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 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The table about holidays implies that government organizations observe Martin Luther King Jr Day, President's Day, and Colombus Day. Some do, but many, including schools, do not. Are there statistics on the matter that anyone knows about? President's and Colombus Days are, in my experience, extinct holidays. The table makes it seem like they are not.

They aren't extinct as far as the federal government is concerned. We should perhaps mention that these are holidays that the government recognizes, but private citizens and businesses are not required to observe them. It also mentions they are federal holidays. And it does say that not all schools observe them. Do you have a specific complaint? -- Golbez 03:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Any consensus for adding photographs of "typical" (as much as such a thing is possible) vistas and views and sights of the U.S. to this article? It's nice to have the Bill and Rights and George Washington, but those photos are a bit static and I like the idea of adding photos that aren't so "official" - a main street in a town, perhaps, or something along those lines. See New York City's article for an example of what I'd consider dynamic photos that enhance an article. Moncrief 05:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree; how about a picture of, perhaps, a football game? The NYSE trading floor? -- Golbez 21:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Totally. Either of those would work in the appropriate section. Moncrief 22:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The section on Culture seems to be focused on exported popular culture, rather than on American culture as experienced within the country. And, it mentions Seattle several times: I like Seattle a lot, but it has not had much influence on American culture. Whereas, for example, Californian culture (and I'm not writing this as a fan) has had a huge influence and it is not really mentioned. brassrat

I agree with user:brassrat. The culture section is focused on exported culture in TV and movies. The US is a diverse place and there should be a section titled Regional Culture. Please user:Golbez stop vandalizing and deleting the Regional Culture section. Can we get a sys admin to stop Golbez?

Hey, 67.123.172.188, sorry if I called your additions "useless," but Golbez didn't vandalize anything: your additions weren't even really about "culture," you basically just mentioned different church denominations and said that Northerners are called Yankees. I agree with Brassrat too, but your stuff didn't really cover that. -- Jleon 01:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

lol wtf -- Golbez 04:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

That said, the anon's edits may well have a place, since it has been pointed out, accurately so, that the Culture section focuses too much perhaps on the export of culture. Still, it was turning into somewhat of a checklist of the different cultures in America, without giving any time to the unifying culture most Americans have. The different bits may have a use, but this is the article for the country, not for the states or the regions. -- Golbez 04:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why not rename "Culture" section, "Entertainment Industry" and move it to the "Economy" section. You can read the "Culture" section and think the USA is all about "Sex and the City". The culture section has nothing about cultural traditions, traditional clothing, traditional attitudes, or traditional holidays. And yes, my input is more like a starting point for others to add on to. I have not lived in the North, so I could not add much about it's culture, but had hoped someone would add on. As far as deletion of newly entered is concerned, it is forbidden in all the guidelines I have read. Stubs are encouraged as a starting point. If somebody goes along deleting contributions, pretty soon people will stop contributing. -anon

<Quote>The United States is a great center of higher education, boasting more than 4,000 universities, colleges and other institutions of higher learning, the top tier of which may be considered to be among the most prestigious and advanced in the world.</Quote> Neither is mentioned that higher education in the US is one of the most expensive in the world, nor that besides few universities (Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford) universities in America have a low level of education compared to universities around the world. This is something commonly known to many people that come from other countries, that shared with me (what I experiences as well) that getting a higher degree in the US is almost as simple as finishing regular school in other countries. User:64.175.251.190

--Well if you have anything other than anecdotal "experiences" to show as evidence, then please share it with us. -- Jleon 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is 61k that is almost twice the recomended size. See Wikipedia:Article_size. I am not seriously demanding that the article is shortened but I request that people who think that the USA can exceed the size limit allow this for other countries too, for e.g. Germany. Please express your support at talk:Germany. Andries 18:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

--Let's not overreact to the issue of the article size. The recommended size is a totally outdated suggestion based on the fact that some very early browsers could not support articles over 32k. This issue is no longer relevent, and thousands of articles of lesser importance than the United States have gone way over this amount with little notice. -- Jleon 19:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not at all what the "article size" article itself says, however: it cites stylistic considerations, as well as (not very compelling) technical ones. Also see Wikipedia:Summary style, which waxes further lyrical on similar issues. Incidentally, on the "thousands of articles" point, this would in fact be about the #324th largest article, if none of the others had changed size in the meantime. And as Andries says, the real problem is the "precedent setting" one: users who wish to add large amounts of marginal material to a given article will say "but look, it's nowhere near as big as United States, and this is an Important Topic, too". And there's really no need for it: all the material in over-long sections of this article is already covered in the various "main articles" on that sub-topic: why have such long sections on Politics of the United States, Demographics of the United States and Holidays of the United States? Alai 00:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Because they have pretty much the most basic amount of info. The other logical end is that the article gets so long that several sections end up being only a "see also" link, which is horribly unuseful. This article is pretty much as short as it functionally can be, and some areas can still be expanded. However, only as an outline - detailed info belongs in the proper articles. There's no reason for the 32k limit except for a natural breaking point, and perhaps it should be doubled. I have no problem with setting precedent, this has become a good article. -- Golbez 06:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

As a non-editor of this article, and as a non-USian, I have to say that far from a "basic" amount of info, they contain a horribly extraneous quantity, and in places read as positively waffly. Every other country could also not merely list its national holidays, but put them into a great stonking table -- but how many do? (I dare say lots of us self-indulgent Europeans would have yet longer such lists.) I strongly urge against "but the US is an important country" arguments, since inevitably they'll end up being replicated elsewhere, and before one knows it, article size standards are totally gone. If you want to argue for that, or for a larger limit, then that's another matter, but let's not simply start with United States (or Germany...) as special cases. Alai 13:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Care to share what you think can be changed, apart from the "great stonking table"? And maybe there needs to be a precedent. -- Golbez 14:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be a nuisance, and yes, this is a good article, but I changed my opinion a bit and I request that this article is shortened to prevent setting a bad precedent. What am I going to say to enthusiastic editors who complain that Wikipedia has double standards with regards to article size? See talk:Germany. Andries 06:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so scared of Germany breaking the barrier? -- Golbez 14:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The trouble there is that Germany has had it history section disportionately lengthened (in search of "balance") by one user, who's specifically cited this article as "precedent" for not shortening it again (among various other assertions in an incredibly long-running edit war over this). You're more than welcome to come over and help sort it out! Alai 16:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Part of my inspiration in expanding this article was Japan, which has a long and robust history section. However, you'll noticed we've managed a concise history summary for this article, but then again, America is a lot younger than Japan or Germany. I looked at Germany but honestly I don't know enough about it to properly edit it. Looking... okay, I see a major problem already - it spends four paragraphs on a 12 year period. That, and lots of other stuff in History, rightly needs to be split out. It's not my style to get involved in edit wars, though. :/ -- Golbez 16:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that country, city and other such location-based articles remain under the 30 kb limit. (The warning appears at 30kb). When one reads such articles an overview of the subject is needed, not detail. Articles on countries are made of discrete units (as opposed to a continuous section based article such as history), which can very well be shortened, and the extraneous details moved to the main articles. ~32 kb also is a sweet spot for readers; it becomes more difficult to read a lengthy article (particularly on screen) if the size is allowed to swell like this. And as far as I've seen, a précis/summary of the topic is usually better written than a longer article which tends to expand on details. Take a look at India, a FA. On an 800x600 resolution on Opera v8, the length of the page is 21 scrolls whereas the US article is 32 scrolls. Comparing the length of both the pages, the India page is ~29.5 kb as opposed to 61kb (double) for the US. (its a vague metric, but it does point out how information is sewn into the India page) One way of reducing the size, is by adding information that is resident in markup such as tables relegated to a template. See also Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries.  = Nichalp ( Talk)= 09:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to OVERshorten. Shortening should be done for form, not to reach some arbitrary number. No one here has yet stated what they think should be shortened in this article; until you do, your concerns are merely aiming towards a number, rather than a solution. I agree that the 32k barrier is a useful figure for readability; however, an article should not be sacrificed to meet it.

Looking at India now to compare... Politics can be shortened, it's entirely possible I overexpanded it. Demographics! That's where a major part of the bloat is. (And I can say that because it's not my baby), you could lose a few k there, particularly in "race". Same deal for social issues - India doesn't even have a social isssues section. (Maybe it should?) How best to elegantly remove this? Changing these wouldn't drop it to 32k, but it would help shorten it, and not even for shortening's sake either. Lemme see what I can do. -- Golbez 14:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The quest for shortening

Bear in mind I am shortening for readability, not for shortening's sake. I've identified two further places where it is unnecessarily wordy - Race, and Social Issues. The Race section has more information than the main article! And Social Issues seems to be a unique segment, if the PRC's page doesn't have one, then really, it's there only to attack the USA. Race needs to be MOVED to the main article and some kind of short mention left behind, and Social Issues, I don't know, turn it into a two sentence section whose only purpose is to introduce the main articles. I'm putting this here because I'm about to leave for the day, so someone else take up the work. Thanks :) Sorry if I sound harsh above, but most of the comments at first sounded like shortening for shortening's sake, which is a really bad motivator. Shorten for readability and usefulness, which is what I'm doing. -- Golbez 14:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Try and see what text is really needed here. I would suggest a radical cut down of the text on the page. Get the page to 22kb. After that inclusion can always be there. See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Country for what headings are recommended. A precis of the text would get the bulk of the matter here, while removing the extra details.  = Nichalp ( Talk)= 16:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

22k? I'm assuming that's a typo for 32k, and no, again, shortening is not the motivation here. Getting to 32k is not my ideal; cleaning up the article is. It just happens to be that many sections need shortening or moving. There is no reason whatsoever to simply chop off the article at the knees purely to get it to 32k. -- Golbez 17:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'll point out that India cheats - they use a template for their infobox, which saves them several kb. :) They also have much better pictures than we do. Again - 32k is not the ideal, readability is. -- Golbez 17:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I know the India page cheats. :) But I've already suggested the same above. I believe quite a lot of kb will be saved. Yes it was 22 kb.  = Nichalp ( Talk)= 17:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

We USED to do that; I think the current standards are to NOT use a template for a one-time-use in such a fashion. And that is again focusing only on the size, and not on the actual article. By saying 22k, I think what you're saying it, chop it down to the 100% bare bones, and then add in as needed? -- Golbez 17:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

1)I'm not sure if there is a "no one use policy". The Main Page has a couple of one use templates. Many countries have infobox templates too. It keeps unnecessary markup away from the page. 2) Exactly, you've got my point. Trust me, I've used this methodology many times. Précis is the way to enrichen the page. (A vague analogy again: a 5 hr movie won't sell as well as a 2.5 hr one, lots of edits are done to reduce the film length). Best of Luck,  = Nichalp ( Talk)= 20:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Main Page, Current Events, etc. are special pages and not regular encyclopedic pages. There must have been reason the editors of this page abandoned the one-use template, I don't know what it is. -- Golbez 20:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Its a good start. Now 56 kb. BTW the infobox takes just 2kb.  = Nichalp ( Talk)= 18:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

From a readability standpoint, 30KB is just the starting point where an article may be getting too long. Reading an article of that size takes about the same amount of time as the average person's attention span, so going past that point has its costs and those costs need to be justified by the need for the article to be comprehensive (expansive topics simply need more space). The likelihood of being too long to efficiently cover its topic steadily increases as an article grows past that point so such articles should be closely examined to see if they still efficiently cover their topics in spite of their size. I personally do not think any topic is so expansive that it needs 60KB of space, but there are many topics that need 40 to even 50KB of space. I think this is one of those topics (the closer to 40KB the better, though).

The beauty of a hypertext encyclopedia is that more detailed treatments of sub topics can be covered in separate articles that are just a click away. Print encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, tend to jam everything into monolithic articles due to the fact that cross referencing other articles is such a pain. Others, such as Encarta, only cover topics in a mid level of detail. We should take full advantage of our hypertext environment and be able to cover topics in a mid level and a high level of detail - all in one encyclopedia. That is the aim of Wikipedia:Summary style (oh, and lead sections should also serve as concise articles in their own right - so that is three types of encyclopedias we can be at the same time by using Summary style). -- mav 14:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Page protected to discourage graffiti. I suggest it remain protected until the fuss over the Koran desecration controversy of 2005 fades away.

Till then, I hope critics of the US will add neutral, balanced text explaining the reasons for their anti-American sentiments to whatever article(s) they feel are appropriate. Wikipedia does not endorse OR condemn US policy. (See NPOV policy.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

--Most of the vandalism on this page looks like it is either done by teenagers or the mentally ill, not necessarily from people overseas who are upset about recent news stories. I think blocking this page is unlikely to do much good. -- Jleon 15:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Since the page is locked and I cannot currently make the edit myself, I'll put it down here so that it's not forgotten. Can somebody please make it clear that the President and V-P are elected on the same ticket. As the article reads it could be taken to mean that there are separate elections for the two posts. -- Rednaxela 19:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)- One more thing: Where's the 'This page is protected to deal with vandalism. -Please discuss suggested changes on the talk page' tag gone?

Agreed -- the protected page tag needs to be there. Earpol 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

can someone please add an interwiki link to [[mt:Stati Uniti]] ? thanks. Srl 09:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

--I still don't understand the purpose of the blocking- there's ALWAYS been vandalism on this page, and it always gets reverted within 2 or 3 minutes. Whoever put the protection did not bother to discuss this with us first, and if you're waiting for damaging news stories to fade away then the protection is likely to never get lifted. -- Jleon 18:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

--I agree completely. Protecting the page was not even done properly -- there is still no "protection tag" on the main article. The page was protected, out of the blue. I believe the current protection on the United States page is in direct violation of Wikipedia protection policy -- read the following direct excerpt and justify the current lockdown:

A semi-permanent protection is used for:

• Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main Page from vandalism.
• Maintaining the integrity of the site's logo.
• Maintaining the integrity of key copyright and license pages.
• Maintaining the integrity of press releases.
• Protecting certain "system administration" pages.
• Protecting the often-used texts in the MediaWiki namespace.
• User pages and their subpages that are subject to repeated vandalism.

A temporary protection is used for:

• Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an " edit war," upon request.
• Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.
• Preventing changes to a page while investigating a possible bug in the MediaWiki software.

The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one.

Talk pages and user talk pages are not protected except in extreme circumstances.

When a page is particularly high profile, either because it's linked off the main page, or because it's recently receieved a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

Earpol 20:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've unprotected. I think there are enough vandal fighters here with United States on their watchlist to keep the various graffiti artists, POV pushers, and silly bastards in check. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

People keep removing the reference to Columbia as a name for the United States; Columbia is a perfectly valid and used name (you know, "Columbia the Gem of the Ocean", "Columbia Broadcasting Corporation", "Columbia Gas", "Columbia Pictures", etc.) which is now somewhat archaic but still used poetically, and should remain. Note that it is NOT the same as Colombia the country, if that's what the editors are thinking. Earpol 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Was it ever used in any way other than metaphorically? -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

===>Columbia as America? I can't seem to find any references to this title. I see these coporations that include Columbia in their name, but I don't understand how that is to refer to the political entity of the USA. Can someone give me an actual reference? Justin (koavf) 19:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

If I may give my two cents... the top ancestry map in the article is very interesting, but it is also very misleading for people not familiar with statistics. The map tend to over-represent minorities. One example: take a county in Virginia in which 30% of people have Black American ancestry, 29% have German ancestry, 28% have English ancestry, and 13% have Irish ancestry. On the map, this county will appear as an African American county, although in reality white people are 70% of the population in this county. Same can be said about the Mexican counties on the map. It would make more sense to provide a map of races, based on Census 2000, with a colour for each county according to which race is the majority in the county (either non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic, or Black, or Asian, etc.). Such a map would better reflect the location of minorities in the country. Hardouin 21:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder where the "Criticism" section is... Maybe such an imporant section as "Federal holidays" took its place? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 14:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Why does there need to be one when there aren't any "criticism" sections for other countries? We need to remember that these are encyclopedia articles, not internet blogs. -- Jleon 15:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there used to be a Criticism section, but it is now the enormous WP article on Anti-Americanism (with an equally huge talk page attached). I concur with Jleon. If people really want to read about criticism of the U.S., that's what the Anti-Americanism article is for. -- Coolcaesar 22:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Important cities

Main.........HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY
article:.....HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY
List of......HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY
cities in....HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY
the..........HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY
United.......HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY
States.......HSTN......CHCGO.......LA........NY
.............HSTN..................LA........NY  
The..........HSTN..................LA........NY
United.......HSTN..................LA........NY
States has...HSTN..................LA........NY
dozens of....HSTN..................LA........NY
major cities, including several important global cities...

City names are where the photos (wider than here) are.

Now, was it worse before that?-- JimWae 04:14, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

-- I'm trying to prevent a revert war from opening up, by starting a discussion on this matter. While Houston may be the fourth largest city in the U.S., most people would agree that it is not the fourth most important (maybe not even among the top ten in that regard). The three largest cities are also undisputably the three most important, and the only three with real claims of being "global cities." Therefore, I believe we need to agree on keeping these three, and only these three, among the pictures in that section. Otherwise, you're going to have a never ending dispute with people trying to jam pictures of Boston, Philly, San Fran, Dallas, and Miami onto here. -- Jleon 18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plus every time a 4th photo gets added, the text margins get mucked up on wider screens that have room for 4 photos but only very little left for text - resulting in one or two words per line of text. It's much better to have the photos underneath one another - without going into the next section.-- JimWae 18:48, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Actually, with just the three, it still gets mucked up on large screens. The bottom photo runs over the "section line" for the next section on my monitor (1600x1200). I'm going to see if I can clean that up some. Personally, I don't care whether there are three or four. -- Dpark 22:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added a couple of clearing breaks: (<br style="clear:both;" />) to resolve the runover. -- Dpark 22:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried a (reverse) L-shape with the pictures, with the fourth hanging to the left of the others at the bottom. It worked great, until I turned my resoluton down to 800x600, at which point it became painfully obvious that there should be only one line of pictures. I now say to only have the three pictures. Leave Houston off. -- Dpark 23:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While you reformatted the pictures, which is great by the way, I reformatted the text slightly. I also reworded the language for better flow and also to expand the section just a little bit so that we don't have that problem of runover with the images. -- Gerald Farinas 23:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--I agree that the section should be expanded slightly, but we need to be more careful with the wording we use. Honolulu is in no way the economic or cultural "center" of the Pacific Rim. I can easily name a dozen cities (Tokyo, Seoul, Sydney, LA, etc.) that are far more important to the region. Also, what was the point of repeatedly listing the top three in the first paragraph as "Chicago, LA, and NY"? I can see no logical purpose in listing these alphabetically. On a brighter note though- I think the new photo of Chicago looks really great. -- Jleon 13:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "economic center" and "cultural center" of the Pacific Rim is how the East-West Center and its dignitary visitors have described Honolulu for decades now, including the current Presidents of South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan and the Prime Ministers of Australia and Japan during their last meetings in Honolulu. Honolulu has been quite known as such by international relations academics and students, like myself in Chicago.

The East-West Center [1] has become the principal meeting place of nations in the Pacific Rim on issues of economics and culture since President Lyndon Johnson's administration. It was used for peace talks during the Vietnam and is currently being used for peace talks between the Koreas. The U.S. Department of State defers Pacific Rim cases to its offices in Honolulu. Honolulu is frequent host or headquarters of several major intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations such as the Asian Development Bank, the NGO Cooperation Network, Mayors' Asia-Pacific Environmental Summit, Permanent Secretariat of the Mayors' Asia-Pacific Environmental Summit, Pacific Islands Environmental Symposium, China-U.S. Conference of Mayors and Business Leaders, Japan-American Conference of Mayors and Chamber of Commerce Presidents, Asia Pacific Urban Technology Institute, among others. Honolulu is the defacto military center of the Pacific Rim throigh RIMPAC, which has its international headquarters in Honolulu. -- Gerald Farinas 15:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ok “dudes”- I don’t know how anyone can possibly compare Honolulu to the incredible importance (both economically and culturally) of Tokyo in the region. Just compare the economic output, or the number of international banks and trans-national corporations based in these cities. Of course I’m not surprised that many international meetings are held in Honolulu on account of its central location and abundance of hotel rooms, but international relations is far different than international finance and culture. I think so-called “symposiums”, “conferences”, and “summits” hardly qualify as important activities at all, because they could happen anywhere and tend to gravitate to places with nice beaches. -- Jleon 16:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article, you may be forgiven for thinking that this country doesn't have a government at all. Where is the section in which I can learn more about the US political system - the powers of Bush, Condi & Co - Congress, the Senate, the judiciary? I could not find one word about it. Did I miss something? - Heimdal 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's in the Politics of the United States article; there's already a link in the United States Infobox template at the bottom of the page. I don't know why there's no section on politics on in the U.S. article itself, but I would assume the reason is that American politics is such a huge issue that it's best to keep it in a separate article (since it is the kind of thing that would evolve hourly). -- Coolcaesar 17:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I do agree that American politics are a big issue. But some words about it would still be useful here. After all, America's social issues are a big matter too, and you have an entire section dedicated to it. - Heimdal 09:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the US 2nd? anon changed it ... and I checked the article ... and it has the EU 1st ... is the EU "country"? I don' know [not big on economics ... nor of the "status" of the EU] ... So should it be 1st country; 2nd overall or ??? anyone? [or, I'm I missing something?] JDR

EU is the common economic zone, as US. The member states are as integrated as American states are. Ranking economies we should compare Oranges with Oranges and Apples with Apples. Comparing US with Germany doesn't make any sense to me. 145.254.118.240 01:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm ... ok ... thanks ... so apples to oranges it's 1 ... but 2 to one for the same fruits ... JDR =-]

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. The E.U. is not like the U.S., it is instead something like NAFTA!

Inside the E.U. each country has its own president/prime minister/chancellor. There is no common foreign policy (remember: Iraq war, France and Germany vs. Italy, Spain and U.K.), there is no common currency (The Euro is not the only European currency), each member state has its own passport, its own laws, its own language, and so on!

The E.U. was founded to preserve peace in Europe after the 2nd worldwar. It has now become a trade union, since there are special laws that are mandatory for all member states. Brussels is currently working on a E.U. constitution, but that cannot be compared with constitutions of nomal countries, such as our beautiful U.S. constitution. The E.U. is currently being expanded to include 25 instead of 15 members, but that is heavily opposed by citizens. And: There is no E.U. military! Each country has its own military, some have joined NATO, some not. Some participated in the war in Iraq, others not. In the U.S. however, it was the U.S. that invaded Iraq, not just Montana and California. Or did you ever read in the newspaper: Arkansas has threatened to veto, or Alabama will not participate ... ???

That's funny, I have read several quotes from High-ranking EU officials that state the EU was formed to oppose the mono-polar economic power of the USA, not to preserve the peace as you propose. The EU, by their definition, is a hedge against American power. Not arguing, but rather point out their own internal opinions.

Due to cultural differnces (that don't exist in the U.S.A.), language problems (same again), big differences in laws (same), and stubbornnes (same) there will NEVER be a U.S.E. (United States of Europe)!

Well, it's a common practice to put EU first in GDP rankings - though unranked, just like the GDP page in Wikipedia. So, I think the US should be both 1st and (2nd) - yes, EU isn't a single country, but the states aren't completely independent either, and it's a major economic force and should be recognised then.

Maybe the comparison should be between major economic forces rather than countries. Pedant 23:57, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Right. The EU is not like the US. The independent member countries of the EU (France, etc.) are self-governing entirely, unlike the American states. The EU (though the new constitutions are tying to change this) is a economic entity, with higher pretensions: more like a glorified NAFTA.

---

US has the first ranking economy, not the second. The EU isnt even a country. Incase you guys dont know, EU constituion talks collapsed a few months ago. It has no federal powers, it cannot command the GDP of every member nation. If you're going to count the EU as a country, you might as well count NAFTA as a country. Which would mean NAFTA has the largest economy (USA + Mexico + Canada).

What are you objecting to? The page says the US has the strongest economy, afaics. Marnanel 20:51, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

So what would you say would be definitive similiarites and dissimiliarites between the EU and NAFTA?

---

It's an interesting argument as to whether the EU constitutes a single economy. The EU is a much tighter grouping than NAFTA, but much less tight than the US. An "economy" is not the same thing as a country. Taiwan (ROC) is regarded as an economy but most places are too afraid of mainland China to give it recognition as a country. This is all academic though... we should take our lead from accepted international practice. The UN's GDP rankings do not currently list the EU, the member countries are listed separately. Ben Arnold 22:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The EU is not a 'single country' any more than the Arab League, NAFTA or the African Union are. The USA is a single country, the EU is not-

• The EU laws are not 'compulsory for all member states' as a previous contribution asserted- they all have to be ratified by lawmakers in the individual countries.
• Alabama can't refuse to enact a new federal law (the member states of the EU can).
• Michigan doesn't have its own currency (many members states of the EU do, and the others could change back from the Euro to the Deutsche Mark, Lire etc. if they wanted to).
• New York can't decide to leave the USA (member states of the EU can leave any time they like)
• California can't go to war with Montana (member states of the EU can, although it hasn't happened so far it may when the potentially more volatile Balkan states join)
• Texans vote for the same President as people from New Jersey (member states of the EU each elect their own leaders)
• The USA has a single national anthem and a single team in the Olympics, the World Cup etc. (The EU member states have their own anthem and teams)
• The USA has a single, legally binding Constitution (the EU doesn't have a Constitution yet, and even the new one that's being decided won't prevent members from dumping it and leaving the EU)
• Each state in the USA has the same (de facto)official language: English. The member states of the EU have a total of at least 20 different official languages between them)
• The USA has a single military- the US Army, the US Airforce, the US Navy, and the likes of the National Guard are controlled by the USA. The EU member states each have their own militaries, commanded by the sovereign governments of those states, there is no EU Air Force or whatever
• The states of the USA have agreed borders- there are no fall-outs over where Arizona ends and New Mexico begins, whereas, as one example, Spain still disputes UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, as does France with respect to the Channel Islands

Enough reasons why the EU and the USA are not similar enough to be compared? -- Cynical 21:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not simply remove the GDP occurence in the template ? I personally don't find it very relevant, it's not something undoubtable (compare to facts of geography for instance). It's just a way to calculate economic power of a country. Why not then figure out the number of men the US army is composed of ? That's a way to calculate military power. Helldjinn 18:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But not an entirely accurate one, just as total GDP is not an entirely accurate figure. The EU ranks higher than the US, but has a lower per-capita. North Korea's military is larger than the US's, yet few would consider it a superior military. -- Golbez 19:58, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly why I consider removing GDP : it's not accurate. Why GDP and not HDI for instance ? Helldjinn 05:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Economist magazine (perhaps the UK's most authorative business/economics/politics magazines) - recognises the Eurozone area as a single economic area and in its statistical analysis treats it as such - this definition includes 12 of the current membership of 25 EU states. The non-Euro EU member state being, Denmark, Sweden, UK plus the 10 Accession states of 2004). The Euro 12 share a single currency and have no means to set their own independent interest rates, the are therefore effectively a single economy. Most of the other 13 countries are bound by mechanisms such as ERM II (the holding bay for consideration for entry into the Eurozone) which significantly restrict their ability to vary their interest rates, exchange rates and inflation rates - their economic agenda is effectively set by their desire to join the Euro 12. Setting aside the question of economic sovereignty/pseudo-sovereignty - all 25 members of the country are bound by the dictates of the Aquis Communautaire, the vast body of European legislation that each country is treaty bound to incorporate into its own legal codes, a great deal of this legislation is related to economic spheres of activity with the goal of promoting a single European market for capital, goods, human resources, services (a fundamental principle of the EU since the Single European Act of 1986 - with scheduled implemenation by a deadline of 1992). Given these considerations, I would say that for the purposes of Wikipedia the EU should be considered as a economic entity for the purposes of GDP tables, the fact that it is not a nation-state (in the conventional sense that one thinks of one), but a state-like entity is essentially irrelevant. Moreover, the tendency towards deeper economic integration within the EU means that by considering the EU as single entity for the purposes of economic analysis the Wikipedia will reflect the general trend of events and reflect the true state of play more closely as the EU continues its process of constant evolution.

Final point as an aside - the EU is not simply a glorified trade area (I think some people have this impression), it is, as acknowledged by former Commision President Romano Prodi, a political project. Nick Fraser 12:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The EU is significantly different than NAFTA. The EU provides for the free movement of people which NAFTA does not. The EU is also a customs union. NAFTA only provides for duty free trade of goods whose origins are primarily from one of the NAFTA countries. Steggall 22:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

It is true that the EU is not a single country, but it should be noted that it has the strongest economy in the world. Although each country has it's own laws and leaders, is this not also true of the American states? The European Union represents the opinions of its member states, and allows them to have their own seperate laws, as well as imposing some of its own by which all members must comply. And, although they have their own leaders, the EU has it's own "Official" leader. Yet again, this is the same as in the US, in which the states can make their own laws, and they have their own "leaders". So the difference between the two is that the EU is not a declared country. THis does not alter the fact that it does have the strongest economy in the world. Lieutenant Blue 12:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PPP

The PPP and currency exchange rate from US dollars to US dollars is by definition 1.0, see purchasing power parity. The PPP numbers can be removed. But all reporting areas that doesn't use the US dollar should of course have both. - Jerryseinfeld 01:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you agree or what? - Jerryseinfeld 19:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 5

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 7