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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The history summary in the main article contains the following sentence:

Three major traumatic experiences for the nation were the Civil War (1861-1865), the Great Depression (1929-1939), and September 11, 2001.

While the statement is factually true, it seems to reflect a strikingly distorted point of view. The terrorist attack of 9/11 is historically significant, but doesn't approach the magnitude of the Civil War or the Great Depression. Other wars (Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, the Revolutionary War) must all certainly outrank 9/11 as national traumas.

I think that, under the heading of History, the article should take a longer perspective than that of contemporary U.S. politics. Even at the present moment the U.S. faces a number of challenges, from flu to drunk driving, that are far greater objective threats to its citizens than terrorism.

I tend to disagree that Sept 11 ranks below other national tragedies. While the number of lives and value destroyed in other events was far greater there are a number of aspects that make it unique.

1 - a significant number of people across the world saw the event first hand real time. We had no government censors making sure we saw the beaches Normandy in our hometown papers without dead people on them.

2 - it represents a new paradigm for terrorism in the world. Example more British citizens died in that event than in any other terrorist attack in their history. This is after all the years of putting up with the IRA.

3 - it was a watershed moment in our current history that is coloring our present lives. The true impart of the event is still unfolding.

I don't think it's problematic including Sep 11 in 'National Traumas' - however to exclude the Vietnam War strikes me as odd. It was an event that deeply affected a huge number of Americans and moulded the political and cultural development of the country to a significant degree in the final few decades of the 20th century. The jury has to be out as to whether Sep 11 will have the same long-term impact on the US. Nick Fraser 20:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's possibly worth noting the Spanish entry doesn't seem to have any mention of the Madrid train bombings, nor does the UK entry mention any significant IRA attacks (or the IRA campaign/s) - such as the direct attacks on the UK Government in Brighton. Having this sort of specific mention of a single event seems incongruous in comparison to these articles in particular.

The economy part of the page doesn't say anything about the huge public debt of the USA. I don't know the correct numbers, but I think it's about $25,000 per capita, which makes it a major economic problem.

An interesting subject to cover but surely 'Economy_of_the_United_States' page is the better place for this rather than the main page, there's nothing meaty about the subject on that page as far as I can see so if anybody would like to write something - suggested subsection title 'Structural Problems within the US Economy' - you could talk about the deficit, pensions/ageing population, and any other long-term potential problems etc. If others agree can this section 'National Debt' be closed as an outstanding issue to address for this specific page? Nick Fraser 20:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When talking about European descendents you should keep in mind the numbers given on a brass plaque on Ellise Island. You will find that most immigrants between 1850 and 1930 were actually from Russia, followed by people from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Italy ... This is not really reflected in your demographic survey.

Is this map free/PD? link; It's a great map and I'd like to have it in the demographics subarticle. ✏ Sverdrup 17:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Several months late in this reply, but whether or not the map is free/PD can be irrelevant. You can make a very similar map at nationalatlas.gov (zoom to lower 48, remove lat/long lines, add counties, add population density 2000). I went ahead and did this and created an image and uploaded it. The colors are different, but big deal (an easy color change could be made).

The economic summary is ridiculous. From reading it, one would think the only involvement the government has with the economy is doling out welfare and interfering with industry. You'd never know that the US government financed the development of the Internet for decades, gives massive corporate welfare to agribusiness and other business and so forth.

Then there's this beauty - "The U.S. economy is marked by steady growth, low unemployment, low inflation, a large trade deficit and rapid and rapid advances in technology." Steady growth? Like the unemployment after the recessions in the early 2000s, early 1990s, early 1980s, early 1970s and so forth? Even if we went on a multi-year timeline, growth from say 1974-2004 is not at the steady pace that 1944-1974 growth was. Low unemployment? U-6 unemployment hovers around 10%. Which shoots up when the US is not in an economic recovery? Low compared to what, the USSR's 0% unemployment? The US only has several months of unemployment benefits, unlike Europe, this only serves to mask unemployment. I wouldn't term the advances in technology in the United States rapid either - how have people's lives changed much since the 1950s? 1904-1954 was a rapid technological advance, 1954-2004 I would not characterize as rapid. Ruy Lopez 20:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The unemployment rate has absolutely nothing to do with unemployment benefits, whoever was deleting your text was doing so because you were plain wrong. - me

This discussion was posted ten days ago. We are still waiting for the people who keep deleting the material on the US economy to justify their position. They have not said one word. Under the circumstances, I shall keep reinserting Ruy Lopez's text until they do come to the talk page to discuss their dispute. Shorne 16:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reality of the $7,449,000,000,000+ national debt issue also kind of needs to be mentioned. By the sound of this article, you'd think the US was booming, rather than coming up to a financial collapse like the 1980's era USSR was, which is the actual fact of the matter. -- Ce garcon 19:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be entirely objective, then, the article should also mention that in percentage terms, this national debt level is not significantly greater than that of most other industrialized OECD nations.

yo fool, economics is an art not a science. and the USSR didn't collapse because of economic reasons, though that is generally believed, it collapsed because of an internal revolt of top governmental officials specifically in the military and KGB, as well as disruptive reform policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. THe ussr didnt have a healthy economy, but that was not the reason for its demise. similarly the US economy could be more stable, however the US position as superpower is not in any serious jeopardy.

Actually, I'm right. The USSR collapsed because the Soviet public no longer had any trust in it. The USSR National Debt was through the roof, all lines of credit had run out, and the Soviet public was not prepared to hold tight through Gorbachev's painful economic reform, and the USSR collapsed. Also, the USSR didn't have the option of forcing foreign lenders to prop up its' public debt as the US does. btw, personal insults are out of place on Wikipedia. -- Ce garcon 11:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez, you seem to only equate techonological advancement with a higher standard of living and/or quality of life. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but this is just plain wrong. We have made leaps and bounds in the past 50 years in such fields as space travel, aviation, telecommunications, etc. and although these were rapid and useful changes, they did not change the overall quality of life of the average citizen(although someone could argue this point for telecommunications).

Also, I read a report that stated the average European didn't live as well as the average Roman(circa height of Roman Empire) unitl the mid 18th century. I believe no one here would argue that we made scientific progress of no consequence from the 2nd to 18th centuries.

Interslice

I would like to object to the Southeast being the center for medical research. This is so completely far from true. Raleigh-Durham does have a large amount of medical research, but this is MUCH smaller than that of California, Boston, Washington DC mmetro, and Texas. I would like to see that changed to something like the southeast economy is more heavily dependent on medical research. The way it is stated now, it sounds like all the medical research in the United States goes on in place like Atlanta, Birmingham, and Research Triangle, which is far from the truth.

I unprotected the page only for it to explode into an even larger edit war. Do I need to protect it again, or can you guys discuss it? Andre ( talk) 18:03, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Please protect it again. It's obvious to all that VeryVerily has no intention of discussing anything or even obeying the three-revert rule. Shorne 18:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't protect. It makes no sense. anthony 警告 15:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection in my eyes, are, in a sense, only another way and excuse of/for censorship. BOYCOT THE RESTRAINMENTS!-- OleMurder 10:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This line "he President is elected to a four-year term by the Electoral College carried out through the process of a nation-wide popular vote." makes it sound like the popular vote is nationwide not statewide. I suggest something like "The president is elected to a four-year term by the Electoral College based on popular votes at the State level" or something to that effect, and giving a note that a more detailed explanation can be given by reading the artilce on the US Electoral College ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College"). How does that ound? I just read it and thought that that sentance was just plain misleading!

OK, folks.

The Federated States of Micronesia is NOT an insular area. It is an Independent nation in free association with the USA via the Compact of Free Association that was signed in 1986. Title 1, Article 1, Sec. 111 of the COFA clearly says:

The peoples of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, acting through the Governments established under their respective Constitutions, are self-governing. [1]

- Hoshie 09:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have added an extra paragraph under the sub-heading 'Class'. This shows the income inequality within the USA, which was missing in the original.

The article already refers to social stratification and income inequality (the Gini coefficient), and I don't think one study by one economist should be in this article. There is a subarticle Social structure of the United States for more detailed analysis. Very Verily 19:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that link. I agree with the delete.

The graph that was with that material is remarkably hard to interpret. However, a short summary of the distribution of wealth is appropriate despite existance of a more detailed article. Fred Bauder 23:11, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

This article has about 2000 edits that in order to study its history easily we almost definitely need a "1000" added to the options on "which number do you want the edits to be studied one at a time". I did it with 500 and I got 4 pages. Any comments?? 66.245.31.111 01:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The United States of America consists of fifty states with limited autonomy in which federal law takes precedence over state law. In general, matters that lie entirely within state borders are the exclusive concern of state governments."

Not to nit-pick, but "United States" is plural, not singular. Further, "state" is a synonym for "country" or "nation".

Shouldn't this read more like, "The United States of America currently number fifty, each with limited autonomy. All states [aka nations] lie within America [aka the Americas] and are united (hence, 'United States of America') into a federation in which federal law takes precedence over state law. In general, matters that lie entirely within state borders are the exclusive concern of state governments and not the federal republic."

A bit more cumbersome, but more technically accurate.

It would also be interesting to know why the United States of America all have names, but the federal republic itself does not. Why in 200+ years has no one bothered to think of a name for the empire? This might be an important issue from an historical perspective. Perhaps this is what led to "United States of America" being used in the singular, rather than the more correct plural. Still, you'd think somewhere along the line, someone would have thought of giving one name to the collective whole of the United States of America, rather than just falling back on the description all the time. -- Corvun 19:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually in the sense in which it is taken as the subject of the above-mentioned sentence it is singular. If you're not sure consider which of the following sounds right to you:

• The United States of America is a sovereign state
• The United States of America are a sovereign state

Essentially, when we think of the "United States of America" as a country, it is singular. When we think of it as a grouping of 50 states, it is plural. And almost always we use "Untied States of America" to mean the country. Also, it is just incorrect to say that each state is a separate nation. jguk 20:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I mean, "United States of America", how can that be a name of a single country? Let's take the example of the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Mexican States, and give it a real name. ;) Anyway, historically, "The United States of America" is singular, and in the past, mostly before Lincoln's little tantrum, it tended to be referred to as "these United States" but that was mostly informal. I guess the best answer is: What does the Constitution say? -- Golbez 21:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ummmm. The best answer is what do people normally say. I honestly don't know what the constitution says, but demotic usage in 2004 is more important now than usage in a formal document drawn up in the 1780s. jguk 22:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose y'all are right, in that language is defined by usage. If people speak of the "United States" as a singular entity, then the grammar should reflect that. Same with the states themselves being called "states" even though they aren't actually nations or countries in and of themselves. It just all seems like one huge linguist's nightmare to me. Perhaps I'm being too analytical, and perhaps I shouldn't be expecting politically-defined uses of terms to make grammatical or etymological sense. -- Corvun 22:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, an etymological examination might be helpful here. Instead of focusing on the plural "States" in the term, let's look at "United". It derives from the latin unum meaning one. Thus "united" is to be made one. Thus, the plural states have been made into one, singular, entity. Aside from the informal "these United States" the term "United States" has not usually been used to describe the states as a group. The Constitution iteslf is not totally clear about this, but the Articles of Confederation state that "United States of America" is the style of the "confederacy", that is the national government itself. It is interesting also to note that the Constitution while not specifically assigning the style of the national government, uses "the several States" when referring to them as a group, rather than "the United States".

Six of one half dozen of the other. I vote status quo. btw, whoever wrote the above and didn't sign his name is a big fat blowhard. MPS 18:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the current terminology should stay and I reject Corvun's proposed change. Yes, it is a giant linguist's nightmare, but it arises from the complex legal history of the United States.

The problem is that the states always saw themselves as separate sovereigns from the very beginning (because the Crown constituted each of them separately), and modern American constitutional law continues to reflect that. Today, the weird legal fiction we operate under is dual sovereignty.

Each American is a citizen of both their state of residence and of the federal sovereign. Each state is a separate sovereign which just happens (by virtue of ratifying the Constitution) to have consented to giving up bits and pieces of its sovereignty to the federal government. But as far as external nations are concerned, they see the federal government because one of the powers granted to the federal government is power over external affairs.

As for the nation issue, even though the states continue to exist as separate legal entities, their conception of themselves as separate nations has long since withered away, and most Americans would agree that the United States effectively is a single nation. The major disagreement would be from Native Americans, who view each of their tribes as continuing to exist as autonomous nation-states, under the direct control of the larger federal sovereign.

Also, if you look at the U.S. Constitution, both the Preamble and Article II repeatedly and consistently refer to "the United States of America." From the surrounding wording, it is clear that the Founders were referring to a single legal entity and believed they were constituting such an entity. So "the United States of America" is the legal name of the federal government. There are also many sections in the United States Code which refer to "the United States of America."

-- Coolcaesar 20:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• They are referred to in both the Constitution and other documents as "the United States" because before 1787, they were semi-independent. This is where the Americans clouded the definitions of state and nation that the rest of the world successfully differentiates. The Constitution was the coming together of states that minted their own currency, engaged in trade wars with each other, refused to extradite criminals just because they happened to cross a state line, etc. into a "Union" hence how they became the "United." Up until the Civil War (especially in the South) is was thought that a state could easily withdraw if they didn't agree with the direction the Constitution was being torn into. South Carolina attempted to get out in the 1830s, etc. The Constitution of the United States of America is named as such simply because at first 13 states came together to agree to it. This was at time when New England was thinking about leaving the Articles of Confederation and creating an entity from New York to Maine. When sections of the American contintent west of the Appalachians were planning or trying to start their own little Republics (and some Kingdoms). If the states hadn't come together and decided to lay down a new document for their confederation, and instead persisted after Annapolis to exist under the "Articles of Confederation" from 1775, most likely the union would have fallen shortly after 1800 (if not sooner) and today we would see maps with other more localized confederations of the 50 states (which who knows if there would even be 50). Your conceptualization of inter-state relations leading up to the 1787 constitution is limited. A few delegates getting miffed would have changed the last three centuries of world history in ways we can hardly imagine. — ExplorerCDT 21:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hold a bachelor's degree in history from the most prestigious public university in the United States. I am well-aware of all of the facts you just mentioned, especially the delicate fragility of the Union throughout its first century. I am also familiar with all the diverse what-if scenarios.

I do not have all day to write on talk pages. I did not think it was necessary to rehash the convoluted details of two centuries of American history just to explain how we got to our present pigpen of legal fictions and political realities. But thanks for doing that for me.

When I said "wording" above, I was referring to the consistent use of the definite article, "the," rather than the plural demonstrative adjective, "these," in the Constitution. But you did clarify something I neglected, the task of explaining why the Constitution has to refer to states which are united, as opposed to, say, "the United State."

-- Coolcaesar 08:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 7

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 9