it: Our point has been that to "buck the trend" results in a stronger article with more clean transitions from section to section. You're ignoring that argument and seem to just be hammering home that FA country articles should have nigh-identical TOCs, rather than seeing the FA guidelines as: A- Just that, guidelines, and B-Flexible enough that even they don't dictate a specific order for sections on a cat by cat basis. We've not argued thatJapan or Germany are any better or worse that this article, but that one must have an open mind when dealing with such trivial matters as section ordering and put their primary emphasis on good writing and readability. MrZaius ^talk 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And I really don't see any convincing basis for this "crisp, clean, straightforward" argument. How does interrupting the flow of discussion of primarily human attributes with the discussion of physical and ecological ones produce a more "crisp" and "clean" result? I would say it inarguably produces a less logically "straightforward" one. The arguments by reference to authoritative published sources vs. Wikipedia trends is essentially irresolvable; I'd like to think my case is stronger, but I imagine many neutral observers would effectively call it a draw. Positions on what constitutes a "crisp" and "clean" order are obviously an almost entirely subjective matter--which leaves us only with the numbers of the opinionated: another voice would be welcome here, to point toward a consensus. The logical argument on behalf of the structure that I and MrZaius champion is rather less subjective.— DCGeist 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ DCGeist and MrZaius on the order of the article. The social science sections (History/Government/Politics/Economy/Demographics/Culture should be kept together. Especially the sections that deal in the realm of political science, economics and sociology as these three subjects matters overlap considerably. Furthermore, considering that Ency. Britannica uses this lay-out, it seems that we should as well. I think Britannica as a better guide on how this article should be organized than any FA. I say, let's "buck the [FA] trend" and keep the social sciences together. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for consensus building - so I'll go with the rest of you folks. You've heard my primary concerns which I still stand by - but I don't think it will do any harm to do as you think might work better for organization. Hence, I'll undo my reformat to what consensus believes is the best path. I also understand your reasoning behind going this route which is although I disagree a worthy one. -- Northmeister 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Are there any other standing issues that stand between this article and FA, in your opinion? MrZaius ^talk 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No not in my opinion. I would peruse the article for sentence structure and readability one last time before submitting. Anyone else? -- Northmeister 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been submitted for a couple of days, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States‎, hence the editing blitz. The only standing issues I'm aware of are that a handful of new statements in the culture section, particularly in Food & Clothing, are unsourced/could use a check for weasel words. Be great to have the statements that make quantifiable claims sourced or replaced with similar, easily cited, claims, as I just finished doing with the beverages paragraph: [4]. MrZaius ^talk 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was confused by the assortment of commentary there. Others might be to; as I see no 'voting' being done either way but one oppose. Let me know when the voting begins for this FAC if it has not already. -- Northmeister 00:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a little point -- the number given for the U.S. population growth rate is way off, at least according to the CIA world factbook (which says that it is .894% per year). Kier07 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have never fact-checked the rate but just adopted the one already mentioned in the text into the demographics infobox. I have replaced it w/ the CIA factbook rate. Thanks for fact-checking, Signature ^brendel 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Chief Justice should not be in the government section. Speaker and VP should as they are the heads of the legislaiture of the United States, but CJ, though the head of a branch of government, does not have the supreme power vested in Bush, Cheney, and Pelosi (or shld I say Pelosi and Bush since Veep is pretty much useless, but still). The CJ has the mostly same power as the rest of the court. Its mainly a title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K157 ( talk • contribs)

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced to just the head of state, but barring such a drastic move, it's unlikely that consensus can be reached to strike only one entry for the list, and, of course, it's just the infobox, and it's valid as it stands. Coequal branches of government and all that, per last month's discussion of this topic. MrZaius ^talk 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the claim is simply incorrect. While the CJ's vote has the same weight as any other justice's, the power to (a) chair the court's conferences, (b) set the agenda for certiorari petitions, and (c) choose the author of the court's opinion in all cases in which the CJ is in the majority make it much more than just a title.— DCGeist 09:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Still isn't it much less powerful than the Speakership, Vice Presidency? Is he really a "leader" of the country like the other 3?