Talk:United States

Template:FAC (contested) An event mentioned in this article is a July 4 selected anniversary

Bosnian Wiki

I realize you guys are having some disputes, but Im hoping maybe someone could edit the article to add the newly created Bosnian article. Its called "Sjedinjene Američke Države", our wiki code is bs:.

Definition of contiguous U.S.

I changed the definition of contiguous US to say w/o Alaska or Hawaii or island territories -- if that stands, it should be similarly changed in the same worded sentence in United States Territory.

Is this the level we have sunk to? Isn't wiktionary the place where we are supposed to argue about the meanings of individual words? --Cynical 15:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I skulle hellere skrive om [flipsider]

Dubrovnik

Copied the statement "The first country to recognize the United States after declaring its independence was the city state of Dubrovnik(at that time also called Ragusa). " to History of US 1776-1861. Perhaps the statement belongs solely in that History of US article 169.207.89.79 03:20, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

States link

Okay in the Politics section there is a link states, it goes to a defination of states but in this context should it not go to a listing of the 50 states? Belizian 22:50, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

AgreedPedant 23:41, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

GDP

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 aples 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)

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)

Topics table

I created a table like this one for Greek mythology, but no one has expressed any opinions on it. I think it's a good way to organize a large number of articles concerning a single major subject (rather like a article series), and propose it replacing the long and unwieldy "Related Topics" list -- this both adds and removes some links, and makes them easier to navigate IMO (mostly removes cabinet positions and departments, probably adds more than it removes). Does anybody here have an opinion? FTR, almost all of these articles link to an article either specific to the US or with a section on the US (or being a primarily or originally American phenomenon like rock and roll). The only article which doesn't exist is Law enforcement in the United States, which is a major lack IMO. Tuf-Kat 06:19, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Topics in the United States
History	Timeline (Colonial Era, American Revolution, Westward Expansion, Civil War, World War 1, Great Depression, World War 2, Cold War, Vietnam War, Civil Rights), Foreign relations, Military, Demographic and Postal history
Politics	Law (Constitution and Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence), Political parties (Democrats and Republicans), Elections (Electoral College), Political scandals
Government	Federal agencies, Legislative branch (Congress -- House, Senate) Executive branch (President and Vice-President, Cabinet, Attorney-General, Secretary of State; Law enforcement -- CIA, FBI), Judicial branch (Supreme Court), Military (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force)
Geography	Appalachian Mountains, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, Midwest, US South, Mississippi River, New England, Mid-Atlantic, States and Counties; other Regions, Mountains, Valleys, Cities, Islands
Economy	Dollar, Wall Street, Standard of living, Companies
Demographics	US Census Bureau, Languages, Social structure
Culture	Music (Hippies, blues, jazz, rock and roll, hip hop, gospel, country), Cinema (Hollywood), Literature (Poetry, Transcendentalism, Harlem Renaissance, Beat Generation), Visual arts (Abstract expressionism), Cuisine (Tex-Mex, Fast food, Cajun and Creole, Soul food, American Chinese), Holidays, Folklore, Dance, Architecture
Other	Communications, Transportation (Highways and Interstates, Railroads), Uncle Sam, American Dream, Media (Media bias, Newspapers, Network TV, Cable TV, Education, Social issues (Immigration, Affirmative action, Racial profiling, Human rights, War on Drugs, Pornography, Prisons, Capital punishment)

Are you going to put one of these in every single article listed in the table? If so, then I think it's a bad idea. Look at the width of this thing. It takes up half the page. Linking these articles to List of United States-related topics is good enough. Only the bored would bother to read all these articles, and almost no would probably do so in the order prescribed. I don't see the value in this.--Jia ng 06:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Acutally, I like the Greek mythology table. It's comprehensive and organizes the topics well. The miscellaneous topics links on this page should not be numerous, like the rest of the countries templated by wikipedia:wikiProject Countries. That's why we have a separate list of topics. If the list on this page is too long, then cut things out. --Jia ng 07:01, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't want to put this on all the articles, only here (same way as at Greek mythology). I think having a select group of links to articles relating to the United States is useful -- List of United States-related topics is more of a utility page that presumably has some value to some people (though I don't use them). It is unwieldy now and is missing tons of extant articles -- it is apparently supposed to be comprehensive, and include all battles, bands, politicians, regions and native tribes, universities and islands, rivers and mountains, etc. That is not now and will not become more useful for a reader trying to find specific information on the US. The current system (on this page) takes up six of my screens, while this entire box fits on one -- this is far easier to find information on the United States than trying a somewhat select but clumsily formatted list here or a too comprehensive one elsewhere. Tuf-Kat 07:32, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Some listings such as Radio and Affirmative action are not US-specific and should probably not belong, IMO. --Jia ng

I would be amenable to removing some. Affirmative action is mostly US-specific in fact, if not in theory. Radio can go (though I'm sure there will eventually be a radio in the United States article). Most of the others that aren't explicitly US-specific are largely so, or at least have a section just for the US (as in newspaper). I suppose capitalism could probably go.Tuf-Kat

I removed capitalism and radio. Tuf-Kat

And now I removed the borders and colors (less intrusive that way), and will move it to the article. Tuf-Kat

"HistoryPoliticsGovernmentGeographyEconomyDemographicsArts& CultureOther" renders at the top of the table for me. Badanedwa 00:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

No offense intended, but that is one of the ugliest, most useless 'related topics' pages I can think of. Why not just include a link to Category: United States? --Cynical 15:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Netscape

I was reading this on Netscape on an Apple OS X computer at the University of Colorado, Boulder, USA (CU), and the flag, Great Seal, demographic info & other nonsense on the right side of the page sure looked weird — cut off. Changing Netscape's size did not help. Maybe it's a CU thing, but could someone else with a Mac please check this out? -- dino

On a Mac using Mozilla it looks fine. Tuf-Kat

it's also fine using Safari

of America

One more vote for United States of America. There are, in fact, other nations using the title "United States of (something)", so it actually is analogous to the "People's Republic of China" example given above. Yes, I realize there are a bagillion pages linking to United States, but in all fact there are probably a bagillion linking to United States of America as well. -- Ian Maxwell, 2004-03-12-1728

Indeed... - Woodrow 20:52, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Show me a reputable English publication referring to some other country as "u.s." or "united states".--Jia ng

No reputable publication refers to another nation solely as "United States" because that is generally recognized among English speakers to be shorthand for "United States of America". Also on this continent, however, are the United States of Mexico and the United States of Brazil. Also, show me a reputable English publication referring to some war other than the American Revolutionary War as "the Revolutionary War". -- Ian Maxwell

"This continent"? Since when are the United States of America and Brazil on the same continent?

Depends on which system you use. See The Americas. Rmhermen 21:23, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

When I first got here I was like United States of America but after having been here many months I am now resolutely in the United States camp. Why? a.) It's shorter, b.) It's unambigious "united states of mexico" to the contrary, c.) it is used SOOOOO much more in running text--using the whole United States of America becomes incredibly clumsy--and, as someone mentioned somewhere once, the United States page is the most linked-to page on wikipedia, and I imagine the added burden on the servers with the resultant redirects would be substantial. It is wikipolicy to have the most common name in English as the actual page URL--the complete name of the country is absolutely explained herein, but United States is, I'm 99% sure, the very best place for this page to be. Compare South Africa, for Republic of South Africa; Germany for Federal Republic of Germany, etc. America is ambigious according to the goddamn unamericans ;), so United States is by far the best choice. :) jengod 04:14, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

The other thing is U.S. institutions--they are not U.S.A. institutions--US Air Force, U.S. Supreme Court, US Capitol, U.S. state, United States Trade Representative, etc. jengod 04:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

And when these names are used, they don't link to "United States". For instance, the links are properly United States Air Force not United States Air Force.

My point exactly. "United States" will automatically refer to the United States of America. Your first sentence has negated your second. French Revolutionary War?Revolutionary War in Haiti?

I say we move this page to America to piss off those ungrateful anti-American bastards.--Jia ng

I second Jiang's brilliant plan. :) jengod 07:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

You should read the NPOV stuff. WikiPedia recognises its extraordinary pro-USA stance on practically everything but evem if light hearted these kind of comments don't help trying to get the other 95% of the planet' population to get involved... --(talk to)BozMo 22:40, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sir, you spelled "recognize" wrong. Just to let you know... --Jia ng 22:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kiddo. "Recognise" is an unusual word because it can actually be argued that the US spelling (recognize) is correct rather than just established ignorance. Cambridge University Press has maintained the "z" spelling always, (against 99% of native English speakers who spell it with an "s"]] so whether by luck or judgement I cede you are arguably correct. --(talk to)BozMo 14:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously folks:

United Kingdom is the page, official name is apparently United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Australia is the page, official name is apparently Commonwealth of Australia
A little place I like to call Germany is technically the Federal Republic of Germany jengod 07:04, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

These are all incomparable. First, it is quite uncommon for anyone to refer to UKGBNI or CA or FRG, whereas USA is extremely common. Second, with the possible exception of the UK (which can reasonable be excepted from this consideration because it is so unique in its longness, it's so totally different, no one uses it), the common names are far less ambiguous than "United States". Similarly, the removed parts are so generic, "Commonwealth" and "Federal Republic" that they don't indicate uniqueness. More telling, though, is that these names are far less common than "United States of America", compared to their short names. From a search on Google (example: "Australia" -"Commonwealth of Australia" vs. "Commonwealth of Australia"), the ratios are as follows: USA-US:2.9-1, CA-A:4.7-1, FRG-G:44.1-1, UKGBNI-UK:75.9-1. In other words, with the exception of Australia which is about 160% (1.6x) difference in usage, the difference of usage for the UK and Germany is magnitudes larger (more than 15 times). - Centrx 21:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Germany is a region, and the history of that region is covered in the relevant article for a period long before the Federal Republic came into existence. The history in the article on the United States of America begins with the creation of the United States of America. Not comparable. -- Ian Maxwell 2004 Aug 13 02:53 (UTC)

Long live Usonia! -- Decumanus | Talk 07:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would also vote for United States of America. Regardless of whether there are other nations using "United States" term, the actual page should be the formal title and all nicknames should redirect to there - this should be done for the UK and USSR as well. --Xinoph 15:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Why? Redirects are not a good thing. We already state the full name in the article itself. Some of these entries not only speak of the current political entity, but its predecessors. --Jia ng 16:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Er, there is already a redirect from United States of America to United States. If the article is moved, the redirect will be from United States to United States of America. Why is the latter a worse situation than the former? As far as I can tell, there are a near-equal amount of links to both as things stand. -- Ian Maxwell, 2004 Aug 13 02:57 (UTC)

I have to agree with Xinoph. Maybe it's just me, but this is an encyclopedia, we should refer to things by their FULL AND PROPER names. The full and proper name of the US is the United States of America, and it should be listed as such. The same goes for all other countries. And why exactly are redirects such a bad thing? We're going to have the same number of names (therefore the same number of redirects) any way we go about this, so why not just use the proper name for the proper article and redirect all shortened or casual names to that? NerdOfTheNorth 03:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By fiat, as Queen of all I survey, I hereby forbid, ban—and swear to abolish—any user of less than 1,000 edits and three months on Wikipedia to comment on the "of America" debate. Sincerely yours, the Queen. [her mark] :o) jengod 04:01, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). RickK | Talk 04:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The length is an irrelevant concern. The proper name for this country is "United States of America". Just because many use a shorthand doesn't alter in any way the established full name of the country. -- Stevietheman 20:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But we're not renaming the country, we're locating an encyclopedia article at the most obvious URL. jengod 21:00, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about obviousness, it gets redirected. The only reason not to do that is if there is some true performance concern. - Centrx 21:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obvious, eh? Guess where I looked for it first? -- Ian Maxwell, 2004 Aug 13 02:54 (UTC)

The largest economy

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?

America

Fiction: A new country called the United States of Europe is created in the modern territory of France, Spain and Portugal. This new country calls itself Europe and calls its citizens Europeans.

How would you feel if you were German, or Italian, or Polish and the names Europe and European were stolen from you forever (and in many different languages)? This is the same way we Latin Americans feel when the US calls itself America and its citizens Americans. This needs not be endorsed by an English language dictionary or encyclopedia to make it appear more valid or truer. It exists in the real world and it is very offensive, and worth of a mention in, yes, the English Wikipedia.

--Cantus 08:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The English language is described in English dictionaries. "American" is proper usage in English for the U.S., and English speakers regard what Spanish and Portuguese speakers classify as one continent, as two continents, North American and South America. The resentment sets in when you insist on using Spanish cultural differences (one America) when speaking English (N & S America, the Americas). You will need to adjust, or get the English language to adjust, if you don't like current use. But Wikipedia is here to report what is, not what you think should be. Therefore we will gladly report that someone (though a named someone or a printed source objecting to the use would be good) is displeased with standard English usage, but we must also report that the use of the word America to apply to the United States of America is not considered an offensive or a pejorative usage in any English dictionary or usage guide. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I stated that clearly, for US-citizens it isn't offensive; for Latin Americans, it is. I believe that that is clear as water. --Cantus 08:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the claim you are edit warring about. Alas, one cannot very effectively insist that other people speak their own language in a way that pleases you, or change established useage to please you. You also cannot give one side of a story (yours) in Wikipedia and erase the other. That's not a neutral treatment, and it's improper. - Nunh-huh 08:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Our own language? - Woodrow, Emperor of the United States 22:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I'm not even arguing on how should US-citizens call themselves. That is entirely not the point. The point is--and it's all I'm saying--is that for Latin Americans, that specific term, used in that specific way, is offensive. No more, no less. (PS: Go to my user Talk page, before you accuse me of things I haven't done) --Cantus 09:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's not all you're saying. You are deleting information that shows that this is standard usage. That's not proper for you to do: it is standard usage. - Nunh-huh 09:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And how is the footer denying it is standard usage for US-CITIZENS? --Cantus 09:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By erasing the portion of the footer that says so. - Nunh-huh

This is getting really out of hand. I do not believe Cantus is entitled to speak for an entire continent. Using America as short for United States of America is standard in English. Most Latin Americans have far better things to do than worry about this potential ambiguity being "offensive". Some of the edit summary comments are crazy: "By using 'America' to mean the US you are insulting all Spanish/Portuguese-speaking population." How is this insulting anyone? This claim reflects poor judgement. (And why doesn't it insult Canadians, anyway?) Are all non-Chinese offended that in their own language the Chinese call themselves the "Middle Kingdom"? You're setting yourself up to be offended by a lot of local language uses if this is how you feel. I won't be offended if you call an American a norteamericano when speaking your language; don't fret about the conventions in English. This footnote should IMHO be axed; but if it must stay, it should not say or imply that all Latin Americans are tied up in knots over this multiple usage of America. -- V V 12:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't fit your own ideas is thought by you as 'getting out of hand'. I'm tired of your ideological wars. Another thing to add is that, if English wasn't as widely used throughout the world then this would probably be a non issue. But since it is so predominant, other people end up using these Americanisms. English Wikipedia is not for 'Americans' or Brits only, but for everybody speaking English as a second language in the world. There lies the importance of this footnote. --Cantus 22:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep the personal attacks in check, huh? By getting out of hand I meant the edit warring over this small bit. (Name one ideological war; I am working for neutral language here.) The English Wikipedia uses the actual English language, not English as modified to please others. You didn't address most of my points, though, so there's not much to say. -- V V 22:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought this was clear, but I'll repeat it. It insults Latin Americans and not Canadians, because America in Spanish means North & South America. And your ideological wars are many, including United States, Augusto Pinochet, Fidel Castro and others. --Cantus 22:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hm, you'll have to remind me. I rememeber insisting on neutrality in some cases, and others pushing ideology, but no matter. America might mean "ugly chicken" in Zulu; what does that have to do with anything? -- V V 22:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's a foolish example. Both Spanish & English America are related. The fact that the name America was initially given to just South America does nothing but increase the weight of the offense. --Cantus 23:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong and Canadians are also offended by the unilatelarism of the empire. Some Canadian user has just edited the footer to broaden the offence to the rest of The Americas. PS: While surfing I found some interesting sites from some angry continental neighbours: [1] (Canadian), [2], [3] (Puerto Rican), [4] (Brazilian). Enjoy! --Cantus 08:58, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In an article about the USA, it is quite proper to refer to it as "America". There's an America (disambiguation) thingie, isn't there?

(Jerzy (t) notes that these two sentences are an edit by User:65.25.253.161)

Reasons why I think using the version mostly using "United States" and "U.S" is preferrable to the one using "America/American":

Both versions are correct English
The page title and most of the related articles the page links to use US
Why poke the bear (needlessly)? Use the version that isn't as offensive to some people.
Refusing to use the perfectly valid US version re-inforces the ugly American stereotype.
American is fairly ambiguous, United States less so. However, since we aren't the only country to use those word in its name, I think one that generally uses United States of America and USA is ideal. Niteowlneils 01:03, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This usage is simply not customary in English. One does not say "This is a U.S. tourist attraction." It is clear from context what American means here; the ambiguity is simply not a problem. In fact, I question whether any other sense of American offers any significant competition with this usage. Based on the behavior of the users who have favored this change, I suspect this change is being made in bad faith. The talk of related etymology is particularly unpersuasive, given the sheer number of out-there cognates one could scrape up. Use of USA would be even more non-English. However, I'm glad you're willing to come here and talk about this, something no one else seems interested in doing. -- V V 06:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have intentionally not looked to see which users are advocating either side--I don't want to be affected by personal bias.
I don't believe sheer volume of usage to be the only factor. Or are we going to replace isn't with ain't in all articles regarding items in the southeast US?
I don't think the usage is as lopsided as the "America is obvious" camp suggestsat least when it comes to written English--u.s. tourist attraction gets slightly more hits than american tourist attraction, and us tourist attraction get three times as many hits as either of the others. Niteowlneils 15:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The bottom line is that U.S. citizens largely call themselves Americans, for better or worse. It doesn't matter in an encyclopedic sense whether anyone is offended by this fact. It's most important to defer to what a people call themselves, not what others want to call them. -- Stevietheman 20:47, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If someone called themselves God you might take offence and choose not to defer to them. Extreme example, but the point stands that neutral language is important.

The issue here really is that U.S. citizens call themselves Americans, and so do Latin Americans. So there are two groups of people with the same name, who do you defer to? You can't. You need need to use a more specific term.

My 5 cents worth. Ben Arnold 08:18, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The God reference is an "apples and oranges" comparison. Even if Americans are incorrectly calling themselves Americans (and it's not incorrect, really), they have been doing it so for so long that it has become an encyclopedic fact, and history here cannot and should not be erased just to make some people feel better. That said, I agree that some kind of disambiguation is in order, and I do not dispute that others besides U.S. citizens call themselves Americans in a factual manner. -- Stevietheman 23:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

HONESTLY, i've just read this whole thing and it makes me sick. Before I once and for all decide this debate, let me state a few things which you should take for fact: (1) America is standard usage in English for the United States (2) This isn't going to change any time soon (try ever) and (3) America is often used in patriotic songs (America, america...) and just to keep from repeatedly using the words United States (english as a second-language speakers take note-sentence and word-choice variety is important in english). So, with these facts in mind, let me turn to the most important question: How many internet users are there in Latin and South America (about what-2000?) and how many read pages in English (about 2?). If this upsets you, make sure the way you like it is in your native language (probably spanish), use America in the article since its in standard use and always will be, and just mention somewhere that it upsets other people. End of story, should please everybody, get over it and worry about things like your economy and drug wars...yadayadyada...--naryathegreat 00:07, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting way to finish a discussion, with a childish and insulting statement; I could reply to you we would not have a drug war problem if you were not a wasted drug user whose only virtue is to have access to the share the U.S. gets from drug money. As you can see, a childish statement can be answered with an equally childish and probably untrue statement based on bias and stereotypes, and can be done back and forth ad nauseam with no useful result but to create more resentment. Now, regarding the use of America to refer to the U.S.A. only and American to refer to USians only, the only reason you have been able to get by using those terms like that is because (a) English speakers got used to England and her colonies (Canada included) calling the U.S. America and the USians Americans, with total disregard of the rest of the continent (singular, even if you fracture it in two to create disunion among the other American countries so you can prevail), which was typical of her I-am-the-center-of-the-Universe way of thinking and which inherited to the U.S., and (b) because of the lack of union itself which pervades the countries south of the U.S. (Canada does not count, she has been integrated culturally in that sense to the United States) which prevents them from reclaiming in practical use the terms America and American when confronted with English speakers. I believe the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present facts in the most neutral way for educational purposes, acknowledging all the variants of a definition within reason; those of us who come from other American countries do know the common usage of these words in English -as well as the deleterious effect such usage creates by destroying the sense of continentality other nations on Earth can claim, like Africans and Europeans, where the exceptions are more the rule- and find it refreshing when the Encyclopedia acknowledges there are other usages, but the problem in this particular article and discussion is the phrasing, extremely self-centered and with total disregard. Yes, is an article about the United States of America, but it does not have to be aggressive towards the rest of the American countries; I will not provide an alternate phrasing for your footnote, you have to do it yourselves, learn to think outside your bubble. It is a shame that a country founded by such illustrious people as those you call the Founding Fathers, who did identify America as the continent and Americans as the people of the whole continent, had been replaced by the sheer force of bad usage of the words by ignorant simplistic men and women. My only hope is that ignorance will not prevail, even if it takes another two hundred and fifty years to correct this mess. I am an American!!! :) --148.63.136.60 14:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pedant : I do NOT like to see people who choose to use substances to alter their own body chemistry called "Americans". We prefer to be known as "freaked-out whackos". Calling a freaked-out whacko an 'American' is a grave insult. And the founding fathers knew quite well that "America" referred to what freaked-out whackos call the continent to the south, which is referred to now most commonly as South America. There was America and North America. That's one reason... the other issue is that there are actually 2 'united states of america':

the united States of America - a federation of Sovereign States or Nations... each nation independent except for in matters where the State has ceded responsibility to the Federal government. This federation has a red, white and blue flag - the one pictured in the article. The system of government is a federation of independent Nations, each Nation governs itself internally.
The United States of America, considered as a single actual nation, originally created as a legal fiction, now almost universally accepted as THE 'United States' of America or simply 'America'. This is what is referred to by "One Nation,,," in the Pledge of Allegiance (oath of fealty). This nation has a red, white, blue, and gold flag. Adding the gold fringe to the flag symbolises that the flag is a military flag.

so... there's a lot of issues, but even if you are a U.S. 'government official', you may not have the right answer to the "of America" question. Though I prefer correctness to convenience, I think that in this one case, the title of the article should reflect the most common usage... It is difficult to explain to someone that a blackberry is NOT a berry before you tell them what a blackberry or a berry IS... similarly, most people will be looking for United States, no need to tell them that it "is OF AMERICA, the-america-that-used-to-be-North-America-but-now-is-commonly-called-either"America"-or-"United States". It is laughable to imagine someone on Earth, who is reading the "American english" article on United States in wikipedia - that that person would not already have a glimmer of an idea what United States means. I think United States is ok to use as the title, regardless of the actual accuracy of the name... there is a huge volume of inaccuracies in every reference source on the United States of America. It seems to be the custom in America to be ignorant of and not to circulate true facts about the governmental structure, history, and foreign policies of 'the country between Canada and Los Estados Unidos de Mexico'. Ask an American how many countries are in North America... hey, we may be freaked-out whackos, and ignorant of many details of our own 'homeland', but it's because culturally we have been trained since childhood to be ignorant of anything that might create awkward confusion between what is correct and what our government wants us to believe. One reason most americans know who is getting kicked off of survivor island, but do not know the name of their elected representatives, or how the elctoral college system works. Americans can vote at age 18, but many Americans think you must be 21 to vote. Most americans think you automatically lose the right to vote if they are convicted of a crime, and that they have to 'have their rights restored' in order to vote.Pedant 15:43, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Jumping in with both feet here... As an American who has lived overseas for a decade and travelled extensively worldwide, we can get away with any of the following "United States", "USA", "U.S.A.", "United States of America", "America", "America" and other permutations involving the f-bomb. Everybody, native and non-native English speakers alike, knows exactly what you are talking about. Now, depending on the listener, i.e. Central and South Americans specifically, saying you are from America and that you are an American really peeves them. Nobody else really cares (1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indian make a good chunk of 50% world's population) In my humble opinion, all permutations should be listed with a reference to the objection. For style, a particular permutation should be selected for use throughout the entire article. Further reference on the CIA homepage:

    conventional long form: United States of America
    conventional short form: United States
    abbreviation: US or USA

As a European, I would opt for the following. Use the CIA references set out above. Make the main page reference 'United States of America' - redirect all other shortened forms and abbreviations to that page. As 'United States of America' is the full name, isn't this the least contentious of all options? Nick Fraser 13:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Role of federal government

Somewhere it would be good to have a fuller explanation of the role of the US federal government.

I was interested to hear from an American friend of mine that there is a principle that it has jurisdiction in matters relating to interstate commerce, and that therefore there are efforts made to relate cases to interstate commerce in order to establish that the federal courts have jurisdiction (for example, the case of the mailbox pipe-bomber Luke Helder is seen as a federal matter, because it involved destruction of mailboxes, which are used in interstate commerce).

Wasn't there some case where the supreme court rejected a federal law on guns in schools, on the grounds that there was no relevant basis for federal jurisdiction?

Anyway, I think it could be an interesting article if there are Americans who would be willing to writing it.

--Trainspotter 10:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As for mailboxes specifically, the federal government explicitly has jurisdiction over the postal service and such. Federalism is brilliant and has numerous advantages, and it should be explicated, but sadly it's repeatedly infringed. - Centrx 21:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

United States v. Lopez: the Supreme Court overturns the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Commerce Clause is often stretched to include anything that "affects" interstate commerce, which is virtually anything. In The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater wrote about a case in which it was ruled that a law under which a farmer was charged for producing too much and feeding the excess to his own animals was Constitutional because he might have bought grain from a farm in another state to feed his animals if he didn't produce too much. - Calmypal 00:15, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

A factual explication of 'the role of the US Federal government' would not last 10 minutes on wikipedia. There are vested interests that would never allow it to get out of disputed/protected status. Sadly, articles with reference to controversial issues get massaged to death, obscuring facts, until there is nothing controversial left. A factual explication of 'the role of the US Federal government' would be controversial from the beginning. I doubt I would be able to get 2 factual paragraphs to stand, without having their factuality compromised... I've seen whole websites on the subject disappear, even from google's cache and archive.org . but it would be a good idea if it could work.Pedant

"Republic" vs. "Democracy" dispute

It would be interesting to see some detail of the ongoing dispute that seems to take place in many political fora regarding whether the United States is a republic or a democracy (or both). I won't disclose my position. :)

America is a federal republic--naryathegreat 00:12, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

see my comments immediately above... this is an example of what I mean. depending on WHICH government you are referring to AND on your opinion, the United States is/are:

an independent nation
a republic
a democracy
a democracy in a republic
a federation of (some number of) Nations
one nation, under god (not 'under the People'!)
the servant of the people
an Anarchy, Plutocracy, etc...
a rogue State
a non-state
a corporation
(some number of) independent nations

depending on what facet of the gem you look at, many of the above are provably correct, including contradictory positions. Before we report on the facts, it would be convenient to have there be at least some consensus on what is true about the USA in the real world. This might never happen. Huge isssues of rights and responsibilities and obligations and jurisdiction are involved, billions of dollars, millions of people on any side of the fence. Pedant 16:09, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

'Republican' per US constitution

As far as this article goes, My Humble Opinion is that we should go with the constituion:

US Constitution, Artivls FOUR section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (emphasis added for clarity)Pedant 22:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

NATO and OECD?

I've noticed people reverting edits adding links to Template:NATO and Template:OECD. Why? Just curious. Johnleemk 16:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

see wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries --Jia ng 20:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Census figures

Can we get a citation to back up the recent changes to the census figures? I could not see any 2004 census information on the U.S. census site (aside from the real-time population clock). And at very best, these figures should be marked as estimates, as the bureau only conducts an actual census every ten years. older≠wiser 00:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and the census itself is an estimate.. and a baby was just now born.

Images

I removed the Las Vegas and arches images from this article as they were 1) in the politics section and 2) don't seem to be particularly representative of the US. Sfmontyo 12:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are joking, yes? To me, here in England, Las Vegas and the rock arches of Utah are absolutely part of the landscapes of the USA, how could they not be! What is "representative" of the USA?

McDonald's, Rush Hour Traffic, Atomic First Strikes, Corporate Welfare, Low crime rate/High imprisonment, 'reality TV'/fantasy news etc. ... seriously, that's a good question, "What is the image YOU picture when you think of the US, what picture represents the US?" btw, those were quite nice pics, Adrian, cheers for your work!Pedant 23:05, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

I spent a long time finding and preparing those images. It would have been thoughtful to transfer them to the Geography of the United States section, which I have now done. Best Wishes, Adrian - Adrian Pingstone 19:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'America(n)' Footer

I did read through the previous discussion regarding this, however upon reading the note I was (slightly) dismayed at how inadequately it read. It seemed to imply that I, say, as an American citizen, would take umbrage to someone's calling me American, or that (more generally) speaking of the U.S. as 'America' is an almost universally-offensive terminology. I amended the statements to, I hope, reflect reality, which is that most people, whether in my ancestral home (India), or France, or England, or Hong Kong, people casually refer to 'America' and 'Americans' at least as much as they do to the 'U.S.' I neglect U.S. citizen because I hardly hear people asking me, whether they're American or Indian or otherwise, " Hey, are you a U.S. citizen?" It's more often "American citizen." I invite more discussion (as I'm sure will happen) on my edits and look forward to streamlining the 'Note' further, though even as it stands I'm unhappy with the non-U.S. extraction and feel that it should be mentioned that its usually South Americans who dislike the term, as opposed to people living in Europe or Australasia, who frankly couldn't care. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:08, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Is this going to have to go to requests for comment? It seems to be going around in circles. older≠wiser 00:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it should. I've tried rewording this several times so that it would reflect the reality of the meaning of the word as it is used rather than our opinion about what it should mean: it's possible to do so without getting into a debate about who is offended by it, and who's offended by that offense. But apparently the "offense" is felt by some to be so important it has to be inserted. - Nunh-huh 01:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This phrase:

The false expectation that cognate words in different languages should have identical meanings causes some people to feel offended by the use of America to refer exclusively to the U.S.

The sentence above is patronizing and POV. An encyclopedia should not tell people how to think on any issue, just give facts.

And this one:

However, there is no nation in the New World other than the United States whose inhabitants commonly refer to themselves as Americans.

The above sentence is of little value and also POV, as if trying to give excuses or taking sides. It seems pretty logical that no country will call their citizens by the name of their continent. It is just not a common practice, well, unless you are the U.S.

This is the reason why I have removed those two sentences from the footer. I tried to make a compromise version, but I just couldn't extract anything good from the text presented above. --Cantus 02:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can appreciate your objections to the specific phrases above and I'm glad you have articulated your objections here. However, in your edits, rather than simply removing these phrases, you seem to be simply reverting back to your preferred phrasing, which includes other changes besides what you list above. older≠wiser 02:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I welcome your edits on the current version. --Cantus 02:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would love if someone from the Americas, who is supposedly offended by the usage, would actually discuss it here. So far I don't see any, but people from other places who want to be offended FOR them. RickK 05:11, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Howdy. Here's the current (as of Jun 29th, 2004, 1:55 in the morning in NY) version:

In the English-speaking world, America has become synonymous with the nation of the United States while American refers to United States (U.S.) citizens; this is a standard usage that applies to much of Europe and Australasia. By pluralizing America to the Americas, the speaker intimates both the North and South American continents as a collective unit. In Spanish-speaking countries, particularly in Central and South America, the word America is used not to describe the nation of the U.S. but what English-speakers would term the Americas. Thus, many people of the Americas consider it technically incorrect and even offensive for the U.S. to be referred to as America and inhabitants of the U.S. as Americans. While, in some quarters, the accuracy and political correctness of such nomenclature is debated, current usage in English by sheer weight of occurrence inclines to America and American as linked to the nation and citizens of the United States.

I basically overhauled it. I felt that we could start working on it here, since there seems to be some good dialogue going on. I have, as is apparent, stratified this into three parts. 1) Dealing with common English usage of the words/names America, American, and Americas 2) The offense taken by non-U.S. inhabitants of the Americas and their preferred usages and 3) A final, as neutral as possible statement on how things are.

So, what now? --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:58, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

People keep leaving out:
4) Nobody cares that Americans are offended when they're told that they're not allowed to call themselves Americans. RickK 06:02, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Okay... let's discuss that sentence. Keep in mind that I'm American, so I'm speaking as an 'insider.' No one has ever made an issue of this usage in the public form in the U.S. and it is primarily a controversy south of the border. Thus, while it is indeed prudent to be aware of this, I think it would be overstating the point to intimate that Americans are offended by a largely unheard prohibition on the use of the term "American" to signify U.S. citizens. Essentially what I'm saying is that for most people in the U.S.A. it's a non-issue of which they've probably never even heard. Thus, I think it's fair to leave that statement out. Now, if you should insist on its inclusion, I feel a less truculent presentation would be the following:

"It may be noted that most U.S. citizens in general would probably object to a call for the proscription of the use of 'American' as a self-referential, or of 'America' as an alternate name for the United States."

So, my idea... preferably, leave this ostensible fourth sentence out completely. If the issue is pushed, I guess for the sake of (in this case unnecessary?) balance of viewpoints, we could utilize an attenuated statement, something along the lines of the spirit of my alteration. --LordSuryaofShropshire 06:28, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Technically, you're correct that nobody ever makes an issue of it in the US. However, it comes up on Wikipedia and Usenet all the time, with, especially Brits, demanding that we change and feigning insult for the poor, oppressed brown people who don't seem to find it offensive at all. RickK 06:30, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, see: poor, oppressed brown people now that is offensive, since you're categorizing people not by the more meaningful category of geography and socio-economics but by race. Also, I happen to be what some people consider 'brown' (ethinically Indian). Luckily, I got over that in high school and think skin color categorizing is, for the most part, for pre-schoolers and racists (often with similar mentalities). Hopefully, we'll come to a stage where we hardly even think about black, white, brown or yellow.

Anyway, as for the America(n) thing; since it is an issue online, apparently, and several people seem to enjoy the amenabiliy of semantics to political squabbling, why don't you insert a sentence, preferably streamlined and neutral in tenor, about U.S. citizens and their feelings on the political correctness of the "America(n)" label? --LordSuryaofShropshire 06:40, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

We'd be better off leaving all four sentences out. We don't need to make a footnote each time someone is offended by the plain and accepted meaning of an English word. We should just link to American where this is already discussed. And anything that is retained should avoid the word "many", unless they can cite a survey. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I apologize, because it's not MY characterization (my niece is brown), but the characterization of the racist anti-Americans who feel that they have some sort of mandate to speak for other people. RickK 06:46, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Nunh-huh: Well, apparently, it means quite a lot to a few people, so a brief note with a reference to the main American article seems in order. Also, the idea that any random word which causes offense shouldn't be dealt with is a noteworthy call for moderation. However, I don't see most articles suffering from multiple instances of jargon-conflict. I personally really couldn't care less, as I learned my lesson about international and weighted usage of terms with the Kolkata/Calcutta debate. It seems that the best way of handling these situations is to 'say it as it is' and mention major voices in contention as briefly as possible. I feel it's being done here and since people feel strongly about it, the note needn't be excised from the page. --LordSuryaofShropshire 07:02, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

If we (unlike any citable dictionary) deem that "America" needs a usage note, we will be asserting our POV. As such the note should be removed until it can cite some authority who deems the word offensive. That a word offends a (or many) Wikipedian(s) is not noteworthy: that a word is thought by a Wikipedian to offend a certain group is not noteworthy: if a word is designated offensive in a dictionary, that is noteworthy. Nunh-huh - 07:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, NH, that's what I've been trying to say in my pathetic way. We keep hearing from people who think that OTHER people are offended. We never hear from people who are actually offended. RickK 18:32, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

With this sentiment I can actually agree. Perhaps I'll look around the net to see if there are any really discernible voices calling for a change in usage. In fact, if we find none, I guess it would indeed be fair to completely do away with it. Let's see what comes up. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:45, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

I note that we still have no citations to any authority that designates the use of "American" as offensive, and that nonetheless we still have the note. - Nunh-huh 19:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've known Latino people from other parts of the Western Hemisphere who find the common usage of "American" to be offensive, because to them it would seem to arrogantly imply that the only "Americans" are those living in the United States, and as such would prefer that "American" refer more generally to people from North America and South America, how the name was originally used. The only alternatives I can think of are "U.S. national" or "U.S. citizen". - Gilgamesh 20:05, 5 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

People you know, however, are not a citable reference, and are not authorities on language. - Nunh-huh 20:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 20:26, 5 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about the subject, you can find them either on paper or over the internet; however, since the vast majority are in any language but English I doubt you will consider them as a "citable reference". Well, here is one article in English (don't worry, the only thing in Spanish is the title, and the author is a USian): "¿Todos Somos Americanos? Cultural Diversity in the 21st Century." BTW, people south of the border of the U.S. are not of a single race or culture, that is simplistic; there are as many white, brown and black people in other American countries as there are in the U.S. and Canada. As an example, I am white and some in my family are blonde and/or tall and have blue or green eyes. Peace, regards. --148.63.136.60 15:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those are some mighty big strawmen you've introduced, but the point is that you're citing a political speech on a website (in which someone laments that the word American doesn't mean what he thinks it ought to mean) rather than an authority on the English language (citing the use of American as offensive). We still have the "usage" note with no citation to any authority on usage who agrees with it. - Nunh-huh 21:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hope I didn't start another controversy by saying that Native Americans are also, not formerly, known as (American) Indians. This is noted under Native American, and what is said there agrees with my experience. --JerryFriedman 16:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"American" as used to refer to citizens of the US offends me but I'm from the 'between Mexico and Canada'... I think that replacing any instance of American with American covers the issue nicely though, since it's pretty well discussed in American and I think it's definitely worthy of it's own article and discussion. I don't think we need to protect the entire United States from one word, lets leave the discussion and controversy in the article: American...Comments?Pedant 23:38, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

States

The boilerplate of the US states & territories is too small. Please increase the font size. ¶ nichalp 19:52, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. poli divisions template

Can anyone diagnose why "United States" is not bolded on this page within the "Political divisions of the United States" template, even though Iowa bolds on the Iowa page, Howland Island bolds on Howland Island, etc.? jengod 21:49, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

An issue of apostrophes. The words "United States" were already located within apostrophes meant to make the words bold, so the new apostrophes were wrongly closing the old ones. I fixed it by making the cell a header cell. (aka using an exclamation mark "!" instead of apostrophes to make the words bold). Aris Katsaris 00:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Flag

Why is the flag at 90 degrees to what one would expect (and what is the norm at other country articles)? zoney ███ talk 00:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, why on earth is it a jpg? It makes it hundreds of times larger than it should be. I've reverted it to the old File:Us flag large.png version. Marnanel 00:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Different forms of Power

I suggest the closing line under the History heading:

"the United States has become the world's most powerful country."

be changed to reflect the fact that the US is the most powerful only militarily & economically. Although it is a westerncentric tendecy to see power as force or finance, it's not necessarily true. I think changing it to:

"the United States has become the world's most powerful country economically and militarily."

would suffice. If there is no great disagreement with this, I will change it sometime Friday (late in the day) --Duemellon 17:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would tend to say that it is correct both ways, though the first may be ever so slightly POV. I don't really care if you change it, but why would you say the United States isn't the most powerful. Even if you don't like us, that doesn't mean it isn't true (besides, everyone hates the successful guy on the block--*sigh*).--naryathegreat 22:57, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Depends on what form of power you're considering. Diplomatic power? not us. People-power? definitely not us. Religious power? nope, not us again. Power is just too ambiguous & leads to a POV issue b/c of it's ambiguity. --Duemellon 11:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

and it assumes that 'the U.S.' is a country/nation... which it is NOT. without bringing that issue up... I prefer :

"the United States government, has become -- in terms of economic power and military might -- the world's most powerful political entity ."

Pedant 16:27, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Some American academics introduced the notions of 'hard' power (economic and military influence ) and 'soft' power (cultural/diplomatic influence) to refine the debate - does this add anything? I think there's no debate that in terms of hard power the US is the foremost world power - in terms of soft power there is more potential disagreement. I think it's possible to advance a case that US soft power has diminished slightly over recent years - scepticism and antipathy to American values and cultural norms is something that is perceived by many US and foreign commentators to have risen across the globe over recent years. Although we're getting into contentious territory here, the question of the US's effect (intended or otherwise) can't be avoided in the Wikipedia. Nick Fraser 13:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UK investment

I deleted this sentence: "The largest source and destination of US foreign direct investment is the United Kingdom." It's not clear whether it refers to investment in private equities, private bonds, government bonds, totals, or what. I have no problem with a sentence or paragraph about capital flows it's clear. Purchases of U.S. government debt by the governments of China and Japan, to prop up their currencies, have become significant, also. JamesMLane 01:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry President?

To my dismay, I found that this wiki article has been modified so that the President of the United States is listed as "John Kerry." Such childish edits are not appreciated by the community. I have taken it upon myself to correct this malignant edit. Reverend Brett A. Kirken

John Kerry? I thought it was Al Gore. He invented the Internet after all, told me so himself :) --66.102.74.57 01:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Third or fourth largest country by area?

The following anonymous comment was left on my livejournal from 69.140.15.221 (the IP address responsible for these two edits: [5] [6]):

The US, Mr David, is the fourth largest nation in the world. It is slightly smaller than China. If you are using the CIA WorldFactbook I would advise you not to as I believe they are taking curvatures into consideration. I would suggest the World Book (encyclopedia).

I originally reverted his edits because he didn't offer any explanation as to why he'd changed the text from "the world's third largest nation (total area)" to "the world's fourth largest nation (total area)." Now that he has, is there anyone more knowledgeable than me who can assess it? Thanks! —Stormie 23:24, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please answer this question CAREFULLY

At Wikipedia, it keeps being mentioned over and over again that Wikipedia doesn't belong primarily to Americans. Why doesn't the United States get to be the country that the English Wikipedia belongs mostly to?? (What I mean is, why can't we think of Wikipedia as belonging to all regions, but mostly to the United States)?? What's so non-special about the United States?? 66.245.82.212 21:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why should it "belong primarily" to the Unite States? Because it happens to be the biggest English-speaking country? Would you exclude African Americans, Hispanics and other cultural minorities from this ownership? It's quite possible that more people outside U.S. use English in daily communication than inside U.S. It's special because it's a de facto world language and increasingly belongs to everyone, not just native speakers. And besides, free information and software belongs to everyone equally. If you want proprietary stuff, make your own wiki. This discussion probably belongs to some other page. Please don't misuse the article talk pages. Wipe 01:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dude the largest English speaking nation is India as in the sub-continent. Our puny quarter billion got nothing on them.

I regard the Wikipedia as belonging equally to all 6 billion+ people on the Earth. As well as being a nice thing to believe in, accepting this as a fundamental value of the Wikipedia encourages maximum participation and helps maintain NPOV. Nick Fraser 13:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

GDP and Official Language

The GDP of the United States is and should be listed as first the in the world because GDP refers to sovereign states. Though the European Union is indeed the largest single economy in the world, the EU is more of a confederation (that is, it's made up of 25 sovereign states) and is not a sovereign state itself. Now, I want to call attention to the Official Language part of this article in the infobox: it presently states that English is the official language of the United States by "common law". This is not accurate, as the United States does not and never has had an official language at the national level. I think the key word here is "Official". Also, the fact that the United States has such rich linguistic and cultural diversity is quintissentially American; it is my opinion that the infobox should only say "None". There is a separate article, "Languages in the United States", for discussion of the languages in use by Americans. I will not, however, take the liberty to change this without other people agreeing. What do you all think? - (unsigned)

There is no official language of the United States. The correct answer to the question "What is the official language of the United States?" is "none". It might be helpful to include statistics on actual language use, but it is distinctly unhelpful to declare English "official" and justify it with a bogus "by common law". - Nunh-huh 21:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Nunh-huh. English is most common but that's not what "common law" means. The box for official language should say: "None; English most common" or some such. I think that some states have passed laws designating English as the official language but there's no such law that's applicable nationwide. JamesMLane 21:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just updated it to say something similar. Unfortunately, we don't have a list of which states have which official languages. --Golbez 22:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

again there are issues of WHICH State you refer to. The State of California (the State with the Great Seal of the State of California) has English as the official language, but California Republic (the one with the 'bear flag' that says California Republic on it, and which predates and was never superceded by the 'State of California') has Spanish as the primary official language. The United States is special because most of the States are actually TWO different states, one of which is a Sovereign State, the other of which is not.Pedant 16:41, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

wha? Maybe prior to Lincoln's hissy fit in 1861. --Golbez 19:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Quote

:" because GDP refers to sovereign states. Though the European Union is indeed the largest single economy in the world, the EU is more of a confederation (that is, it's made up of 25 sovereign states) and is not a sovereign state itself."

End Quote

the same is true of the United States, the United States government is not Sovereign, the People and the States are the sovereign in the US system. Sovereignty requires exclusivity of jurisdiction in a legal sense.Pedant 16:41, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Not sovereign on paper, but certainly sovereign in practice, which is all that matters. --Golbez 19:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Official Language

The previous poster was absolutely correct. Now the info box says "None, several states specify. English de facto nationwide, Spanish spoken by growing minority." The infobox is ONLY ASKING FOR THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE (if there is one, which there is NOT). The USA never has had an official national language, and every word in the info box besides "None" is completely irrelevant and misplaced. The part about the states is irrelevant because the article refers to the entire country. "De facto" does not equal "Official", so it has no place being there. And the most absurd addition is the part about Spanish being spoken by "a growing minority"; not only does this not have the most miniscule relevance in an article about the official national language of the United States of America, but the same thing could be said about hundreds of languages, like Chinese and Arabic. If you want to discuss the different languages that are spoken within the United States, there is a separate article for that. However, the only thing that should be said next to "Official Language" is "None". It needs to be permanently changed ASAP.

1) Always sign your comments.

2) Please calm down.

3) It's not irrelevant; in some states, there are official languages. Due to the federal system, this is just as relevant as if there were a federal official language. And I do mean official; not merely de facto. Spanish is spoken primarily by a full 10%, and seconarily by many many more. Spanish is becoming a de facto official language, not just in some neighborhoods, but in some states. All I will agree with you is that Spanish might be better removed from the chart; but the fact remains, some states have official languages. I'll try a mix...

4) De Facto DOES belong there; observe other articles. What matters is both what is official, and what is spoken.

5) Permanently? You want us to lock the page?

6) You're welcome to change it yourself. --Golbez 04:16, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

the box should just say none. You are right in that, in my opinion. The official language of California Republic is Spanish., so the thing about spanish is not trivial, however the datum: "The official language of California Republic is Spanish." belongs in the California Republic but apparently the very existence of California Republic is POV.:

from California Republic: "The republic's first and only president was William Brown Ide. Its independence ended on 1846 July 9 when a U.S. Navy battleship, commanded by John D. Sloat, docked in Monterey, routed the detachment of the Mexican Coast Guard garrisoning the port in a minor skirmish (the Battle of Monterey), and alerted Frémont and his men that the Mexican-American War had begun. The "Bear Flaggers" joined the war effort and replaced their flag with the Stars and Stripes. Under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico formally surrendered its claim over the territory; the State of California was admitted to the Union two years later."

California Republic still has a constituion, duly ratified, never superseded by the 'later constitution'. I myself am a Sovereign Citizen of California Republic. California Republic and the State of California each exist in a jurisdictional nexus located in geographically similar, possibly identical with the exception of federal lands within California, areas. We can never completely settle the question of 'what the US is and what it's attributes are', without addressing the issue of these "duplicate states" and "duplicate unions". So it will never happen... see how tense just reading THIS makes you? Imagine being a Citizen of a State that "ended" 100 years before you were born. I'm not the only one by any stretch of imagination either.Pedant 16:56, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

I'm sure the Soviet Union still has a constitution, but that doesn't mean the Soviet Union still exists. At what point do you consider a particular government entity dead? --Golbez 21:32, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was officially dissolved on 26 December 1991 by the last meeting of the Supreme Soviet, by the same authority which established it in the first place. The California Republic has never been dissolved. --xoddam 01:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

day begins on Guam?

I'm going to remove "where the day begins on Guam and ends at the International Dateline on Baker and Island south in the Paciffic" because it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps if this was rephrased?? Millsdavid 13:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the entire passage, for one thing it includes territories in the country (The sun never set on the British Empire; it did, however, set on Great Britain, every day), and for another, it doesn't mesh with the -5 to -11 timezones in the infobox. --Golbez 17:23, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a punny title on Guam's slogan, myself. Guam is known as "Where America's Day Begins." Mike H 19:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Human rights

I've started a section on human rights in the United States. Please feel free to add to it. Shorne 02:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

McDonald's

"Social issues" states that there is a McDonald's outlet in every capital city in the world except Pyongyang.

I rather doubt that. There could hardly be one in Havana, for example, owing to the US's embargo against Cuba. And I remember when, about ten years ago, McDonald's announced that it had achieved a presence in one hundred countries. There are about two hundred countries in the world, and some of them (Libya, Liberia, Iran) seem very unlikely to have a McDonald's. (More power to them.) Shorne 02:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, according to [7], McDreck is in 119 countries around the world; as for "every capital city" the usual claim is "except Montpelier" :) --66.102.74.57 01:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm game for removing the sentencePedant 00:00, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Class

I suggest removing the random details from the "class" section of the article. By this, I mean the reference to Bill Gates, Computer ownership, and home ownership. These things are very difficult to interpret in a general way. Bill Gates is just one person. Computer ownership is just a small part of life, and many (most?) homes are not owned outright--they are mortgaged. I think it would be best to include figures that cover wide parts of the population and economy, rather than this anecdotal stuff. I'm not familiar with this article, so I won't make the corrections myself. This whole subsection should probably be moved to the "economy" section. AdamRetchless 00:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Negative perception of the US

One of the most significant points of note about the United States, especially at the moment, is the prevalence of negative sentiment towards it. Imagine an alien comes from another planet to find out about the United States and reads Wikipedia for its information. Isn't it a bit misleading that the article doesn't mention the significant amount of negative feeling in the world towards the US, its government and its cultural and economic influence?

You may disagree with that sentiment. You may think its inevitable that a country with the influence of the US will attract such sentiment. Surely, though, you accept that the sentiment exists, and that it's relevant to an encyclopedic article about the country.

There used to be a rather small paragraph about anti-US feeling, but it's been reduced to this poor remnant:

The immense cultural, economic, and military influence of the United States has made foreign relations an especially important topic in its politics, with considerable concern about the image of the United States throughout the world.

This sentence only implies that there is negative feeling against the US: i.e. why would US politicians be concerned about the US image unless there was some negative perception out there? By implication there is a negative perception, but the sentence trivialises that perception as being merely a biproduct of America's greatness.

To get back to a neutral point of view (IMO) we need at least 2-3 paragraphs on the topic of negative sentiment toward the US, including:

a NPOV summary touching on or listing the key reasons that such sentiment exists such as military involvement in other countries, conflict with traditional Islam and the perceived exploitative nature of US-driven global capitalism
comment that anti-american sentiment worldwide has increased since the Iraq war
mention of the large-scale street protests against the Iraq war, to highlight that anti-american sentiment is not confined to middle-eastern or third-world countries
and yes, possibly some suggestion that the international perception of US affects its domestic politics, although I don't believe this is crucial to the main article and could easily be relegated to the article on US politics

Any takers?

Ben Arnold 05:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree that the current sentence is weak, and that a (single) paragraph covering at least the first item above would be appropriate. Using the most recent conflict in Iraq as one example of cause is good, but I would be wary of citing it as a primary cause; taken over the longer term it's one in a chain of aggressive US foreign policies. I wonder if it might it also be worth discussing the dismissal of global anti-americanism as 'jealousy' by its domestic politicians ? NPOV is hard, presenting a balanced selection of US and non-US POV's could be the way to go. - TB 09:15, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I'm an American currently living in another country, and I find that it's really difficult for me to get people here to speak candidly about their opinions toward the US. I suppose someone who's not an American might have more success, but I'm still not sure how we are supposed to go about collecting objective information for such a section. Also, how much of the anti-Iraq-War sentiment should count as anti-Americanism? There were protests in the US, too; do those count as anti-American? - Nat Kraus e 09:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well it might be useful to point out that some groups distinguish between Americans and the policies of the US government, and other groups fail to make that distinction, resenting Americans for the actions of their government. The fact that Americans marched against the war can be cited as evidence for the distinction. This is the kind of complexity that makes me think it would stretch to more than a single paragraph.

As for objective reasons for the negative feeling toward the US, I'm pretty confident in at least the three reasons I've suggested: military involvement in other countries, conflict of American culture with traditional cultures (particularly Islam) and the perceived exploitative nature of US-driven global capitalism. I come from New Zealand, where negative feeling towards the US is widespread but comparatively moderate, so I'm probably in a reasonable position to be fairly objective. Ben Arnold 23:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As an 'American', I'd appreciate a non American writing the paragraph on negative perceptions. From my point of view it seems like the world considers the US and it's citizens to be something like a retarded child playing with explosives. Is that the case? or worse? better? I simply don't know, and won't know withoput being told by someone other than the US mainstream media which I KNOW tells me lies. I'd take the word of a stranger over anything the media tells me, almost.Pedant 00:07, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Vivi's redundancy

Vivi continues to add the last sentence (in bold), which is already mentioned in the first paragraph (in italics.) This section in whole seems to be repeated twice, with slight modifications.

Class

In terms of relative wealth, most U.S. residents enjoy a standard of personal economic wealth that is far greater than that known in most of the world. For example, 51 percent of all households have access to a computer and 67.9 percent of U.S. households owned their dwellings in 2002.

However, the social structure of the United States is one of the most highly stratified in the world, with a large proportion of the wealth of the country controlled by a small fraction of the population which are often alleged to hold disproportionate cultural and political influence. American software mogul Bill Gates alone controls an amount of wealth equal to 1/250th of the total American GDP. The United States' Gini coefficient of 40.8 percent is the highest of all developed nations.

The social structure of the United States is somewhat stratified, with a significant class of very wealthy individuals, which are often alleged to hold disproportionate cultural and political influence. Its Gini coefficient of 40.8 percent is the highest of all developed nations. However, in terms of relative wealth, most U.S. residents enjoy a standard of personal economic wealth that is far greater than that known in most of the world. For example, 51 percent of all households have access to a computer and 67.9 percent of U.S. households owned their dwellings in 2002.

Vivi, please have the decency of checking that what you are adding is not already mentioned before you begin removing other people's constributions. Danke. --Cantus 19:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I was undoing Shorne's repeated reverts of my NPOV edits. That duplication must have gotten shuffled in in some sort of edit conflict. It's fixed now. 19:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't think that he reads this stuff, do you? Oh, no! VeryVerily doesn't have to follow the rules that apply to everyone else. Or so he thinks. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Shorne 19:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Without attacking anyone personally, I will flatly state that this is false. MORE households have ACCESS to computers, since they are available in most libraries, and LESS households own their dwellings. In my entire life I've known ONE person who owned his house. Most are owned by banks. I won't argue that we don't have a much higher standard of living than the rest of the world, just that those 'facts' are NOT accurate, not by a long shot. I don't have a problem with including accurate info which makes the substantially-same point, but not twice, not bold and not italicised .Pedant

When unprotected

I am loathe to edit when it's protected, so mental notes:

We should probably change the $20 to the $1, if we have a proper picture of it.
Check usage of "polyglot-mongrel" as stated below. Thanks. --Golbez 21:38, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Mongrel Heritage????

I am definetly not familiar with how things around here work as far as editing an article and this article is apparently not open to editing from just anyone so I will say what I think needs to be fixed/changed.

My problem is with this phrase under the Ethnicity and Race section -- "Furthermore, the categories disregard the polyglot-mongrel heritage of many Americans". Can somebody who know how this works consider changing the word monrgel to something less offensive; perhaps multi-ethnic or mixed heritage. The word mongrel is okay for describing dogs but it feels a bit too "racialist" when describing people. Thanks- hope I didn't do this (discussion comment) wrong Danny Oct. 13, 2004

Welcome to Wikipedia Danny. You can sign you comments with four tilde characters in a row like ~~~~

this will make a signature and datestamp like:Pedant 01:39, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

I agree with Danny, the word mongrel has a negative connotation in the US, but that section needs a massage in general to make it more readable. The info is good, it's just a bit awkward.Pedant

China is the US's 3rd largest trading partner.

In the economy section a paragraph reads: "The largest trading partner of the United States is its northern neighbor, Canada. Other major partners are Mexico, the European Union and the industrialized nations in Asia, such as Japan, India and South Korea. Trade with China is also significant." This implies that trade with China is less than the others. In fact, China is now the US's 3rd largest trading partner (at least when trade with the EU is broken down by country): http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2004/08/balance.html Suggest the wording is changed to remedy this ambiguity. How about:

"The largest economic trade partners of the United States are: its northern neighbor, Canada; the very worthy whatever-country-is-second and China, which enjoys 'most-favored nation' status with the U.S. Other major partners are Mexico, the European Union and the industrialized nations in Asia, such as Japan, India and South Korea."

Acceptable?Pedant 00:32, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

federal precedence??

"The United States of America consists of fifty states with limited autonomy in which federal law takes precedence over state law. "

this is either meaningless, or false. Cite a source or remove it, please. According to whom and in what sense does a State have limits on it's autonomy? In what way does federal law take precedence over State Law. What is meant by State Law? Federal Law?

I would prefer :

"The United States of America is a federation of fifty interdependent States, each with exclusive jurisdiction over all issues, the jurisdiction of which has not been ceded by the State to the Federal government."Pedant 17:31, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

"The United States of America is a federation of fifty sovereign states. Federal law takes precedence over state law, but states theoretically have jurisdiction over all issues not specifically addressed in the United States Constitution." - Calmypal 18:16, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

still not quite.. better, but not quite. It's specifically stated that the states retain control over everything not ceded to the U.S govt...

how about: "The United States of America is a federation of fifty Sovereign States. Federal law takes precedence over State law, with repect to international relations and Interstate commerce. In other matters, States have jurisdiction over matters unless that jurisdiction has been ceded to the United States, a federal action that invades a State's protected interests can be challenged in court".

comment?Pedant 01:00, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

It is, I think, inappropriate to declare the states "sovereign," for such a position is at the very least debatable. -- Emsworth 20:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it's more correctly characterized as "wrong" than "debatable". States can't make treaties, alliances, coin money, declare war, or adopt an other-than-republican form of government, which sovereign entities can. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's true, in the sense in which "sovereign" is used in international law. The reference to U.S. states as sovereign isn't completely wrong, though -- at least one judge has used the phrase ([8]). (in an offhand manner and not in the process of actually assessing sovernty of a state! --Nunh-huh 05:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) The states have some of the aspects of "the sovereign" under English common law, and they also have some rights that even the federal government can't abridge. On the other hand, Pedant's suggested language conveys a sense of a very limited federal government; the description might have been roughly accurate before the Civil War but gives a misleading picture of the current situation. Another possible version:

"The United States of America is a federation of fifty States. Each state exercises autonomy in some matters but, in the event of a dispute, actions of the federal government can generally override those of a state."

The intricacies of untangling the respects in which the states are sovereign and those in which they aren't is best left to the article on Political divisions of the United States. I would just omit the word "sovereign" from the discussion of the states in the United States article.

As for Pedant's request for a source for the proposition that federal law takes precedence, it's a little late to be arguing the issue of federal supremacy. The basic doctrine was expounded by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. The only question at this point is drawing the exact boundaries, e.g., can federal minimum-wage legislation be applied to employees of state governments. Here's an example of an analysis of one recent court decision holding that the federal Airline Deregulation Act could prohibit states from applying their tort law to airlines, and a more general discussion of federal supremacy. JamesMLane 03:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking more carefully, I see that the introduction already says, "The country has fifty states, which have a level of local autonomy according to the system of federalism." That's probably enough coverage of the subject for this article. I've added a little more detail to the U.S. state article. JamesMLane 18:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Constant Article Problems

This article seems to be locked half of the time. Would it not make sence to permanently lock it? It's a conterversial article no mater how well written it is. Pellaken 20:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A permanent lock goes against the ideals of Wikipedia. Furthermore, to permanently lock it would be an official endorsement by the management of a particular version of the article. --Golbez 21:32, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Would it not make sence to permanently lock it? I say it should be permanently unlocked. :) jengod 21:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Some questions about the reversion debate

1. So, is the U.S. more fairly called a "capitalist" economy or a "mixed" economy? I think we should say something like:

The economy of the United States is often described as primarily capitalist, while others refer to it as a mixed economy.

2. Is there government regulation in "many industries" or "virtually every industry"? What industries, for example, are not regulated? Not to sound like Ron Paul or anything, but I can't think of any.

3. Does the Constitution "provide extensive rights for their citizens" or "state that citizens are granted the rights of. . ."? A careful reading shows that the Constitution doesn't really give any rights to anyone; it declares that they exist, and forbids the government from abridging them.

Comments? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Pedant:points 1,2,3, above:

1:I don't know. seems capitalist to me, not qualified to say...

2:I would compromise by saying "the majority of industries", I don't want to attract the govt's attention to the few unregulated industries there are... and it depends on what you mean by industry, is that a 'term of art' or is that a regular English phrase?

3:the constitution recognises that there are inherent rights, Vested Rights, specifically states that there are more than are listed in the constitution and specifically states that they 'shall not be abridged', I would prefer this wording:

...The Declaration of Independence recognizes many rights as being "unalienable". These rights, known as Vested Rights, with which each Citizen, according to the Declaration, is "Endowed by Our Creator". These rights, (among which) "are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are not exhaustively listed in either the Declaration or Constitution, furthermore, it is implied that there exist other rights which are not mentioned but which are equally protected. In article 1 through 10 of the US Constitution (also known as the Bill of Rights), some of the more important of these rights are specifically recognised as guaranteed to the Citizen...

I don't have the constitution or declaration in front of me, but I think that's substantially correct... could likely be worded better, if someone likesPedant 01:30, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force and shouldn't be mentioned in this context. (One of the more detailed articles could note the passages in the Declaration that reflected the Revolutionary leaders' opposition to any governmental intrusion upon basic individual rights.) With regard to the Constitution, one way to reword the current text to take account of the point you make would be:

The United States Constitution includes a Bill of Rights that guarantees certain individual rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, trial by jury, and protection from "cruel and unusual punishment". In addition, courts have recognized some additional rights found within the "penumbra" of the enumerated rights.

My inclination, however, would be to omit the second sentence, relegating the discussion of that concept to the separate article on Human rights in the United States. A better choice for the United States article, which should be just a summary, would be to improve the reference to the Bill of Rights. Points that occur to me are: Trial by jury is important but is only one of a bundle of procedural protections in criminal cases, with the right to counsel and the right to confront the evidence against one (no secret evidence) being more important IMO; trial by jury in civil cases is a separate issue but isn't worth mention in this summary; the summary should include the Due Process Clause, which applies in criminal cases but which also applies in a host of other vital areas, so that, for example, people are entitled to a hearing before their welfare benefits are cut off, because "welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). JamesMLane 20:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't see the argument for "mixed economy". If the US has a mixed economy, so does every other country in the world.

2. Why is this even mentioned? There's no country in the world in which industries are totally unregulated.

3. The word "extensive" has to go. It was inserted as a POV device to neutralise factual comments about criticism of the US's record on human rights. There's no evidence that the US in general (to say nothing of its constitution in particular) provides more extensive rights than any number of other countries. Similarly, the claim that the US is extremely liberal about immigration is false. Numerous countries, among them Germany and Canada, are far ahead of the US in immigration per capita. The US is also selective about the immigrants it takes: any number from tiny Ireland, for example, but no more than 20,000 per year from China or India. Again, this comment was inserted for POV reasons and must be removed. Shorne 04:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. The U.S. has a mixed economy compared with, for example, the much more strictly capitalist economy that the U.S. had in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the mix in the U.S. tends more toward the capitalistic and free-market than does the mix in many other industrialized countries.

2. Economic regulation is even harder to present succinctly. U.S. regulation varies among industries and, to some extent, among states. An overall "average", even if somehow made meaningful, would show regulation that was more extensive than in some countries but less extensive than in others. I don't know if we can hit the highlights so as to convey important information with burying the reader in details.

This is meaningless if not backed with data. We cannot just assert it. Shorne 11:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3. I agree that "extensive" (about rights) is extremely problematical, but there are some real differences to be noted. Even vis-a-vis the most obvious standards of comparison -- other OECD countries -- there are respects in which governmental power is more restricted in the U.S., such as criminal procedures and freedom of speech and religion. (An example is the recent Muslim head scarf case in France. I think Chirac himself was leading the charge for prohibiting the hijab in public buildings. In the U.S., a school district that tried the same thing had to back down and fork over some cash besides, for violating the student's First Amendment rights. See [9], although that source says that a rule prohibiting all head coverings would have been permissible, which I'm not sure is correct.) As for immigration, what's the basis for your statement that the U.S. will admit "any number from tiny Ireland"? My understanding (which may be out of date) is that: (1) all countries are treated alike for employment-based immigrant visas, so that, currently, anyone qualifying can enter immediately; (2) all countries are treated alike for family-sponsored immigrant visas, with the result that the waiting periods are longer for India, Mexico and the Philippines (because of high demand) but identical for all other countries; and (3) the Diversity Immigrant visa program provides extra visas, by lottery, to facilitate immigration to the U.S. from countries other than the traditional sources of immigration, with a special provision for Nicaragua. I don't know how much of this detail we want to get into, but certainly the article shouldn't convey the impression that the exclusion of Asians, which was established in the 1920s, is still in effect. JamesMLane 05:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a lengthy argument about the limits on governmental power in various countries, but I think you're going rather far in saying that the US respects the freedom of religion more than other countries do. Such laws and court rulings as do exist (such as the one banning prayers and other Christian proselytising at the high-school graduation ceremonies of public schools) are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. As for immigration, your information is largely correct, but you omit the fact that green cards for people on an H-1B visa are limited to 7% per country of the total (140,000, the last time I checked). That means that a tiny country like Iceland or Luxembourg (populations in the hundreds of thousands) gets the same number of green cards as a huge one like China or India (populations over one billion). Indeed, tens of thousands of green cards go unassigned every year because of these restrictions (not enough people from the smaller countries apply for green cards), while people from China and India are forced to leave the US when their visas expire. No, it's not on a par with the overtly racist exclusion of Asians that existed in law only a few decades ago, but nor is it consistent with the claim that the US is extremely liberal about immigration. Several other countries are ahead of the US in per-capita immigration, and I read not long ago that Germany, despite its much smaller size, is ahead of the US in absolute numbers. Shorne 11:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it true that most countries have quite conservative, explicitly ethnic or nationalist, immigration policies, so that we can at least say that America, along with the EU, Canada, and some similar countries, has a comparatively liberal immigration regime? - Nat Kraus e 13:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is obviously true. Very few countries have policies of taking non-negligible numbers of immigrants at all. See Immigration. Of them, the U.S. easily takes the largest number. Yet efforts to point this simple fact out are being endlessly reverted. I even toned down the language considerably to make it more "cold", and still the reversions continue. Plus the garbage about McDonald's keeps returning (as I have clearly said before, it is foreign encroachment, not detached opposition to "capitalism" (in France!), that could only reasonably be said to drive opposition). Very Verily 00:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sweden has a mixed economy as do Russia, India, and the People's Republic of China. The US with only a few socialized industries such as mail delivery does not. Fred Bauder 13:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Five people are now reverting your POV, VV. Please stop. –Cantus…☎ 16:04, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, VV, five people are against you, so you must be wrong. - Nat Kraus e 03:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've never heard of five people being wrong about anything. Very Verily 03:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, how about using some references and focusing on one point at a time rather than a whole package. For example, that McDonald's thing, I don't think the article's language quite reflects whats going on. I ate once at a McDonald's in 1958 and didn't like it so I'm not really up to speed, but its association with the United States, per se, is tenuous. Fred Bauder 11:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well, news items about fast food eateries are often best found places other than said eateries. McDonald's certainly is a symbol of America, but to say those that resent their encroachment are against an abstraction such as an economic system (capitalism), practiced of course in their own countries, rather than a foreign culture on their turf is, well, a bit unsubstantiated. (Of course they're everywhere anyway; I've been to several in France, the epicenter of the hate, and they drew crowds.) Do you perhaps have references to show before you go back to reverting me? Very Verily 12:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As to 5 people being wrong... Even on articles like this we have a very thin slice of opinion and knowledge represented. Fred Bauder 11:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there was some sarcasm being exchanged, I believe. And the thin slice of knowledge has been well noted. Very Verily 12:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

National Traumas

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.