Talk:United States/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for United States (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 20 Archive 21 31 >>

Contents

Use of the word American

I think American should be changed to "United States" in most places. American is a colloquial term, and United States (or U.S.) the legal one. Also, "Native Americans" should be "Native North-Americans". That's only if its not planned to include Inca references :D

I should add too that the references to "American Literature" and "American Art" speaking only of U.S. artists, is , at the least, insulting for the big legacy of the great painters, novel writers, poets and musicians all over the continent.

I'd think "Native North-Americans" would be inaccurate. "Native Americans" is a phrase with its own meaning, but "native North-Americans" would include anyone who is native to North America (i.e. whoever was born there). I think "indigenous" or "aboriginal" might be more appropriate. 24.72.103.137 10:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sociology and assimilation

I think this statement needs clarifying-

Modern sociologists tend to view pluralism, rather than assimilation, as a goal for American society, largely disregarding the idea of the melting pot.

Is this what the majority of American sociologists think should happen i.e. their personal opinion, or the majority of sociologists in the world, or is it what the majority of sociologists have scientifically determined about what the American society wants? Roy Brumback 12:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"this what the majority of American sociologists think should happen i.e. their personal opinion" The majority of modern sociologist see pluralism as the best way to dealing with American's diversity. I think most sociologist globally would agree, but this statement concerns US sociologists, especially as it cites a book containing the articles of American sociologists. I have added the word "American." Also we don't actually have a study showing what the "majority," 51%, think; thus the word "many" is implied in the sentence. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
But as sociology is a science, it can't really say what should happen or be, only what scientifically is, as there is no scientific definition of the good. So once again, is that their personal opinions or what they have scientifically determined what the majority of Americans think? What does "dealing with diversity" mean? One can't scientifically define a goal of what should happen. At most sociology might be able to determine what things keep a "diverse" group of people from having conflicts, but where are the scientific studies on that cited here? And that is not what the statement says, it says pluralism is a goal for American society, and science can't define a goal for a society. Roy Brumback 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes social scientists do give advise. I understand your point, but please understand that Sociologist are Social Scientists and much Economists and Political Scientists, they caution and give advise. You see, they don't just state what is, they also think of what should be adn how to get there. They have determined that plusralism is best for American society or as you said they "might be able to determine what things keep a "diverse" group of people from having conflicts."' Social scientist conduct research and come to conclusions on how to proceed based on their research. American sociologists have concluded that pluralism is the best thing for American society, much like people used to see asimilation as the best way to deal with diversity. In other words, pluralism has been suggested as the best way to deal with diversity by Sociologists. That is what the sentence says. You can also interpret it this way, the statments tells that pluralism is the best way to deal with diversity and perhaps is thus one of the goals of American society. BTW: A good way of defining the term "Dealing with diversity" is "what things keep a "diverse" group of people from having conflicts"- pluralims is a common answer. The Social Sciences are a curious thing ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If they think of what should be, then that is their personal opinion and not something scientifically determined. If that is what they think is best (good), then that is also personal opinion, not something scientific. And again, what does "dealing with diversity" mean, scientifically? The cite says sociologists think this is a goal, again not something scientifically determined, but a personal opinion.
One should not have to interpret what the sentence means, and it seems to me to mean they are stating a goal, which is a personal opinion. If we can find a scientific sociology study showing "diversity", whatever that means, keeps people in less conflict then assimilation, again a foggy term, then we can cite that for that conclusion, not for a conclusion about a goal.
But would you agree that as a matter of science we can not say what should be the goal of society, only how to achieve goals we set out to achieve? Social sciences are, at least in principle, like any other science, using experiments to test theories. As there is no scientific theory of the good, one can't say scientifically what should be, at least not at the present time. Certainly people ask social scientists about their opinions on things, but all they can really say scientifically is how to achieve a goal, not what is should be. Chemists and astronomers also have ideas about what should happen in the world, but these are not any more scientific then what a sociologist thinks should happen in the world. Social scientists working for say Hitler certainly had a different goal then social scientists who advised say Truman on the desirability of the Marshall Plan. Social scientists working for the USSR has different goals then those working for the US, and there is no way to scientifically say who was right on the goal, only what effects on say supply of goods price controls had ect...
So this sentence needs to be changed to either say what sociology has determined is the best way for people to work together or stop conflict or whatever or label this goal as the personal opinion of the majority of sociologists to keep it factually acurate. Does the cited material say that sociology has determined what prodecures are best for avoiding conflict or making a society more productive or whatever or does it say what sociologists think a goal should be, in which case it is personal opinion? Roy Brumback 07:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Please differentiate between social and natural sciences. These are not the personal opinions of average joes. These are conclusions based on scientific research. Also, this sentence is a combination it states the follwoing:
  1. Pluralism is based on scientific research the best method to deal with diversity (its the how, not the goal itself)
  2. Pluralism can already be seen in American society. Meaning that sociologist have determined American society to be pluralitic already to some extend
This is what the cited metrial says. In other words, pluralism is in the expert opinion of sciologist the best way of dealing with inter-ethnic relations and is already present in society. I changed the wording of the sentence. Also, "But would you agree that as a matter of science we can not say what should be the goal of society, only how to achieve goals we set out to achieve?"- Agree but I think you misunderstood my last post a bit. The goal is inter-ethinc harmony (meaning no conflict between persons based on the ethinicity, ancestry or race). Pluralism is in the opinion of Sociologist the way to get there, it the "how." Thanks you for your concern. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That's better but one question-Do you have that source and is that what is says, that "pluralism", which I think needs definition, leads to more "harmony", which is what? Less conflict? Less violence? Needs to be more specific and needs actual cited sociological studies. And I do not differentiate between social and physical sciences, as they are both simply using data and experiments to test ideas. If they are personal opinions, no matter if they are not "average Joes", then they are just that, personal opinions, no better or worse than anyone else's, otherwise we are using an argument from authority. Roy Brumback 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There is an entire article devoted to pluralism. Harmony means exactely as you said: "Less conflict... Less violence". Again, to be precise we could write a whole other article on racial harmony. We are condesing a lot into a small space here, so the terms are going to be somewhat vague-as they are in all country articles due to the complxity of the subject matter. Also, I do beleive that there is a difference between an expert opinion and other opinion. After-all we do pay doctors for their opinion when we are sick, don't we ;-). Regards, Signaturebrendel; 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but their opinion isn't always correct is it. And what about the source. Do you have it? Roy Brumback 06:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no expert opinion is not always right. Yes I do have the source-its a book in print. Also, this is not just expert opinion, its also an observations. Sociologist have observed pluralism in American society and also states that this is the best way towards racial and ethnic "Harmony." Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Roy Brumback

"Expert sociologists" have much less influence on American society than they wish they had. Also, most of these sociologists are left leaning and work in left leaning universities and their opinions reflect the desires of that context. I think this statement might be technically correct, but it is much less useful than you might think. We might consider removing it, as it indirectly implies that plurality is the "new" goal of America, when in fact, it isn't. American society has always been a blend between pluralism and assimilation, with the former prevalent in new immigrants and the latter in their children and future generations.Kevinp2 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"American society has always been a blend between pluralism and assimilation"- that's why need that statement. Sociology beleive that plurality is to a certain extend visible within Americans society, not just a goal. Our statement needs to reflect the exsistance and expert opinion on plurality as well as the continuing presence of assimilation. BTW: Plurality is also what created American culutre-the Irish assimilated but they also changed American culture and society; thus creating plurality as well. Signaturebrendel 20:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is actually a huge political debate over the merits of cultural assimilation versus multiculturalism and pluralism. I don't think it's fair to give the opinion of only one group on this topic. Those three articles have lots more material on the subject, so I'm just going to link to them. -- Beland 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A better image than the "melting pot" is that of the "salad," or "trail mix." We're all in the same bowl or bag, but people generally still remain within their own ethnic/racial/religious groups, remaining separate entities rather than everyone being truly "blended" or "melted" together like soup; however, there is rising racial consciousness in the USA, and thus the rising tension that comes along with rising racial consciousness -- some predict a 'race war' sometime in the future, with the country eventually being divided up by ethnic/racial status. Anti-Semitism is generally on the rise across the board (Racial antisemitism, not anti-Judaism), as is Black resentment against Whites, White resentment against Arabs/Muslims, Black resentment against Hispanic/Mexicans, Hispanic resentment against Whites and Jews, and so forth. People tend to naturally segregate themselves by race and avoid "race mixing" (because they naturally feel most comfortable in their own in-group, amongst their own kind), just look at prison populations -- there is nothing unusual about this. However, let us hope that the "melting pot" doesn't begin to boil over one day, thus spoiling the entire meal and making a huge mess. --172.131.131.220 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

HDI

Since when did the HDI change from .944 to .948? 74.117.72.239 06:17, 1 October 2006

See List of countries by Human Development Index for references. -- Beland 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC) It has been 0.948 --Darrendeng 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 and the War on Terrorism

I think it's inappropriate to have a section on this topic and not a section on other major events in united states histor (vietnam war, gulf war, war of ___, etc, economic events).

It seems more like a partisan hack.

"The history of the United States: Revolutionary War, Civil War, Great Depression, WW2, Republican George Bush's Screw-Up In The Middle East."

Yes, even though I agree that Bush screwed things up, the recent War in Iraq should not receive any more attention in this article then say, the Vietnam, 1st Gulf War, etc... This article is to provide an overview of the US, not merely its current issues; thus we must be careful in how much text we devote to current issues. Signaturebrendel 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, timelessness is one of the characteristics of an encyclopedia, and giving undue weight to the sensational or current is a violation of WP:NPOV. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image of Country with states names?

either the names of the states on the image below the information box should be all spelled out or all abbreviated. it looks tacky when it's both!

War on terror allies

I just re-read the 9-11/War on Terror section and found something that might be misleading. Throughout the section the word ally is used as though it pertained to the same list of countries. The problem is that the US allies in Afgahnistan are not neccessarily allies in Iraq. For example, Germany send troops to Afgahnistan-which was all in all a classic NATO effort. Iraq is a different stroy, only some of the allies in Afgahnistan are allies in Iraq (mainly the UK). Thus I think we need to tweak the wording a little to reflect that the word ally in Afgahnistan does not include the same list of countries as in Iraq. In the Iraq paragraph we could perhaps replace the phrase: "the United States and its allies" with "the United States and some of its allies" or "the United States and coalition forces." Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


alleged POV is in fact just plain unpatriotic

4 edits by 8r1ck removed by Golbez who childishly alleges POV, too much detail and no source. these edits are not POV, are not too much detail and are sourced.

1) 2 short sentences stating that millions of native americans died because of colonization. with link for source. 2) US power 'described as' imperial - source linked in word 'imperial' to US empire page 3) motive for 2003 iraq war widely questioned in feb 2003 because seen as a war for oil - linked to feb 2003 protest page which gave quote 'kein blut fur ol'. 4) 3 or 4 word qualifier which showed US foreign policy is not something people just talk about but that it has actual *consequences*

all these are important points to people outside the patriotic US mainstream and are not POV. how does someone get away with calling tens of millions of deaths a 'detail', calling documented anti-imperialism a POV, of denying that many people saw - and still see - the US motive for invading iraq as a quest for oil? totally unjustified unless it's the work of someone exercising a patriot's agenda. should the edits be reinstated? i think so.--8r1ck 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits[1] are inappropriately detailed for what is an already overlong summary article. They additionally border on personal commentary in the case of the "3 or 4 word qualifier", and in the Iraq war case give Undue Weight to the temporal and a single instance of protest.
The United States has the geographic scope of a small continent. If the content would be inappropriately detailed for the article about Europe, it's probably too detailed for inclusion here. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What if people want to see the additional information? 170.215.83.212 23:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Then they need to visit the corresponding article. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Childishly"? Please. Be civil. --Golbez 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
8r1ck edits give too much detail-this article is supposed to give a broad overview of the US. They also seem to boreder-line and sometimes violate the NPOV guideline. BTW: nouns in German are capitalized. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your prompt comments. My edits are not overly detailed for what is an already overly long summary article, they are short statements which *balance* the incredibly one-sided page of prose which could be a white house press statement. how is it you all feel comfortable with the idea of not mentioning in a (how many?) 10,000 word history of the US the concept of american imperialism? afetr a century long description of global power wielding - much of it disastrous - that isn't detail. how is it too much detail to mention, in any short history of the US, that tens of millions of the native inhabitants were wiped out because of, er, the creation of the US? that would seem to be a basic fact of this particular nation building. many millions of still living people don't believe a word the US government says. it has no credibility. when the CIA funds coups or Kissinger hands over East Timor on the quiet to the Indonesian generals precipitating massacre and tyranny, people know the US governmet says one thing and does and means another. reporting otherwise - such as here on the wiki - is far out there in the land of credulity and denial. did people believe the war on iraq was for oil? of course. do they still believe it? of course. is that detail? of course not. how is it personal commentary to say that US foreign policy has 'consequences' and not personal commentary to say it is 'widely talked' about? one seems to me to be a more humane way of looking at it than the other. there are sources for all this, i gave a few, badly styled no doubt. but it isn't POV.--8r1ck 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if tens of millions were wiped out due to European action, (without a before and after census, I'd love to know how you intend to verify that number) it would be unfair, biased, and unsourced to lay those numbers at the feet of the US. How many died due to Colonial Powers prior to (and after in the case of Latin America and Canada) the 'creation' of the US? Bo 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay conerning the deaths of Native Americans: Many, many died during the Spanish, French and English colonization. Most of them, however, were not killed by force. Most Native Americans died from diseases the Europeans brought to North America. The Native Americans had never been in contact with these strands of bacteria and viruses before and their immune systems lacked the capability to fight of these diseases. That said there was a substantial amount of murder and marginalization afflicted upon the Native American peoples, most however died from diseases that their body's just counldn't fight.
Also, the US is the world's largest post-industrial country, it goes without saying that its governmental policy is controversial. All nation governments are hyrpicitical at one point or another, including the US government. Now, due to America's size the ramificantions of US foreign policies, whether seen as flawed or not, are going to have a greater impact on the global community than that of most other countries. The US, as do most powerful countries, has its fair share of shameful history (slavery, indian wars, internment camps, etc...) but one should abstain from overstating the negative aspects of American society and history. Finally let me asure you that this is nothing personal-I'm German-American and I'm aware of all aspects of German and American society (good & bad), as for the Bush doctrine, I'm a Democrat. So you can rest asured that this isn't about patriotism but rather an effort to keep this article truly balanced. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

it is, in this instance, irrelevant whether native americans died from the gun or smallpox. both were due to colonization. if any of you had checked my original edit you would see this was sourced in a statement made by the UN world conference against racism. it's also irrelevant whether similar sitiuations happened in other parts of the continent because there wouldn't be a US without the fact of native american mass death. more died than in the holocaust. many more died than on sept 11. elvis and native american cuisine get a few lines. millions of deaths nothing yet. there's been no convincing argument to say this fact is not essential to a basic outline of US history. similarly there has been no case at all to defend the other cuts. war for oil, for example. in 2002 the washinton post thought this was a good reason for getting rid of saddam hussein: [2]. chomsky and the radical left had been loudly proclaiming the oil motive long before the bombers actually went in: [3]. these are sources. then there's american imperialism. to constantly bang on about the massive global power of the US and then to not acknowledge that this has been widely understood as being imperial in nature is either ignorant or a denial of the facts. is it disliked because 'imperial' has such negative connotations? here are a few sources: American Empire, [4]. that great conservative publication the economist magazine also talks about the certainty of american empire [5]. all these are just a few of the possible sources which ought to justify a few short lines in the article for some pivotal facts about the US: 1) millions died in its formation 2) it is widely seen as a (hostile) empire 3) it wages war for profit - the latest being in iraq for oil. the edits and where they lead won't make pleasant reading for most americans but why should that get in the way of history? if there's no better criticism of the edits, they'll be re-posted.--8r1ck 10:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"1) millions died in its formation": looks like an issue for the british govt page, or the spain, or france, or colonization. And if you're referring to the treatment of native americans in the U.S.'s expansion west, that would deserve some mention in its own section or article, but be wary not to set a precedent of catalogueing the wrongdoings of citizens of a country at the top of a country's page, because we could go from country article to country article and insert much worse than is the case with the U.S. "2) it is widely seen as a (hostile) empire": by people who obviously have no bias in the issue, right. This is also simply wrong on its face. "3) it wages war for profit": that's your opinion. You can't add it to the article unless you have proof, and that doesn't mean citing another left-wing nut's opinion. 2nd Piston Honda 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1) Millions died, from diseases brought by Europeans, not Citizens of the United States, if you want to point out that colonization had a negative impact on the locals, do so, but don't blame the Americans for actions instigated by the Spanish and French. As for the Holocaust reference, Get Some Perspective. The European Explorers didn't INTEND to wipe out the Indians, like the German leadersip intended to wipe out the Jews. 2) It is the only Empire to voluntarily return lands, to the same people, twice, in a generation (See also France). 3) War for Profit? Who paid the US to fight in any war, and how much were they paid? --- I grow weary of your POV edits. Bo 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

pre-declaration of independence history already gets 4 paragraphs in the article so obviously the fact of native american mass death can't be disqualified on the grounds that it isn't american history. the other 'arguments' are just noise.--8r1ck 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. Millions died, from diseases brought by Europeans -Yes, that is part of America's history (it happened on the North American contient) and would most appropriately be mention in the colonization of the Americas article. If you would like to add a mention of Native American deaths to the pre-1777 section please discuss you're proposed sentence here and try to have more than one source, as all of them vary in their statements.
  2. All nations have waged war for profit or because they thought the could gain something; be it freedom, natural resources, or territory -It goes w/o saying that the US like every other country has waged war to gain things.
  3. The US is not always seen as a hostile empire; Germany was happy to have US troops in West Germany to defend against the Soviets; I seriously doubt that any NATO or G8 nation sees the US as a hotile empire even if they disagree over the Iraq war. There are more countries that see the US as an ally than those that see the US as hostile- even if the Bush admin hasn't been very successful in global PR.

That said please keep WP:NPOV in mind. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

However, if it tries to paint an overall pro-USA image, then it's also biased. A truly neutral article will not lean in either direction. Not everyone thinks the US is good, not everyone thinks it's bad. 170.215.83.212 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it is always wrong to describe something as vast, complex and diverse as US society in terms of Black or White. One can't make such general statement about a country that has 300 million people; let alone a country like the US that is itself the result of relatively recent large scale human migration and has what is perhaps the developed world's most diverse populous. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

none of this argument succeeds in any way in undermining the case for including the 3 main edits or for that matter the 4th. saying facts should be ommitted because other countries have done similar things is no argument at all. include the similar facts on all the national pages. citing national governments as the only group able to decide about the imperial status of "the world's only superpower" (a phrase repeated in the main article) - 'any NATO or G8 nation' - totally misses the point that significant opinion worldwide is of the published opinion that the US is an empire. that's *many* eminent academics, cultural commentators and politicians. i don't see how it is possible to say the number of native american deaths 'would most appropriately be mention' in another article. without justification this is just, er, POV. it's important that the number of deaths - about 10 million - features in the US article because it is a massively important piece of history which significantly defined the nation. you don't want to give that a sentence for the US? because it's a detail? this is about balance. the article so far is totally lopsided with no negative facts and planty of bias. to say of US foreign policy that it gets talked about suggests that US policy is so benign it is has no devasting consequences. it's a subtle difference. there's no more to say here. the edits will get reposted. --8r1ck 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"to say of US foreign policy that it gets talked about suggests that US policy is so benign it is has no devasting consequences"- that's not true. The US has 300 million people, making it by far the world's largest post-industrial society. Thus the ramifications of US foreign policy will be equally extensive. Also calling the US an empricial power does not tehcnically imply hosility. As for "that significant opinion worldwide is of the published opinion that the US is an empire. that's *many* eminent academics, cultural commentators and politicians."- nobody is debating that some individuals including members of the American intelegista are of the opinion that the US ought to revise the manner in which it excersises its extensive global power. That also goes w/o saying due to America's size. As for Native American deaths, which are a seperate issue aside from current US foreign policy, bring more than one neutral source to the table and we can discuss your proposed sentences. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 22:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

sources and re-edits

1) native american deaths in the millions g. fisher | Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples | UN World Conference Against Racism

  • existing sentence: "the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous tribes, including Alaskan natives, who migrated to the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago."
  • suggested re-edit: "the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous tribes, including Alaskan natives, who migrated to the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago. It is estimated that between 2-10 million native americans died because of colonization."

2) US as empire [[6]] | fox news | [7] | [8]

  • existing sentence: "After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to intervene in overseas military conflicts such as the Gulf War. It remains the world's only superpower."
  • suggested re-edit: "After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to intervene in overseas military conflicts such as the Gulf War. It remains the world's only superpower. The global influence of the US has imperial characteristics."

3) US motive for invading iraq was oil washington post | globalpolicy.org | bbc news | February 15, 2003 anti-war protest

  • existing sentence: "After the invasion, only a limited number of non-nuclear stockpiles were found, and the Bush administration later admitted having acted on flawed intelligence."
  • suggested re-edit: "After the invasion, only a limited number of non-nuclear stockpiles were found, and the Bush administration later admitted having acted on flawed intelligence. The motive for the invasion was disputed before it happened however and discussion about US interest in Iraq's oil resources was widespread in the months before the war."

4) 'consequence'

  • existing sentence: "The United States has vast economic, political, and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a subject of great interest and discussion around the world.
  • suggested re-edit: "The United States has vast economic, political, and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a matter of great consequence around the world."

--8r1ck 13:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

English de facto

I tried putting de facto in parantheses, but it was reverted with the reason of "that implies that it's the official language, but de facto." De facto and official are two different things. De facto means "in fact" or "in practice" or "in reality," very different from official. Without the parantheses, it sounds like "English de facto" is the official language (which contradicts the previous statement in the infobox that the US doesn't have an official language) or that the US uses the de facto English, which doesn't exist. What does everyone think? — Jaxad0127 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the article de facto, the normal wording would be "de facto English". --tjstrf talk 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, "de facto language" is correct, not "de facto English," since there isn't an accepted de facto form of English, which I pointed out earlier. — Jaxad0127 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Land area incorrect

Under the Geograpy section is says

"The United States is the world's second largest country by land area, after Russia."

This untrue The US is the 3rd or 4th largest after Canada and diputedly China.

LAND area. Canada's land area is actually 4th or 5th in the world; its total area is 2nd because of the many lakes it has. --Golbez 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

buffalo

"Between 1830-1880 up to 40 million American Buffalo were slaughtered for skins and meat, to aid railway expansion and to help subdue Native Americans by denying them a primary resource."

this sentence about buffalo which i just put in environment has been immediately removed and labelled "POV assertion of motive". this is more miserably biased editing. the 40 million number and the word 'slaughter' were both footnoted with 2 other internal links. which bit is asserted motive? it's all sourced except perhaps for the 'denying primary resource' which was nevertheless in just about all the stuff i read about buffalo slaughter and can easily be footnoted. but who needs 3 footnotes in a sentence?

how about this from the existing edit:

"After many failed U.N. resolutions and Saddam Hussein rejecting demands to surrender, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq in March of 2003."

sounds like POV assertion of motive to me. i should not be surprised that a jingoistic country of 300m produces some jingoistic wiki history writers. it's vandalism, it's denial, it's sustained and it's seemingly consensual. no more contributions from me here you'll be glad to hear. --8r1ck 12:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


I can't see how the buffalo section is POV -- the first definition of 'slaughter,' according to Merriam-Webster is "the act of killing; specifically : the butchering of livestock for market." It carries a negative meaning when applied to humans because slaughtering' humans is killing them with no reason (as they presumably will not be consumed) and because it implies that they are being treated no better than animals.

As for the Iraq section, it may need to be reworded -- it's not terrible (as everything it says is true), but "many failed" sounds a bit POV, not to mention the grammar error in "after ... Saddam Hussein rejecting ..." --Archangel127 14:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Buffalo section's issue is with the assignment of the motive as including to help subdue the indians by 'denying primary resource'. The claim that it was for food and meat isn't controversial (therefor no POV issue), to claim it was part of campaign to subdue the Indians is controversial (hence POV issues). It may be able to be reworded, but as posted, it was advancing a POV, with out citiations. Bo 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I put the buffalo mention in up in the westard expansion section. I mentioned take a look to see if the 'denial of primary resource' is done in a NPOV way. Thanks. Bo 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Buffalo almost died out because European settlers in addition to Indians killed them for food, clothing and sport. The "dying of the buffalo" was caused by over-hunting. I don't think most White settlers killed the Buffalo w/ the intention to whipe out the Native Americans (some might have though). As mentioned above, the statement certainly carries with it some validity but needs to be presented in an NPOV manner. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I take it that I was successful in adding the information in a NPOV way.. Thanks! Bo 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology for vandalism on my account

I foolishly left my account logged on when I left my computer, and one of my friends vandalised this page. I have tried to revert the edits by that person, but I may have missed some, so I sincerely apologize. Rossenglish 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Length Issues

I've spend some time considering how to shorten this article, but I really can't see where to begin. Potentially, we could remove some categories that are less importation, and just have the link to the subpage, but I'm not quite sure where to begin on that either. As long as we don't actually add to the main page, aside from current events, we should be okay?71.111.98.144 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually do think of this article as being excessively long considering that this article covers the entire United States. The US is one of the most complex countries on earth and even just giving a glimpse of it is going to take a good seized article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading through the article, there are many things which are clearly not all that important to a broad overview of the country. I've added some suggestions to the todo list, which you can see at the top of the talk page here. Normal article length is around 30K. You're right that this is a big topic; perhaps something on the order of 40-60K would be appropriate. But right now it's over 100K, and that's definitely too big. This needs to be a relatively brief survey, targeted at people who aren't interested in too many details, but just want to get an overall picture. Quite a bit is left up to subarticles for people who want to take the time to go more in depth, or who are looking for a specific piece of detailed information. -- Beland 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Taken a look at some of the suggestions. Everything looks about right - the trick is getting started :). I think current events should be the only one that goes into detail - everything else should just be a brief summary. Also, lots of sub-topics should be just completely removed and placed in the sub-articles, thus cutting down on length/size. 71.111.98.144 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WWII the costliest war

WWII cost the United States 288 billion in 1940s dollars, in direct economic costs only. Using 1943 as the base year, this comes out to $3,264,505,931,139 (3+ trillion) in 2005 dollars. No other war came close. Ufwuct 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

True, the Second World War was perhaps the costliest war in modern history. The 3 trillion plus figure seems very realistic. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I had just thought the Civil War might have been costlier. It was much costlier in terms of lives.--Rotten 14:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
True, especially in terms of civilians. If you think that the wording is ambiguous (in not differentiating between human costs (casualties) and economic costs), please try to improve the wording. Ufwuct 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed the human cost (especially in civilian casulties) was much greater during the civil as much of that fighting actually took place on the continental U.S. I guess we need to add the word "costliest in economic terms" to accurately reflect the provided historical data. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Made the proposed change in wording from "costliest war" to "costliest war in economic terms"
Isn't Civil War the costliest war for the economy of USA? WW2 was profitable for the USA economy. Ko Soi IX 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It was only indirectly helpful. I think this claim concerns the direct cost of property damage and military spending, which would otherwise have been available to the civilian economy. -- Beland 00:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Economic terms is different from economic effect. The Civil War destroyed the economy of the South, but WWII cost more. — Jaxad0127 02:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

IN terms of lives, the US was l--Johnhardcastle 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)et off very cheap!

Change of Government Section

Post 9/11, suggest changing "Federal Republic" to "Police State". --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I got the joke and I agree the executive has gained way too much power- of that's what you're implying. Congress is supposed to make laws (hence, legislative) and not the president (he may merely suggest them and dis/approve of them). SignaturebrendelNow under review! 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested edit for the Religion section

In the religion section it impies that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Protestant denomination. This is incorrect. the LDS Church stands alone, apart from Orthodox churches or the Protestants. Thanks. 204.113.19.8 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Michael

Isn't it interesting?

This article is featured in two languages... but not in English. I know this is an irrelevant point, but I thought it was kind of interesting, especially since this article appears to be far more detailed than other featured articles in English. Freezing the mainstream

Well, actually this article is too detailed. The main complaint during its FA canidacy was its length. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maza, North Dakota

Under the infobox at the top of the page under Largest City (New York City, NY) could someone add the Smallest City, which is Maza, North Dakota, since it is the smallest city in the United States. I cant do it for I have an IP # and IP's are blocked. 68.111.174.76 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We only add a country's largest city to the country infobox. People are usually more likely to seek info on a country's largest, not smallest city. As we do need to keep an eye out for infobox length, I am personally undecided whether or not we should mention a nation's smallest city in the infobox. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 09:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely suggest not adding the smallest city, as that could change tomorrow when someone incorporates a new city with a population of 4 or less, or if Maza grows by even one. In addition, the amount of effort to definitively find/verify the "smallest" city in a country with a population of 300 million would be huge, and the definitions surely vary as well. Even mentioning this on the article's page would seem to be speculation. -- Renesis (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
D'accord. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for Minor Changes Made: Inaccurate dating of Proto-Indian entry into America, et al

I don't feel any of these changes are major or controversial. I even left the date of the entry of Proto-Americans alone, though its clearly in error, as that will certainly cause controversy and some sort of support for such a change needs to be garnered. (I'm learning the ways of wiki.)

In the intro, at least, to whit:

1. Changed awkward wording of "adherents spanning across" to "members representing" [all major denominations].

2. The present day continental United States was inhabited for at least 15,000 years by indigenous tribes.

First: the "tribes" were not indigenous; they immigrated like the Europeans (Viking, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, English, Swedes--in about that order). And we know far too little about the Proto-Indians to know whether they organized themselves in tribes. The chief unit of social organization may have been the extended family or even something closer to the so-called "nuclear" family; with larger gatherings of related families (clans?) occuring periodically, perhaps centering around events such as mass bison crossings where large numbers of hunters would be needed.

So I'm going to remove the word "indigenous since it is indisputably an error. To call the Mayan and Aztec civilizations "indigenous" would be correct; but to label their builders thusly is most certainly not.

More importantly: This date is way, way off. Although the footnote acknowledges this, the text should also reflect it. Or, at the very least, the text should note the controversy about the dating as well as the two most probable routes of immigration. E.g.: Lewis Binford has proven that Proto- or Paleo-Indians were present in Pennsylvania as early as 20,000 BP.

The well-known Bering "land brige" or, when glaciers sealed the ice-free "corridor" postulated to have periodically opened a sort-of "highway" into the continental interior, Proto-Indians most probably entered the ice-free areas of the Alaskan and Canadian oceanic litorals by means of a series of marine "jumps". The Inuit/Eskimos still retain technology that probably differs little from that used by Proto-Indians and is certainly capable of such voyages.

In fact, even the date of "35,000 years BP" is off perhaps by as much as 15,000 yrs. A site in Brazil has been dated to 44,000 yrs BP (tho' this has been disputed). If Proto-Indians were in Brazil 44,000 years ago, then it's certain they were in North America centuries or millennia before that. Given their nomadic lifestyle and humanity's then lack of riding or pack animals (horses, camels, donkeys, et al), it is perfectly possible for it to have taken thousands of years to move on foot through Mexico and Central America to reach S. America.

(It has been claimed that H. erectus was present in North America hundreds of millennia before H. sapiens sapiens, based on one highly disputed, if not dubious, "find" in the California desert near the city of Barstow, California.)

Granted, this much detail belongs in the article on American Indians, but I feel, a correction must be made about the dating and methods of Proto-Indian immigration.

And, to reiterate, the term indigenous has got to go.

3. Changed listing of European settlement from English, French, Spanish, to the chronologically correct order of Spanish, English, French. Also, added that the Dutch and Swedes made failed attempts to plant colonies, the last seized by the Dutch who were subsequently turned out by the English Navy (the head of which was the then Duke of York, the future James II, hence the name "New York.")

PainMan 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay regarding your changes:
  1. Yes all human beings in America are the descendants of migrants. In fact, all human beings outside of Africa are the descendants of migrants. Human migration is the sole reason why the human race has spread across all five continents. The political correct term in the US is Native Americans. In Canada the term is "First Nation people" as one could argue that anyone born in American is a "Native American."
  2. True, Native Americans arrived in the US earlier than 15,000 years ago.
  3. Yes, the correct order of settlement is Spanish, English and French. But please leave references to Swedish and Dutch settlements. New York was called New Amsterdam and until today the city's dutch history is visible in street and neigborhoods names (e.g. Steuyvesant district). The English may have gained control over Dutch settlements, but the dutch were nontheless those who pioneered settlement in what is today Manhattan and other Mid-Atlantic regions. Additionally the Dutch had significant culutral influence on early colonial America (While others such as the Germans did too, the Dutch actually had colonies).
Otherwise, I mostly agree with your edits and above propositions. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Edit for the Language section

This sentance: "Nowadays, more languages are being used in daily life for mainly Spanish speakers who cannot understand English." is rather poorly worded and could use revision.

Largest-Smallest States

Somebody should add a list for all the states from largest to smallest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesk111 (talk • contribs) .

Already done.
Jecowa 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation redundancy

The article gets off to a kinda slow start right at the beginning when it lists "US" and "U.S.", and "USA" + "U.S.A." as alternate names. But whether or not you choose to punctuate abbreviations is surely a question of style, and doesn't constitute an alternative name for the country. Any given publication will pick one version depending on whether they tend to put periods between abbreviations or not. You might as well say that JFK was also known by his other monikier, "J.F.K.". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiralhighway (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Independence not July 4

Historically speaking, the United States declared Independence on July 2nd, not July 4th. (We celebrate 7/4 only because Congress realized the day before that they forgot to celebrate Independence day). Quoting United States Declaration of Independence:

Independence was declared on July 2, 1776, pursuant to the "Lee Resolution" presented by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia on June 7, 1776, which read (in part):...

I think that the proper date should be listed in the infobox, with some sort of mention about observation on July 4th for historical reasons. IMacWin95 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Independence Day (United States), the July 2 declaration was secret and preliminary, and the final draft of the declaration document itself wasn't done until two days later after a flurry of rewriting. It was not announced to the people until July 4. There's a difference in "the day you decide to declare independence" and "the day you actually declare independence." Your assertion of it being July 4 because Congress "forgot" seems incorrect, based on that article. --Golbez 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

hyperpower

if theres only one superpower whats the point of naming it hyperpower also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.53.233 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Good question, the term isn't really useful IMHO, but does exsist. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


It doesn't do any good for Americans as well as to the whole world to think in terms of "power" at all. My suggestion is to wipe out the whole sentence. In the same way: Americans which never have been outside their continent should re-consider their attitude towards the whole world. Recent development of the issue with the US/Mexican border clearly shows what a "superpower" means! Hope this wuld't offend some. 1990 the Berlin wall went down. 2006 there are only two borders on which wals are emerging-so what's teh point of being a superpower ??? Regards, Allilinin 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to debate what American's should or should not do. The fact is that both terms ("superpower" and "hyperpower") are in common usage with respect to the US (especially "superpower"). Johntex\talk 21:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)