Talk:United States/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 →

Contents

Cite question

Why is the simplistic, common sense description of the location of the US in the LEAD cited? Doesn't matter all that much - Only removed the cite this morning because it had been done once before and didn't see anything in WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources that seemed relevant, but I'm curious: Is the section directly paraphrasing Bartleby's? If so, is it safe to assume that that could be fixed with relative ease? MrZaiustalk 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the challenge is. While the description may be common sense, it has required collaboration from numerous editors over time to achieve it. I find it ironic that you remove relevant citations -- specifically, not just Bartleby's but its mirroring of an electronic version of the two-volume Columbia Gazetteer of North America -- based on vague (and somewhat disagreeable) FAC comments while, for example, glazing over the third paragraph which (save the last sentence) is completely unsourced and, thus, contestable. This article will not become an FAC candidate by removing citations when it's already thrice almost four times the length it should be. Corticopia 14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was requesting a clearer definition of contestable - Again, I didn't do the initial delete, just restored it when it was reverted with a less clear explanation than the deleter. Don't care all that much - trying to get a decent notion of how the guideline works. Also, please note that the article length is actually only twice the normal guideline, when measuring only the prose, stripped of templates, references, and wikisyntax, as called for in WP:LENGTH. MrZaiustalk 14:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Who did the initial delete, then? I apologise for pointing the finger. As for what may be contestable: the basic constituents of the U.S. (50 states (48+1+1), federal district, insular territories) and their locations; whether or not the last is part of the U.S. proper; its overall location in the Western hemisphere (discussed above). When all fails, citations are preferable to none. And, even at 60K, counting only the prose in an article's length is like reckoning a human to comprise only its skeleton.  ;) In any event, it remains too long ... which is probably one of the major hurdles to it being an FAC. Corticopia 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there were a fair number of calls for condensing things a touch, but I haven't seem many calls for large cuts, 'cept for one calling for axing a large portion of the Demographics section. MrZaiustalk 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
All of the material described above is (a) easily verifiable via consultation of any standard reference book and (b) covered in the main text of the article. The words "relevant" and "bona fide" have been used to characterize the specific citation in question. No convincing argument has yet been made that it is "relevant"; as for "bona fide," the content of the citation certainly is, but its application absolutely is not. Suggestions that any matter of fact, no matter the ease of its verifiability and the fact that it has provoked no challenge, must be cited at each and every appearance of it in Wikipedia are obviously baseless. The statement made above that the third paragraph in the lead is "completely unsourced" is confounding--the paragraph is a summary of material covered in the main text. In standard lead format, it requires no citation at all. The citation in question and demands for more in the lead are clearly out of order, per WP:CITE.—DCGeist 15:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
DCG, au contraire -- WP:CITE specifically indicates to source information that may be challenged. The breadth and diversity of U.S. constituents would seem to justify sourcing and, this content was discussed at length. You also seem to be insistent on removing citations from the lead, really with no or conflated basis in policy, while supporting a verbose synthesis with little sourcing in the form of the third paragraph. Also, given the fact that these citations were in place for some months before you alone decided to remove them -- i.e., with no modicum of consensus -- is no cause to part with them now. Anyhow, despite sophistry, no convincing argument has been put forth to justify the removal of citations either. Until then, I will continue to restore. Prune elsewhere. Corticopia 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You 've just made your third revert of the day. I'm making my second now. Want to keep going, or do you want to find support from other engaged editors for your unique postion? P.S. Is the reference to "sophistry" a compliment or an attack?—DCGeist 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Take your pick, but considering you've no consensus to support removal of citations that have been in place for months, I am not the one who will be yielding. Corticopia 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it appears I do. All recently engaged editors have either explicitly supported the cite's removal or accepted the removal without qualification. At the moment you stand alone and on the verge of violating the three-revert rule.—DCGeist 19:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry: the only other editor who appears to have even hinted at that explicitly is Mr. Zaius; others have made vague comments which are just that which I can't qualify. A consensus that definitely does not make. Your continued removals may evn be considered to be a Foundation issue. Anyhow, rest assured I will be back in a day and will continue to re-add citations that you alone have removed after months. And that's all. Corticopia 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that things should remain in the article because they've been there a long time is a striking one, and deeply intriguing philosophically. Why don't we take a closer look at a few things you allowed to remain in the article for a long time...in some cases a very long time. You withdrew from regularly editing the article after May 18. Let's examine some elements of the version of the article you left behind in apparent contentment (Corticopia's Happy Version of May 18):

  • That presumably non-"verbose" historical summary in the lead you are presumably so proud of instructs us that the colonies "declared their independence by issuing a Declaration of Independence." Why did you choose to let such laughably clumsy English remain in the article? And, having so chosen, how exactly did you summon up the chutzpah to criticize another version of the summary, one composed by editors fluent in the English language?
  • That lead summary you presumably favor over the current "verbose" version also tells us that the U.S. "exert[s]...dominant influence." Why did you choose to let such painfully awkward (yet easily correctable) phrasing remain in the article's lead for the long time that you did?
  • You left behind an article that mentions the War of 1812 but doesn't say who it was fought against. Why did you choose to let such a glaring, rather ridiculous, omission remain in the article for the long time that you did?
  • You left behind an article from which a schoolchild would conclude that all animal names--Buffalo, Bison, Bald Eagle--are capitalized. Why did you choose to let such egregious and plainly improper style remain in the article for the long time that you did?
  • You left behind an article that for any non-Wikilink-savvy reader does not give the slightest hint how Florida, and Texas, and Alaska, and Hawaii and, well, most of the United States came to be part of the United States. (Guess they were just sittin' there empty and unloved waitin' for us!) Why did you choose to allow such remarkable omissions from the article for the long time that you did?
  • You left behind an article that claims twelve U.S. citizens have won the Nobel Prize in Literature. The correct and easily determinable figure is eleven. (T.S. Eliot, of course, was born in the U.S. but had been a British citizen for over two decades when he won the prize. You want to count him, you better explain your ennumeration method, 'cause it's not simply American "citizens.") Why did you choose to let this error remain in the article for the long time that you did?
  • You left behind an article that describes the "Great American Novel," the "comic book," and "Disney's animated films" all as "genres." Why did you choose to let such obvious mangling of the English language persist in the article for as long as you did?

With the exception of the first, every one of these miscues, blunders, and outright errors was in the article when you dropped in for a little edit on March 3 ([1]). And, again with the exception of the first, every one of those miscues, blunders, and outright errors was still there on June 1, at the point when MrZaius stepped in and intensified his editing of the article ([2]). I could cite a dozen more such cases, I believe, but there's no need now, is there? I look forward to your specific explanation in each case why you chose to allow things to remain as they were for such a long time. And I also look forward to your explanation of your philosophy: all those botches were in the article for such a terribly long while--therefore, you believe they should be restored, right? Your answers, I'm sure, will shed much light on your devotion to your little pet cite.—DCGeist 07:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I really can't and won't respond to your diatribe above, which seems to not only be rather verbose, fallacious, off-topic, and a failed or obscure attempt to make a point, but I will be back later to re-add citations you and few others seem content to remove in direct contravention of policy, and to make other edits I choose. Corticopia 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Seems to not only be rather verbose"? What's your native language, son, Klingon? Just come right out and say it: "Corticopia declared his verbosity by issuing a Declaration of Verbosity."And, just so you're forewarned, we will still be choosing for you.—DCGeist 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Verbiage aside, your recent edits to the lead have made sourcing it even more important, since the notion that the U.S. is comprised of (among other things) 'fourteen territories' is arguably uncommon knowledge and requires reputable citation. Thank you -- despite fallacious groupthink, I'll be back later to re-add. Corticopia 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
And if DCG et al. insist on specificity in the lead (per FAC commentary, allegedly) regarding the number of U.S. territories and nonconsensual, imprecise phrasing regarding the '2 commonwealths, Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands' as opposed to the 12 other territories, I will continue to insist on said editors producing a citation or, in lieu, will add the omnibus citation as before. And again this is not a revert, but rectification of a poorly worded and unsupported statement not arrived at through any consensus. This is not going away. Corticopia 03:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it all depends on what "this" is. If "this" is your disruptive set of changes, it definitely will go away. If "this" means your hilarious joke--"And again this is not a revert" (and from someone who whined about "sophistry"!)--you're absolutely right. We'll never forget your whopper.—DCGeist 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Like, what are you talking about? I have fully explained the reasons for my edits and corrections of your badly worded, unsourced content, with only gibbering and continued ad hominem argument from you in response. You have failed to address the points above. So, deal with it or refrain from commenting. Corticopia 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore him

Hardly much comment necessary at this point; just the facts. Fellow editors, Corticopia has engaged in repeated edit warring. In the past four days, four different editors have been compelled to revert his single-minded edits: myself, Black Harry, Mrzaius, and JimWae. Corticopia has had to be cautioned on three seperate occasions in the past three days that he was verging on a 3RR violation on this article alone ([3]; [4]; [5]--see bottom of diff). I don't believe that Corticopia meets the classic definition of a Wikipedia troll, but in recent days his behavior has become indistinguishable from that of a troll. Corticopia demands "deal[ing] with it" (he grants, via his clever li'l Wikilink, the alternative of "shutting the fuck up"). The most effective way to "deal with it" is clear: Ignore him and revert him until and unless he (A) apologizes for his behavior and (B) promises to stop (i) disrupting collaborative work on the article and (ii) disregarding prevailing consensus on its style and structure.—DCGeist 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no comment. Corticopia 06:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, make an attempt at civility. Corticopia is not a troll, even if he does seem to be misreading WP:CITE. That said, DC: please avoid personal attacks and C: passive-aggressive threats to restore edits that the consensus called to remove. They're making it a tad difficult to focus.MrZaiustalk 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I stated my opinion that Corticopia is not a Wikipedia troll in the classic sense. However, repeated deliberate gaming of the three-revert rule--which I carefully evidenced--along with turning an entirely normal Wikipedia debate into something personal and uncivil with charges of "sophistry" ([6]) is behavior more than fairly characterized as "indistinguishable from that of a troll." See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments for details from other editors on Corticopia's behavior.—DCGeist 21:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Geography section/climate map location

I'm working on a 12" iBook, running Safari full-frame. Putting the climate map back where it was, it (a) lines up with the second, nonclimatological graf in the section, and (b) squeezes (I almost wrote violently squeezes) that graf from the right, with the Mt. Hood photo on the left. In short, it looks much worse, given my particular setup. You've checked it multiple ways and it does look better in most/all of them?—DCGeist 06:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My main concern was that when the graphic is dropped down to avoid the squeeze mentioned above, it bleeds into /* Environment */ at a high resolution. Might want to just consider cutting one of the three images, as there doesn't appear to be a clean way to make it readable at both high WS resolutions and lower ones. Which should we axe? MrZaiustalk 07:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I miss ol' Hoody, but you made the right choice.—DCGeist 10:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This resemble a sentence? (not to mention Easter eggs)

The Abraham Lincoln assassination after war radicalized Republican Reconstruction policies, which ended in the Compromise of 1877 over the disputed 1876 election, leading to Jim Crow laws which disenfranchised the newly freed slaves—Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs)

Fixed the grammatical issues. As far as describing Reconstruction goes, I've posted: "These policies, aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves" but we should continue to mention "Reconstruction" in the preceding sentence, given the importance of the term. MrZaiustalk 09:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tables

The most recent comment on the FAC discussion called for the Largest Cities, Economics, and Demographics tables to be removed, as distractions. Personally, I'm not sure whether I consider them more of a distraction or a benefit, so I just removed the wholly redundant sections of the demographics table that were dealing with stats mentioned in Education, the lead infobox, and the demo section proper. Still:

Again, note that I'm really asking here - I'm neither in favor of or against moving or removing the remaining tables. MrZaiustalk 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    • There is an ongoing debate over tables & over cities. Some people think tables interrupt the flow. The wiki style gods may disagree but I find paragraphs that could easily be put into tables interrupt the flow much more & it's much harder to know how far ahead to skip if one chooses to do so. Some people also seem to think who made what movie in 1915 is far more important in a country article than anything about cities - in which 79% (?) of the people live--JimWae 09:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And this from a Cultural Creative...for shame.—DCGeist 10:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • tables interrupt an article less than many of the images do - especially those left side images--JimWae 09:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The images are another style issue that depends to a great extent on the reader. I personally find a lengthy article intimidating and dull without the color and interruption of periodic graphics, including the tables. MrZaiustalk 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd rather see tables than paragraphs that are just boring, disguised lists - such as in the religion section - especially when I want to go back to find a detail - and it's buried in there somewhere --JimWae 09:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's exactely the point behind them. There are certain key figures that need to be mention in this and not the sub-articles, that can either be placed in a "disguised list" paragraph or an easy-to-read infobox. Signaturebrendel 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's why you would check The economy of the US, for example. These tables don't belong into the main article, but definitely belong into specific sub-articles is my point.--Svetovid 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The Economy section table provides very, very basic facts about the US economy that would read like a random accumulation of facts if they were put into text. (unless more text to explain them was added w/ the economy balooning in size) It is the most direct and easiest way to convey essential pieces of information to the reader in as few words as possible. BTW: I have left a comment explainig the need for these infoboxes on the FAC page. Signaturebrendel 16:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tensions increased with increasing debate?

Tensions increased, not over who would win a debate over states rights, but because of stakes involved, including:

  • territory - and wars fought to keep expanding it
  • political power - South losing it as North grew & gained majorities
  • economic - southern fears that slavery would be made illegal in states too
  • moral - objections to Fugitive Slave Laws & being forced to enforce them

--JimWae 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Civil War section, keep in mind that we have lengthy American Civil War and Origins of the American Civil War articles for a reason. Try to maintain a minimal summary here, without increasing length. The topics you mention are dealt with at length in the linked articles. MrZaiustalk 09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Because the list is so long, I changed it to

 {{scroll box|text={{reflist|2}}|height=200px}}

But I thought perhaps the usage above may justify a template on its own. If you're interested, please discuss at Template talk:Reflist#Contained in a box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. MrZaiustalk 10:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Crime and punishment

I believe we need to add a subsesction under Demographics titled "Crime and punishment" or something similar. I gather there's been some pressure to restrict the TOC, but given the enormity of our topic, I believe the TOC at this point is remarkably concise and can well bear this addition.

I've recently added information on America's exceptional incarceration statistics--building on the little bit that was in the Demographics lead text--but there are a number of other important areas in which the country stands out in the Western world and globally that really need to be covered: our high homicide rate, our liberal gun laws (whose constitutional basis a U.S. Court of Appeals just reaffirmed by overturning a restrictive local law for the first time in decades--see, e.g., [7]), and particularly our unusual devotion to the practice of capital punishment. I see the subsection as two grafs long--(1) a new one covering the crime and gun law topics just mentioned, as well as a brief outline of America's law enforcement system and (2) the current incarceration graf with death penalty coverage added to it. We have excellent articles on Crime in the United States and Capital punishment in the United States that should make summary style and good sourcing very easy. Thoughts?—DCGeist 03:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit is unacceptable. The following would be more concise than what you added:
"Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries.[1][2] Its drug policy is a source of heated argument, and is largely responsible for a high incarceration rate among minority groups.[3]" --Aude (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Though, capital punishment is notable and worth mentioning, as well. --Aude (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite clear on some of the points you're making. The "unacceptable" edit you reference is editor Vranak's cut of a sentence on gun violence and homicide. I gather you want to restore that information. I agree--though it needs to be expressed in hard data and with much more up-to-date cites. You also seem to want to restore verbatim the previous sentence on drug policy and incarceration of minorities, the area I worked on. Are you saying you don't believe it's worthy of mention and demonstration that (a) the U.S.'s overall incarceration rate is the highest in the world, (b) is much, much higher than that of countries that are similar politically and economically, (c) that the rate has been increasing steadily for a quarter-century, and (d) that the continuing increase is essentially unrelated to any change in crime rates? Finally, do you think this information--and related issues--should remain part of the discussion of general demographics, or be placed in its own subsection, like "Language and religion" and "Education and health"? Thanks. Best, Dan—DCGeist 03:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Gun violence and homicide rates, compared to other developed countries, is notable and should be mentioned. The UNODC source is the most authoritative, with most recent survey results available for 2002. Table 2-4 They use consistent, rigorous methodology when surveying different countries. As for incarceration and drug policy, something similar what you wrote would work. Though, it needs to be more concise. (e.g. "and more than triple the rate of the next closest member, the Czech Republic." is not needed) "African American males are jailed at over six times the rate of white males and Hispanic males at more than double the rate." - also not needed, but instead of "and its disproportionate effect on minority groups" say "which disproportionately effects minority groups" with the cite. As for this being a separate subsection, I agree. --Aude (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Great. And thanks for the specific sourcing lead and concrete suggestions for summary style. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
MrZ?—DCGeist 10:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe it important to point out some cause for the incarceration rate beyond the war on drugs, given the still fairly high pre-1980 incarceration rate - How that can be best accomplished I'm not certain. In what ways other than those mentioned in the cut sentence does crime in the United States differ from from other developed nations/OECD members? Also, I'd urge that they be dealt with as briefly as possible, given the presence of the primary articles on the general topic. The general terms of the cut sentence did that fairly well, IMHO.
On the suggested cuts, it might not hurt to remove the .cz and hispanic stat, but I've shrunk down the latter. The 6x rate of African American incarceration definitely warrants a presence in the article, however, to help counterbalance the civil rights section and avoid appearing biased/looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. On a related note, I wrote the Drug policy of the United States article to give us a central place to link to from here, rather than having to have a paragraph covering drug policy, but that article could use a lot of work/expansion, if anyone's interested. MrZaiustalk 10:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Final note - Barring access to 2005 stats for all OECD members to verify the comparative stats, we should stick with the 2000 incarceration numbers throughout the section for consistency's sake - The change between 2000 and 2005 was relatively trivial compared with the change from 1980 to 2000. MrZaiustalk 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Restoring the gun violence and homicide sentence until it can be recreated - The article's better off with it than without it. Note that as far as the dates of the sources go, they're really not that bad - The total incarceration stats haven't changed all that terrible much since 2000. The deleted citations were dated 1998 and 2000. MrZaiustalk 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So much for the finality of my final note: One last comment - If someone were to replace all the statistics with stats from the 2002 UNDOC source, it would greatly cut the paragraph's impact on the size of the article source, as it would negate the need for at least two other sources on incarceration and prison population. MrZaiustalk 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Slavery

This article all but completely glosses over slavery and the large role it played in the United States, with only cursory allusions to its existence being given.

The word "slavery" appears in the article five times, including in the lead historical summary; the word "slave" (or "slaves") appears eleven times; the word "enslaved" appears once. Please consult a dictionary for the meaning of the words "completely" (yes, we know, "all but") and "allusion."—DCGeist 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

UN Charter phrasing

My concern is small, semantic, yet vexing: Did the UN Charter "become active" shortly after the war's end, or more properly was it not the organization—that is, the United Nations itself—that did?—DCGeist 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They both did - The UN Charter is a legally binding treaty. MrZaiustalk 10:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Legally binding treaty"?! What country are we writing about?—DCGeist 10:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Insofar as any treaty is binding. Keep in mind, this one we haven't unsigned MrZaiustalk 10:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine

With any luck, I'm leaving for the day. Would someone mind taking the scissors to the bloated cuisine section? Ignoring the fashion paragraph, the cuisine paragraphs alone are currently larger than the popular media and literature sections and most others as well, including the Civil War. I'm not sure what to cut, but surely some of it can be moved to the main article, if it's not already there. Seems unbalanced, and probably plays considerably into complaints like Tony1's sign off on the FAC debate. Wouldn't hurt to shrink the culture section by 1/3 all around, MrZaiustalk 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Defense budget

I realize the article is semi-protected as a FAC but the defense budget description here needs to be 470 billion, not 470 million.

Thanks for pointing that out, MrZaiustalk 14:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity infobox in Demographics section improperly cited

A check of the cited source ([8]) shows that it (a) offers no data at all on the Hispanic/Latino population and (b) could not even otherwise be used to derive the percentages given in the infobox, as it ennumerates millions of people who reported multiple ancestries, without breaking those down. Does anyone presently involved in the article have an idea about how the infobox percentages were actually arrived at?—DCGeist 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I took the info from the 2000 Census - but have replaced it with 2005 Economic Survey data. Signaturebrendel Regards, 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Great. Yes, there was something funny with the citation syntax around there, but all resolved now. Excellent fact sheet you came up with.—DCGeist 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My favorite food would have to be cotton

Who the hell decided that food and clothing should go together? They should each have their own section, or at least rename the section as 'culture', and put other 'culture' topic in there as well. --MKnight9989 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh...we're looking for him...and when we find him...well, I don't want to say too much, but oh, boyo. As for renaming the section "Culture," that's definitely something to ponder v-e-r-y carefully.—DCGeist 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to write about US being brought before International Court?

The US is being brought before International Court over the banning of democracy to the citizens of Puerto Rico. Basically because they are banned from being able to vote for the US president.

CaribDigita 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be far more appropriate to deal with in the Puerto Rico article & Human_rights_in_the_United_States. The matter cannot be effectively dealt with here - Note that there is no detailed description of the history of Puerto Rico & the plebiscites in which Puerto Ricans have repeatedly chosen to remain a Commonwealth, coverage of which would have to be added to give context to the above. Also note that no non-state other than the District of Columbia has a vote in the electoral college, but the article lacks any meaningful discussion of the college as well. In sum, to add your source would require adding at least three other unnecessary & minor points to the article that are already dealt with in the main articles. MrZaiustalk 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Climate zone map needs improvement

The climate zone map included in this article is not very accurate. Could someone make a new one based on a reliable source (rather than just a copy of a copy of a copy)? Kaldari 23:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at Central California I have to agree. According to the map the Monterey Peninsula is in a different climate zone that San Mateo County - as are San Benito and Santa Clara County. As a resident of coastal California I am really quite doubtful that the US weather service would put these areas in two different climate zone ...because the climate is pretty much the same! :) Signaturebrendel 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it, Image:Verybroadclimatemap.png is a replacement for Image:Climatemapusofa.JPG, which is quite blurry but more detailed. — Jaxad0127 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I created Image:Climatemapofusofa.JPG, and I agree is is more detailed. It was made verbatom from the Köppen climate map in my college geography textbook. I will "re-create exactly the samw map in a PNG format, so it is more crisp and looks better for the climate section. Sound good? Strongbad1982 1:47, 15 June 2007 (MST)

Yes, sounds good but are your sure that your textbook has the Monterey Bay in a different climate zone that San Mateo County? I still find it puzzling that these regions are assigned two different climate zones. Regards, Signaturebrendel 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Title of the article

I believe that the title should be changed to "The United States of America" since that is my country's official name as clearly stated in the Constitution "...do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America." Flag-Waving American Patriot 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not the first to ask...The FAQ page covers this question here. —MJCdetroit 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
When you get Mexico moved to United Mexican States (or, perhaps more accurately to its official name, Estados Unidos Mexicanos), then we can talk. Good luck with that. --Golbez 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
To Golbez-- just my standard response to your standard response-- if you think that the name of this article should depend on the names of other articles then you should go get the Hillary Rodham Clinton article changed to Hillary Clinton.
To FWAP: I used to think that the name of the country was "United States of America", but now I think that "of America" is just a prepositional phrase. Please see the corresponding section of the FAQ. JonathanFreed 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Median Income

The median income figure for 2006 is wrong - the one listed is for 2005 (and was reported in 2006). The rest of the data in that box is probably a year old as well, but I haven't checked.

The latest data available in the Census Bureau income forum is used - this data was published in '06 and pertains to the year '05. (Beleive it or not median income levels don't actually change that much - sometimes they drop a little, sometimes they rise a little w/ no significant change since 1999) I expect new data for the year 2006 will be avaialable in the stats forum in July or August - but don't look for any significant change ;-). Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Government Section

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

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced to just the head of state, but barring such a drastic move, it's unlikely that consensus can be reached to strike only one entry for the list, and, of course, it's just the infobox, and it's valid as it stands. Coequal branches of government and all that, per last month's discussion of this topic. MrZaiustalk 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In addition, the claim is simply incorrect. While the CJ's vote has the same weight as any other justice's, the power to (a) chair the court's conferences, (b) set the agenda for certiorari petitions, and (c) choose the author of the court's opinion in all cases in which the CJ is in the majority make it much more than just a title.—DCGeist 09:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Still isn't it much less powerful than the Speakership, Vice Presidency? Is he really a "leader" of the country like the other 3?
The point, I think, hinges on the U.S.'s essential and distinctive form of tripartite government. In most other Western countries, the jurisprudential system is ultimately subservient to the executive and/or legislative branches of government. In the U.S., it has equal and effectively independent standing, even though its head may not have practical power equivalent to that of the chief exeutive and the heads of the legislature. Under the U.S. constitutional system, John Roberts is a head of government.—DCGeist 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Baptists & Rastifarians declined more than agnostics. Wikkan had largest growth

- 1990
x1000		 2001
x1000		 unadjusted %
in 1990		 unadjusted %
in 2000		 adjusted %
in 1990		 adjusted %
in 2001		 %
decline		 numerical
change
Protestant-no denomination supplied 17,214 4,647 9.81% 2.23% 10.04% 2.36% -7.68% -73.00%
Born Again \2 204 56 0.12% 0.03% 0.12% 0.03% -0.09% -72.55%
Other unclassified 837 386 0.48% 0.19% 0.49% 0.20% -0.29% -53.88%
Rastafarian 14 11 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% -21.43%
Agnostic 1,186 991 0.68% 0.48% 0.69% 0.50% -0.19% -16.44%
Jewish 3,137 2,831 1.79% 1.36% 1.83% 1.44% -0.39% -9.75%
Christian Science 214 194 0.12% 0.09% 0.12% 0.10% -0.03% -9.35%
Salvation Army 27 25 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% -7.41%
Holiness/Holy 610 569 0.35% 0.27% 0.36% 0.29% -0.07% -6.72%
Jehovah's Witness 1,381 1,331 0.79% 0.64% 0.81% 0.68% -0.13% -3.62%
Church of the Nazarene 549 544 0.31% 0.26% 0.32% 0.28% -0.04% -0.91%
Baptist 33,964 33,830 19.36% 16.27% 19.81% 17.20% -2.62% -0.39%
Methodist/Wesleyan 14,174 14,150 8.08% 6.80% 8.27% 7.19% -1.08% -0.17%
non-Catholic Xn 105,492 108,633 60.13% 52.23% 61.54% 55.22% -6.33% 2.98%
Lutheran 9,110 9,580 5.19% 4.61% 5.31% 4.87% -0.45% 5.16%
Total Christian 151,496 159,506 86.35% 76.69% 88.38% 81.08% -7.31% 5.29%
Seventh-Day Adventist 668 724 0.38% 0.35% 0.39% 0.37% -0.02% 8.38%
Catholic 46,004 50,873 26.22% 24.46% 26.84% 25.86% -0.98% 10.58%
Mormon/Latter-Day Saints 2,487 2,787 1.42% 1.34% 1.45% 1.42% -0.03% 12.06%
Presbyterian 4,985 5,596 2.84% 2.69% 2.91% 2.84% -0.06% 12.26%
Episcopalian/Anglican 3,042 3,451 1.73% 1.66% 1.77% 1.75% -0.02% 13.45%

Article says Agnostics had largest decline & does not mention Wiccan (which rose 1575%). I doubt the value of most of the data in the article - seems denominations are mentioned just to satisfy editors who want their religion mentioned.

As we pore over the data and try to figure out what's the most appropriate way to summarize the most important information--your point about Wiccans, for instance, is clearly well taken--let's try to assume, yes, good faith, and avoid making unhelpful, and I believe unfounded, assumptions/claims about other editors' supposed ulterior motivations.—DCGeist 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The significant facts are those mentioned by ARIS - not so much the ones in this article
1. It is significant that the vast majority are Xn, yet that that % is declining

You've entered that. Seems just right.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2. It is significant that less than 4% of those stating a religion were non-Xn

Data now stated clearly.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

3. It is significant that the number stating no religion has risen so much

Right. Data now stated clearly.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

4. It is significant that the number refusing to answer has risen so much - puts perspective on survey

It is significant, but not, I think, in the context of a general encyclopedia article on the U.S. In a religion- and/or polling-specific article (and we do have Religion in the United States), it would be worth going into this. But given our limits in this article, I don't think this data will really inform most readers.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • IF it's worth saying agnostics & Jews declined the most (which is more than half false), (also Baptists declined more in % terms), it is also worth mentioning that some 12 groups declined in actual numbers while other groups more than doubled in #
Your overall suggestion here that there was a problem in angle and emphasis is well-taken. Focus now on major shifts and groups of significant size.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

--JimWae 08:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • small changes in small groups produce disproportionate percentage changes - which are not of much relevance to the U.S. as a whole. More relevant is the roughly 10% drop in % of Xns
Quite right.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

--JimWae 09:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Group 1990
x1000		 2001
x1000		 Numerical
% Change		 1990
unadjusted %		 2001
unadjusted %		 unadjusted
%-%		 1990
adjusted %		 2001
adjusted %		 adjusted
%-%
Adult population, total \1 175,440 207,980 18.55
Adult population, RESPONDED 171,409 196,734 14.77
Total Christian 151,496 159,506 5.29 86.35 76.69 -9.66 88.38 81.08 -7.31
Catholic 46,004 50,873 10.58 26.22 24.46 -1.76 26.84 25.86 -0.98
non-Catholic Xn 105,492 108,633 2.98 60.13 52.23 -7.90 61.54 55.22 -6.33
Baptist 33,964 33,830 -0.39 19.36 16.27 -3.09 19.81 17.20 -2.62
Protestant-no denomination supplied 17,214 4,647 -73.00 9.81 2.23 -7.58 10.04 2.36 -7.68
Methodist/Wesleyan 14,174 14,150 -0.17 8.08 6.80 -1.28 8.27 7.19 -1.08
Lutheran 9,110 9,580 5.16 5.19 4.61 -0.59 5.31 4.87 -0.45
Christian-no denomination supplied 8,073 14,150 75.28 4.60 6.80 2.20 4.71 7.19 2.48
Presbyterian 4,985 5,596 12.26 2.84 2.69 -0.15 2.91 2.84 -0.06
Pentecostal/Charismatic 3,191 4,407 38.11 1.82 2.12 0.30 1.86 2.24 0.38
Episcopalian/Anglican 3,042 3,451 13.45 1.73 1.66 -0.07 1.77 1.75 -0.02
Mormon/Latter-Day Saints 2,487 2,787 12.06 1.42 1.34 -0.08 1.45 1.42 -0.03
Churches of Christ 1,769 2,593 46.58 1.01 1.25 0.24 1.03 1.32 0.29
Jehovah's Witness 1,381 1,331 -3.62 0.79 0.64 -0.15 0.81 0.68 -0.13
Seventh-Day Adventist 668 724 8.38 0.38 0.35 -0.03 0.39 0.37 -0.02
Assemblies of God 660 1,106 67.58 0.38 0.53 0.16 0.39 0.56 0.18
Holiness/Holy 610 569 -6.72 0.35 0.27 -0.07 0.36 0.29 -0.07
Congregational/United Church of Christ 599 1,378 130.05 0.34 0.66 0.32 0.35 0.70 0.35
Church of the Nazarene 549 544 -0.91 0.31 0.26 -0.05 0.32 0.28 -0.04
Church of God 531 944 77.78 0.30 0.45 0.15 0.31 0.48 0.17
Orthodox (Eastern) 502 645 28.49 0.29 0.31 0.02 0.29 0.33 0.03
Evangelical \2 242 1,032 326.45 0.14 0.50 0.36 0.14 0.52 0.38
Mennonite 235 346 47.23 0.13 0.17 0.03 0.14 0.18 0.04
Christian Science 214 194 -9.35 0.12 0.09 -0.03 0.12 0.10 -0.03
Church of the Brethren 206 358 73.79 0.12 0.17 0.05 0.12 0.18 0.06
Born Again \2 204 56 -72.55 0.12 0.03 -0.09 0.12 0.03 -0.09
Nondenominational \2(also included as Xn, despite...) 195 2,489 1,176.41 0.11 1.20 1.09 0.11 1.27 1.15
Disciples of Christ 144 492 241.67 0.08 0.24 0.15 0.08 0.25 0.17
Reformed/Dutch Reform 161 289 79.50 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.05
Apostolic/New Apostolic 117 254 117.09 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.06
Quaker 67 217 223.88 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.07
Full Gospel 51 168 229.41 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.06
Christian Reform 40 79 97.50 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02
Foursquare Gospel 28 70 150.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02
Fundamentalist 27 61 125.93 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
Salvation Army 27 25 -7.41 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00
Independent Christian Church 25 71 184.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02
Total non Xn religions 5,853 7,740 32.24 3.34 3.72 0.39 3.41 3.93 0.52
Jewish 3,137 2,831 -9.75 1.79 1.36 -0.43 1.83 1.44 -0.39
Muslim/Islamic 527 1,104 109.49 0.30 0.53 0.23 0.31 0.56 0.25
Buddhist 401 1,082 169.83 0.23 0.52 0.29 0.23 0.55 0.32
Unitarian/Universalist 502 629 25.30 0.29 0.30 0.02 0.29 0.32 0.03
Hindu 227 766 237.44 0.13 0.37 0.24 0.13 0.39 0.26
Native American 47 103 119.15 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02
Scientologist 45 55 22.22 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00
Baha'I 28 84 200.00 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03
Taoist 23 40 73.91 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
New Age 20 68 240.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02
Eckankar 18 26 44.44 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
Rastafarian 14 11 -21.43 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
Sikh 13 57 338.46 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02
Wiccan 8 134 1,575.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.06
Deity 6 49 716.67 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02
Druid . 33 . . 0.02 . . 0.02 .
Santeria . 22 . . 0.01 . . 0.01 .
Pagan . 140 . . 0.07 . . 0.07 .
Spiritualist . 116 . . 0.06 . . 0.06 .
Ethical Culture . 4 . . 0.00 . . 0.00 .
Other unclassified non-Xn 837 386 -53.88 0.48 0.19 -0.29 0.49 0.20 -0.29
No religion specified, total 14,331 29,481 105.71 8.17 14.17 6.01 8.36 14.99 6.62
Atheist . 902 . . 0.43 . . 0.46 .
Agnostic 1,186 991 -16.44 0.68 0.48 -0.20 0.69 0.50 -0.19
Humanist 29 49 68.97 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
Secular . 53 . . 0.03 . . 0.03 .
No religion 13,116 27,486 109.56 7.48 13.22 5.74 7.65 13.97 6.32
Refused to reply to question 4,031 11,246 178.99 2.30 5.41 3.11 2.35 5.72 3.36

Demographics organization

Language is lumped in with ethnicity for the table (reasonable), but lumped in with religion for text (less reasonable). Any good reason for this? --JimWae 09:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The present text arrangement seems most helpful for structure (and reasonably reasonable), so infobox now split to follow that for consistency.—DCGeist 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Language & Ethnicity hang together much better. Separating them (as at present) leads to repetition & incompleteness. The only reason I can think of to combine Language & Religion into one heading is to prevent either from growing too large. I think putting religion & urbanization together could prevent topic inflation --JimWae 07:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC) -- OR Education & Religion ...--JimWae 07:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jim has a point and so does Dan. Ethnicity and language are really quite related (definitely more so than religion and language). From an esthetical point of view, however, the section looks much better w/ the language and religion paragraphs together in the same sub-section. From a perpective that considers the subject matter, it would make much more sense to combine the paragraph on ethnicity and language. This is quite the dilemma: On one hand it makes more sense to put language w/ ethnicity... On the Other hand, putting language togther w/ the paragraph on ethnicity will cause a structurally and esthetically awful section (...that is an uber-long section intro and a TOC w/ no mention of language where the sub-section titles of the demographics section are inconsistent). As for education and religion... it makes far more sense to have education and health together. Merging religion and education makes about as much sense as merging religion w/ language IMHO. Signaturebrendel 08:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious trends

Jim, in your response to your edit summ "still problems - Evangelical very small - Wiccan increased much more," I quote your observation above that "small changes in small groups produce disproportionate percentage changes - which are not of much relevance to the U.S. as a whole." The evangelical population is not "very small," nor, clearly, is its growth rate of 326%. As of 2001, 1.032 million Americans identify as evangelicals--surpassing a standard benchmark of significance--versus 134,000 Wiccans. ARIS itself lists evangelicals first among groups that "appear to be" the "top three 'gainers' in America's vast religious market place." P.S. Thanks much for all the effort you've been putting into this.—DCGeist 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • With Congregational & Evangelical we are dealing with about 0.5% of the poplulation each - a group too small to be a significant trend worth drawing to the attention of, for example, Australians. The Non-denominationals rose over 1000% are 1.2% of the population & they still do not merit mention - because there is no conclusion or trend to be drawn from such ambiguous responses on a survey. Such details belong more properly in the subarticle. What is missing here instead (though perhaps not a demographic matter) are: how the US was one of the 1st countries with separation of Church & State (it was a kind of experiment to see if it was possible), how this principle is still a source of acrimony & debate. --JimWae 06:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I feel there should be more coverage of religion in the history section. Not only the historical significance of the separation of church and state, but the Puritan migration, the First Great Awakening, and the Second Great Awakening as well, each essential to understanding American history and the present-day character and influence of Christianity in the country. The founding and growth of Mormonism is also, I think, worthy of mention.—DCGeist 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ARIS mentions Congregationalsists, Evangelicals & Non-denoms - not sclearly because it indicates a trend, but because survey summaries typically mention the superlatives they have found (It also seems poorly structured to twice mention some denoms that have doubled - and there is no mention of denoms that have actually shrunk numerically) The article will not suffer by dropping these burdening details --JimWae 06:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I disagree that the groups are "too small to be a significant trend." The 1 million line is a standard benchmark of significance in this context and in this article specifically--note our infobox that lists all languages spoken at home by a million or more Americans. Remember as well that 0.5% of the American population is a heck of a lot of people to readers from many other countries. The growing population of evangelicals also clearly does have political significance as BSig says. While, of course, not the sole source of religious conservatism and its effect on American politics, they are an important factor. As for those that have shrunk, the only two faiths over the 1 million line that have shrunk more than trivially are Judaism and Jehovah's Witnesses--each has shrunk less than 10%; simply not on a comparable scale to faiths that have grown by more than 100%.—DCGeist 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, just to give my two cents worth, the reason evangelicals need to mention here is not just because of their growth rate and population but because of the political "christian-right movement" they represent. Evengelicals have come under the socio-political spot-light and are therefore a demographic worth mentioning. The ongoing debates over the seperation of church and state as well as creationism vs. the truth (evolution ;-) [yay for free speech!] should mentioned here as well... then again this article is already long. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A group that goes from 0.14% of the population to 0.50% is not the source of this "christian-right moral majority". If the article is going to deal with that issue, this is a very weak start. Saying a group doubled misleads people into thinking something major is happening (like Muslims (or whatever) will soon be the majority...), Saying 20 or so groups doubled puts into perspective that not all can soon become the majority - and the degree of volatility these denominational categories have -- as does saying 12 groups shrunk numerically --JimWae 08:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they were the sole source of the "christian moral majority" movement but that this group is indicative of the movement (which is why this demographic has such a high profile in the press). Signaturebrendel 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No, giving the facts--properly contextualized by the other facts we provide in terms of trends and overall percentages--isn't likely to mislead. We might clearly (and, of course, efficiently) state that the population of self-described evangelicals remains rather small compared to other denominations. [UPDATE: Done.—DCGeist 09:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)] The relative size of the Muslim population is already clearly detailed. As for saying that 20 groups grew while 12 shrank, I don't think that comes close to making the point you suggest it would. We have no way to explain in this article what those groups are, whether they are large or small, et cetera. The data already presented makes quite clear that no non-Christian faith has much chance of ever approaching anything like a majority in the foreseeable future.—DCGeist 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bliss study

Tracking down the 2004 Fourth National Survey of Religion and Politics made me realize that we were referring to "evangelicals" in the article just as ARIS does--those self-describing as "evangelical" without specifying a denomination. Of course, the number of people who identify and are commonly referred to as "evangelicals" is much greater, as the Bliss report appropriately describes. Substituting this information (as well as citing Bliss itself) much more clearly reflects the significance of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. than did the very narrow trend figure. A closer read of ARIS shows that the growth in Congregationalist/UCC membership is probably largely due to shifts of people from one Protestant denomination to another--arguably not of great enough significance to glance on in this article. The growth of Islam and Buddhism, however, reflect larger trends in immigration and shifts from very different beliefs, and still appear worthy of mention.—DCGeist 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Great study! Extremely interesting! If I have the time I may start an entire article on Political ideology and religious affiliation in the US. (Afterall, I haven't written a full-length article since January) Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Much more relevant - but so far I see 26.3% as evangelical -- not 43%. So language, ethnicity & religion could "hang together" as a section. Immigration, specifically Asian, is also mentioned by ARIS as a reason for the increase in #s of non-religious --JimWae 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it's 43% - 26.3% seems right. I do think that ethnicity & language are a much better match than ethnicity & religion. The second largest lanugage in the US is directly related to the hispanic population (an ethnicity) - I don't think I actually need to point out the relationship between ehtnicity and language, do I. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a little complication in how to express the Bliss evangelical figure in our limited space. As you can see, they separate out white and nonwhite Christians. So yes, the most direct way to report the finding would be: "A different study identifies 26.3% of Americans as white evangelical Christians." That seems rather awkward to me. So I calculated the total percentage of white Christians per Bliss--26.3 (evangelical) + 16 (mainline Protestant) + 17.5 (Catholic) + 2.0 (other Christian [est.: 2.7 x .75 (white % of total pop.)]= 61.8% of the total population. Then 26.3/61.8=42.55% of all white Christians are evangelicals. I believe the expression in the article at present is sound statistically. Again-- the way it seems we'd have to express the plain 26.3% figure strikes me as ungainly. Do you favor it? Other options?—DCGeist 03:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All the other %s are of Americans. Few would care what % of white Xns are evangelical, the expected & more relevant figure is % of Americans - article is about USA, not about White Xns. THe 26.3% figure is easier to compare with other figures too --JimWae 04:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Done.—DCGeist 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it is a bit odd to merge race and religion into one demographic and mention white evangelicals as the largest religious demographic. But it's ok; until another source pops up to give us an overall % of evangelicals. The current format sufficies for now (especially at mid-night :-)) Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Found another good academic source that--clearly basing its analysis on the Bliss study--estimates the total number of U.S. evangelicals while offering a useful discussion of the isssues of definition. Entered info.—DCGeist 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent - Thx, Signaturebrendel 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the artile title

The title of this article should be changed to "United States of America" for several reasons, one of which being that "United States" is a very general term which can refer to many things. The subject of this article is the United States of America. For this article to have that title could be suggesting that one of the other "United States" are the subject of this article. Another reason to be considered is the fact that "United States of America" redirects here anyway. Why should "United States (disambiguation)" have to exist when what should be the propper title of this article already exists? It simply makes things more complicated that way. What I am suggesting is that "United States (disambiguation)" be renamed "United States", and that this article be renamed "United States of America". What do you guys think? --Psa- 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It won't happen. Read the FAQ and the "Title of the article" discussion above. CloudNine 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You've got some good points -all of which have been brought up before and are discussed in the archives, CloudNine has pointed out above. Keep in mind, that people are far more likely to look for "United States" and that we don't always use the official but rather the most common names of countries (just like the CIA factbook). For example, our article about Deutschland is titled "Germany," not "The Federal Republic of Germany." Regards, Signaturebrendel 08:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it should be changed; as I suggested above. Why not vote on it? Flag-Waving American Patriot 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Because we would have to change Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and Mexico to the United Mexican States to be consistent. Also, from the FAQ:
“ The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name. ”
United States is fine. At any rate, we don't vote on Wikipedia; consensus is our guiding policy with regards to debates. CloudNine 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By "vote", I mean get a sampling of what various users believe on the talk page as I have seen on other pages. Flag-Waving American Patriot 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually we do vote, since a vote is simply a formal expression of opinion. What we don't due is numeric "I have 51% support I win"-type voting, and we try to avoid using the term vote too much because it tends to be misleading to new editors. But I'm afraid that won't help you, Flag-waving, as it already has been voted on before. --tjstrf talk 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we rename the article "USA"? Well, for one, because you are wrong. "United States" is much more common than "USA." Try a Google search. Ahh...see? Now, try a Google Book Search (every one a valid source!). Lookee there.—DCGeist 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we aren't considering this article for 'correction'. It is correct already. --Golbez 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The title isn't. Way to fire off a snide, absolutely useless reply though. The next step is to enlist the aid of an admin. Repeatedly insisting that you're right because you're right means nothing, and isn't the least bit relevant. We can either be civil and deal with this as adults, or I can simply get it dealt with officially. Your call.
What, you think an admin will move it without consensus, because you asked? Or do you think an admin will deal with me because I disagree with you? --Golbez 22:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I think an admin will settle a dispute. I see many claiming consensus, IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to the FAQ, which clearly states "The most recent major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States". Someone is wrong, and since it's quite clear to me that you and others aren't willing to examine the issue further, an admin will deal with that.
The latter I believe. The previous IP is on his last warning after a legal threat. CloudNine 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You broke the law. Now you'll be forced to deal with the consequences. Perhaps instead of throwing around baseles accusations from the veil of anonymity, you'll seek dispute resolution like you suggested I do. Stop breaking the law and you won't have to worry about it.
And there's the legal threat. Since I'm an admin, I could block him, but I'll leave that to someone else. --Golbez 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked both IPs involved in the discussion for one week for multiple legal threats. Apparently I'll be hearing from his attorney in 48 hours. CloudNine 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Country or federal constitutional republic

(from archive)

I wasn't directly asking the question whether it's a country or not. I was just wondering why the article doesn't say it's a country in the first sentence like ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN WIKIPEDIA! Fair answer..(Icedevil14 01:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

The first sentence states the US to be a federal constitutional republic-which implies that it is a country. Signaturebrendel 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
the term federal constitutional republic is one which many people might not be familiar with. Perhaps the word "independent" could be inserted before the phrase. Or country could be used in the lead, with federal constitutional republic going somewhere later in the article. Black Harry 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but it is the most accurate description. I suppose you could use the term "country" though I think most people knwo the US is a country and can, therefore, figure out that federal constutional republic is a term describing a country. Let's see what other editors have to say. Signaturebrendel 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the article for every country I looked up does explicitly use the word country in the lead Black Harry 03:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point, though I would like to keep this up on the talk page for a couple of hours in case anybody else wants to weigh in on the issue. Personally I am still in favor of retaining the current wording. Signaturebrendel 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Plus i think the person who started this thread should get a lil credit for bringing this up Black Harry 05:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time it's been brought up. The change away from "country" to a more descriptive text was recently discussed. Check the most recent archives. The sentence as it read before was so overly simplistic that it seemed out of place, given the language used in the rest of the lead. Personally, I'm in favor of retaining the language that plainly implies that the country is just that, especially since we refer to the United States as a country in two other places in the WP:LEAD. MrZaiustalk 05:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I agree with MrZaius -if it isn't clear from the above- to keep the current wording. Signaturebrendel 05:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but my definition of lead is different from Wikipedia's; i consider the first paragraph to be the lead. However i think it would be better to put country in the first paragraph, then use federal constitutional republic in the third paragraph when the founding of the country is mentioned. And i was totally unaware of the first discussion on this Black Harry 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd object less to adding "The country is" to the second sentence than trying to work the word into the first one. On the archives, they're easy to miss on a page that's archived as frequently as this one. Could be worse, though. Check out the frequency with which they've been archiving Talk:StarCraft 2. MrZaiustalk 06:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
In light of the above discussion I've added country - simple enough and the standard for wikipedia articles on countries around the globe. See United Kingdom (done well here) and Germany for examples among others. --Northmeister 06:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Good Job Black Harry 06:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not particularly. Moved to second sentence for readability's sake. Saying it's a "country and.... republic" makes it sound as though those are two entirely separate concepts, rather than type and subtype. It'd be entirely different if there were a way to do it "well" as in the UK and Germany, but surely this suffices. MrZaiustalk 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the and was confusing. I see no problem with using country in second sentence. Waiting to see how long until someone complains about it though Black Harry 06:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll endorse that as well - makes for better structure in second sentence. --Northmeister 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence

I just dont get why the first sentence differs from most of the other country topics. I read the previous discussion in the archives, and mostly you get the answer that it just "sounds right" or it's in "good style". This doesn't make other topics more of the same. All topics about country should, pretty much have the same style in first paragraph (especially in the first sentence). Stating that it is a federal constitutional republic in the first sentence doesn't seem right at all. The USA is a country. There is nothing wrong with putting itself as a country in the first sentence. There is no reason for it not to sound bad or blatant, as all other topics start off the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs)

It's good style because it's not nearly so overly simplistic as saying "X is a country" and, more importantly, is necessary to properly match the rest of the sentence: "comprising fifty states, one federal district, and fourteen territories." The matter has been thoroughly discussed, and the word "country" remains in the second sentence, and, again, plainly implied by "republic." Note that there are a number of standing issues on the Featured Article nomination page that still need to be dealt with. If you're interested in helping, it would arguably be more useful to try to remedy one or more of the issues raised there rather than dredging up this debate over the order of four words again. MrZaiustalk 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This does not give reasons to why all other Country topics in Wikipedia (Argentina, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc) have no structure of the same style. I'm mainly focused on arguing why this topic (of the first sentence) differs from all other topics. If it's just because of style, why does all other country topics not use the same style. Why does other topics (for ex. Canada) gets revereted back to the present page when it uses the same "good style"? (Icedevil14 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
What makes you think there's an official standard first sentence that each country article has to abide by? The first sentence of United States is more descriptive than country. At any rate, there's plenty of objections at FAC as I type this; it would be more worthwhile fixing those than arguing over what you consider to be a standard first sentence. CloudNine 14:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If there is no official standard first sentence that each country article has to abide by, then why does the article of other countries, for example, Canada, which I tried editing using the same "good style" get reverted back to the original page? I'm trying to make this topic (Canada) more description than "X is a country...". (Icedevil14 15:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
Ask at Talk:Canada. It's up to those editors. CloudNine 15:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Political status is too complicated to be dealt with in one sentence in a paragraph that otherwise deals with geography—Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs)
(Not sure what that has to do with the previous point) "too complicated" sounds vague. The first sentence should describe what the US is, regardless of what the paragraph deals with. The US is a country, but is more specifically a federal constitutional republic. CloudNine 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"is a country of federal consitutional republic comprising..." How about that? Any way you slice it, there has to be country in the first sentence!
(the sentence you proposed doesn't make sense in terms of grammar) Why? Could you point me towards a rule that says that? CloudNine 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to but I am debating as to whether it is more apropriate as it has more information and includes the term country, which is the what the USA is. When you go ask someone what the USA is, they dont say federal constitutional republic. Some might confused to what this, as it is political oritentated, which is discussed in the third paragraph.
An encyclopedia is not what happens "when you go ask someone". "Federal constitutional republic" is an accurate, more descriptive term; we introduce the political boundaries (states) in the latter part of the sentence. We assume people know what a republic is (and if not, it's just a link away anyway). The third paragraph is a summary of the United States' history, not of its politics CloudNine 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Icedevil14: A number of other editors disagree with you, and believe using the word "country" results in a more poorly written article. Note that there is no fixed MoS for country articles – the ultimate goal is to have a number of well written articles, not ~193 identical articles with only minor tweaks to demographics & geography sections, infoboxes, et al. In terms of flow, describing it as a republic works quite well, giving us a way to go from the number of states and territories to a more general description of its geography. They are plainly related topics. MrZaiustalk 15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying all country topics should be identical. But when I do edit a country's topic, with the same good style (on the first sentence), it gets reverted back. That's what I dont understand.
It's a per-article decision. I'm not sure why you're asking this on the United States talk page. Take it up with the specific editors. CloudNine 15:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is a per-article decision. The word country appears in the second sentence and the description in the first sentence implies that the US is a country. It becomes more than clear to any "casual" reader that the US is a country during the first two lines of text. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a country wikiproject, which outlines a general framework for all country articles, including this one (which seems to diverge from the project in a number of ways), and contents (including the introduction). Personally, I'm rather perplexed by this edit/revert (scant minutes after it was made) to the introductory paragraph, which (per the Manual of Style) was an attempt to link relevant terms in the introduction. The rationale provided was 'overlinkage of highly familiar terms per FAC discussion' -- if so, can said editor can point me to where these terms are linked in the article? Quizimodo 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The observation was made in FAC ([9], [10]) that far too many highly familiar terms--none of which need be linked anywhere in the article--were Wikilinked. I agree--I continue to believe, like Tony1, that not a single one of the Wikilinks I reverted in the edit you cite (for North America, Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Canada, Mexico, and Caribbean) comes close to qualifying as a "high-quality" link. I refer you to the Manual of Style's relevant negative "nutshell": "Avoid obvious, redundant, and useless links." All six of the links I reverted define obvious. If they didn't, obvious would obviously have no meaning.—DCGeist 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
DCGeist: observations from one or two editors are just that, and this article appears to have failed again to reach FAC status. The FAC comments you've provided dealt with over-linkage, not the complete removal of links to a specific topic in an article ... as is now the case. You maintain that they are 'useless' links; if so, why are those terms in the introduction? The 2nd sentence describes the US as being next to these bodies, and has significant frontiers with each of them (particularly with Canada), yet oddly doesn't link to them? You indicate they are not 'high-quality' links, yet Canada (a featured article) and Mexico are major economic partners and the US shares a colonial past with the former (not to mention many other things). What is obvious is that little thought has been given to the audience -- I simply maintain that the initial instance of these terms/topics be linked, per the MOS. 'Canada' is not linked to once in this article. It is now far more difficult for a visitor to find information on these topics (by not being able to merely click on them), and perhaps that is symptomatic as to why this article isn't a featured one. Quizimodo 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, I'm not sure whether to take you seriously or not. You make bizarre claims--e.g., "It is now far more difficult for a visitor to find information on"...Canada?! As if the search box magically disappeared?! If anyone comes to the United States article and is suddenly inspired to read about Canada, it's hardly a problem. We don't link the word "country," either...but, OMG, the U.S. is a country! You also indulge in the most cliché sort of Wikislam: "What is obvious is that little thought has been given to the audience." No--actually we've thought about making life far more difficult for them! Please, mate, exercise a little thought yourself next time.
On the other hand, you have pointed out an excellent, indisputably high-quality link that I had no idea existed: Canada–United States border. And I see now there is also United States–Mexico border. Despite the fact that these are specifically relevant to an article on the U.S. and may be of interest to our audience, who barely bear thinking about, they're going in! Thank you.—DCGeist 16:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Quizimodo: The linked wikiproject does dictate specific language in the first sentence. While interesting, it doesn't change anything concerning the trivial matter of whether to water down the first sentence by moving "country" up a handful of words. May we consider that matter closed? MrZaiustalk 05:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence sounds fine to me: I agree that little would be served by changing it, and I merely pointed out the project since nobody else did. Quizimodo 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To future archivists

Please add the templates {{talkarchive}} and {{atn}} to the top of each archive page, as per this. These are standard practices for archiving talk pages. I've gone through and made sure that all 27 archives are now like this for ease of navigation and uniformity. --BrokenSphere 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've been archiving this talk pages for several months now and didn't know there were standard archiving templates. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Income per household member

I'm not convinced the source being used for this figure ([11]) is providing a median, rather than a mean, for several reasons.

  • I would expect the median to be substantially different from the mean, but the difference is less than 2%.
  • The source does not state that it is a median--when unstated, the general assumption is that an average is a mean.
  • The way to calculate a mean income for a total population is straightforward--take total aggregate income and divide by total population. The only way I see to calculate a median income for a total population of household members is to take the median income per household ($46,326) and divide by the average number of people per household--approx. 2.6 (see [12])--giving $17,818. (Note that when we take the mean household income provided by the source--$63,344--and divide by 2.6, we get $24,363, much closer to a good hit.) I don't see how the figure of $24,672 can be a median.

—DCGeist 07:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is another way... you can cacluate the median income per houshold member for each household. When households are asked for the median income they are also commonly asked for the how many persons reside in that households (that's how mean household sizes are calculated) - it is very easy then to divide the gross annual income of a given household by the number of members - doing so for all households in the survey should yield the data set needed to calucalte the median. Question is does the US Census Bureau actually do so? Well, they should and I apperantely I assumed that the source above gave a median... I will check w/ Census Bureau to find out whether it's mean or median. PS. I too, would expect the median to be considerably lower... then again, household size often off-sets income gains made by households and dividing the millions of impoverished through the income of the wealthy may yield a non-inflated mean? Anyways, I'll check to see - good catch. Signaturebrendel 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording: Illegal Immigrants vs. Unauthorized Migrants

In the demographics section, I changed unauthorized migrants to illegal immigrants. It was shortly changed back and labeled as "conservative POV". First off, how is that a conservative point of view? They are illegal, they have broken the law to get into this country. Second, the link "unauthorized migrants" goes to an article titled "illegal immigration to the United States", not "unauthorized migration to the United States". Thirdly, calling them unauthorized migrants is just a PC tactic to take the sting out of the fact that there are 20 million illegals living in my country. Yes, I am a right-wing conservative, but that doesn't change the fact that those 20 million people are illegal immigrants. Flag-Waving American Patriot 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above statement. And for the record, a google search for "unauthorized migrants" turns up 31,000 results (1), whereas a search for "illegal immigrants" turns up 3.18 million results (2). Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 00:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I'm changing it back to illegal immigrants. I would rather not start an edit war over this. Flag-Waving American Patriot 00:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the MoS, you'll see that Google hits are not adequate to support an argument here. What matters, as has been previously stated no less than three times if you check the archives, is that the Census numbers cited specifically mention undocumented migrants, not illegal immigrants. It's possible that they define the terms differently and would reach different conclusions if they were measuring the one and not the other. "Illegal immigrants", for instance, would be inclusive of aliens attempting to permanently reside in the country, while migrants seems to imply just the opposite. Restoring original language, not because of some over bias as demonstrated above in this discussion, but to match the high quality, verifiable, government source. MrZaiustalk 01:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I completely agree with the first post here as well. The use of this term "undocumented migrant" (which I have almost never seen used anywhere else) seems to me to be overly euphemistic and completely POV. I searched the source page that section cites, and have yet to see where it uses this phrase (perhaps you would care to provide a direct link). The argument you put forward for why they supposedly use it is also nonsensical, as it seems you are saying that the term migrant implies that all 20+ million illegal immigrants in my country are just itching at the chance to leave (don't I wish). -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Source? Right here. Signaturebrendel 05:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this says the offical legislative and Border Patrol term for them are "illegal aliens"; however this (and the external link) say we should use "illegal immigrant". So, in light of this, we should refer to them as one of the two, but not "unauthorized migrants". I would suggest using illegal immigrants, per the arguements presented here. Alcemáe T • C 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the vocabluary the US Census Bureau uses:
  • unauthorized migrant
  • undocumented migrant
  • unauthorized migration
The US Census Bureau -the government agency with the highest authority on matters pertaining to "Demographics"- does not use the term "illegal." The demographics section uses US Census Bureau data and thereby needs to use the same vocabulary as the US Census Bureau. Signaturebrendel 05:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to weigh in on this, even though I'm on a mini-vaction at the moment. First, the term "Illegal Alien" is the proper government term per the agency responsible for the enforcement of our immigration laws which also use this term. Second, such 'migrants' are 'Illegal' because they have violated the laws of a democratically elected legislature (Congress) and thus by indirectly (as is the intention in respresentative democracy) the People of the United States of America. Anyone who has violated a law is thereby doing something 'Illegal'. Third, the term 'Alien' refers to a non-citizen of the United States. The term immigrant refers to one who has moved from his homeland to his new homeland with the INTENTION of becoming a citizen of his new homeland - like all the Ellis Island folks did historically. The correct legal term (regardless of the Commerce departments Census Bureau) is "Illegal Alien" the P.C. term is "Illegal Immigrant" and the politically driven term which wishes to skirt the intentions of the majority of Americans by all recent polls and by LAW made by CONGRESS and enforced by the BORDER PATROL through I.C.E. is "migrant" this or that or "undocumented" this or that - so I side with with the correct term "Illegal Immigrant" to be sensitive to the "Aliens" among us who decided it was best to break the law of the People of a Free society. Now back to that vacation thing! --Northmeister 12:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
First off, the relevant coverage in the article was simply wrong, with (a) an estimated range of unauthorized migrants much higher than that given by any authoritative source I've been able to find, (b) the false claim that they are wholly excluded by the census, and (c) pseudo-cites going to the current Census Bureau portal with the current POP clock (irrelevant to the article text at that point) and zero information on unauthorized migrants. These errors have been corrected. As for the wording in question, since the topic is that of U.S. demographics, the correct term is one of the U.S. Census Bureau's terms—all of which, despite claims to the contrary, are perfectly standard terms. "Undocumented migrant," in particular, appears in many reference books. As the term most often used by the Census Bureau for the people in question is "unauthorized migrant"--also the term used by the nonpartisan research center that produced what appears to be the most careful estimate of the relevant population--that is the the most applicable and neutral term for our article. There appear to be those who, for political reasons, are unhappy that the U.S. Census Bureau uses this term, but that's an issue best taken with up with the U.S. Department of Commerce or the democratically elected officials who appoint and oversee its officers.—DCGeist 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on the Census report noted earlier, I'd agree that "unauthorized migrant" is probably the right term to use. I'd just note that, 1) the phrase I changed was "undocumented migrant," which isn't an official designation, and is a ridiculous circumlocution, and 2) edit summaries to the contrary, the footnote in existence at the time did not point to that or any other term. It looks fine now. DCB4W 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You may be of the opinion that "undocumented migrant" is a "ridiculous circumlocution," but the Census Bureau does not share your opinion. You are wrong--it is an "official designation," just a less common one than "unauthorized migrant." Please see, for example, the following official documents: [13] and [14].—DCGeist 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected. it's an official ridiculous circumlocution.DCB4W 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note of explanation: I recall copying and pasting the phrase directly out of the source I was working with at that time. It's possible/likely that either the page changed between then and now or that I neglected to update the source after updating the numbers. Either way, I apologize for not using a harder source ala Brendel's to begin with. MrZaiustalk 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't think it matters what the Census Bureau calls them. What should matter is what a majority of the public refer to them as! When is the last time you heard someonenot from the government talking about unauthorized migrants? Whenever people are discussing this issue, they use the term illegal immigrants. The media uses the term illegal immigrants. Most politicians use the term "illegal", unless they are attempting to cater to the illegal immigrant "special interest" groups or the ACLU! The American people use illegal immigrant; that is the vernacular. Wikipedia should be a reflection of the language of the time and it should use the terms used by its editors. I use illegal immigrant. Grandpafootsoldier uses illegal immigrant. Black Harry uses illegal immigrant. I don't know about you, but I have a feeling that you don't ofted use the term unauthorized mmigrant outside of this article. Just because the Census Bureau uses unauthorized migrant does not mean that the rest of the American people have to. If the Census Bureau so strongly wants their term used, then they can have someone from their department edit this article the way they want. Because that's what Wikipedia is about. Letting the common man phrase things his way. So that we don't get bogged down with overextrapolated terms. And I believe that the common man almost always uses the term illegal immigrant. Flag-Waving American Patriot 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I often use the term "migrant workers" to refer to the people in question. I also often use the term "people" to refer to the people in question. Wacky, I know. Inspired by you, however, I may start employing the phrase "the common man who crossed the Rio Grande to work the gringos' land."—DCGeist 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it matters what the Census Bureau calls them. What should matter is what a majority of the public refer to them as - No! That is not how Wikipedia is written - we use the most authoritative sources possible. We are not here to spread rumors and fashions; this is not mob-rule - we are striving to be a reputable academic reference! Not a Myspace blog! People say whatevey it is they want to say, but we are trying to write an encycolpedia! We don't publish the "word on the street" but the concepts used by our sources. Here our source is the US Census Bureau. The US Census Bureau does not use the term "illegal immigrant;" thus this article should not use the term either. BTW: I like Dan's new term ;-) Signaturebrendel 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
All that matters in this case is matching whichever source provides the most authoritative number of migrants in the demographics section. To push your special interests by suggesting that we were motivated by anything other than when making the initial edit is patently absurd. Had the Census used the phrase "illegal immigrants," it would have gone in. MrZaiustalk 08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe that this is even being argued. Does this mean that all garbage men should be called garbage persons, oh I mean sanitation transportation specialists; or the school janitor–a sanitation engineer; or a gas-station attendant–an end user petroleum-transfer technician; or that Solanum tuberosum and Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed oil thermo processing engineer should be used instead of the fry guy. No matter what PC version that your source wants to call them, in the end they are what they are and everyone knows them as Illegal Immigrants. I'm MJCdetroit and I approved this message! 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Attack of the strawmen. Anyway, we're an encyclopedia; not what most people say. Whatever term the source uses, we use. How do we know they count migrant workers and illegal immigrants as one and the same? CloudNine 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, "unauthorized migrant" is not overly PC - if it was up to social progressives such as myself we'd be saying "People whose right to reside in the United States has been denied" - or perhaps "poor sons-of-bitches that need our help." (funny, yes?) Unauhtorized migrant is simply term our source, the US Census Bureau, uses. We may agree or disagree with it - but that is really quite irrelevant. We must use the term our source uses. Consider that unauthorized migrants are a demographic composed of different sub-demographics; thus, us changing the terminology used by the US Census Bureau would result in a gross misrepresentation of the data. Signaturebrendel 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's how-- Census Home Question & Answer Center. Also, the source, the Pew Hispanic Center[4], even has to have a separate text box to explain what "Unauthorized migrants" are.—MJCdetroit 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, MJ, and if you could spare fifteen seconds out of your busy day to read that box, you'd see that the group customarily referred to as "illegal immigrants" constitutes just one of three different groups of people counted as "unauthorized migrants." Thanks for playing.—DCGeist 17:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Which is why we need to stick with the term used by our source! Signaturebrendel 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The term Illegal Immigrant is the most informative.

1) Sign your posts 2) the term "unauthorized is used by our source and will, therefore, be used in the text. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what this source says, "unauthorized migrant" is ludicrous. It is like calling a bank robber an "unauthorized withdrawer." It should be illegal immigrant, and I am certain a source could be found to use the term. A.S. Williams 17:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Reread WP:NPOV and the statement above that the numbers include illegal immigrants and two other subgroups of unauthorized migrants. It is not ludicrous, it is "correct". Can we kill this inane thread with a FAQ entry? Noone has raised a single valid point against using the Census terminology. MrZaiustalk 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The Census Bureau uses precise terms that it defines. If they produce a statistic about "unauthorized migrants" then we shouldn't change that term to the term we think they should have used. However when we're talking about illegal immigration in general terms, then writing the most commonly-used term makes sense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Liberal/conservative

I put recent polling data in the Government/politics section a few days ago. I think it makes more sense there--as does the discussion of geographical political tendencies. Not that they aren't part of culture, but we do recognize (as is standard) general political as a distinct topic.—DCGeist 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

mmm... wise decision. Why didn't I think of that when I added that info! (darn it! :D) But please leave the figures for academia in the article, as its political ideology differs from that of the general public to a significant degree. Acadmia is hugely important to creating public policy - it is where horizon of society is widened. Thus, when acadmia's political orientation differs from that of the overall public by such a large degree, both figures need to be mentioned. Othewise readers will falsely assume that American acadmia is ca. 41% conservative as well. Signaturebrendel 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Just saw the recent c/e of the respective section - looks great! Good job. Signaturebrendel 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Otheruses

I really don't see why America (disambiguation) is lised at the top of the page because America doesn't even redirect to this article; it's its own disambiguation page. Anthony Rupert 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Article growth rate

Over the last twenty four hours, no less than 9K was added to the article, and only 3k removed. A good number of the edits were positive growth, including the citation of previously unverifiable paragraphs. However, do try to stay as close as you can to a 1:1 addition:deletion ratio, to at least maintain the current size. A lot of the main articles linked to from here could use expansion and attention as well, if you feel the need to add something to an already lengthy topic. That said, I think we're still doing reasonably okay. Will try to recalculate the prose length this morning. MrZaiustalk 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Though I have to say somethings such as gender roles and the changing face of the American family were completely missing from the article and it was quite difficult to add a mention of these subjects w/o inflating the article. As far as I know, however, these edits only contributed about 2k in length. I think a lot of the growth comes from additional cites - afterall refs constitute quite a large share of this article's length. Anyways, I agree the remove/add ration stay below 1:1. I look forward to seeing the latest length calculations. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added essential, fundamental information to "Independence and expansion" as efficiently as possible. If necessary, the last two sentences of the first graf--on Crown loyalists and split Native American sympathies--which have been there in some form for a while can be cut, but I think they help to complete (summarily, of course) the picture of the revolutionary period.—DCGeist 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - Definitely ought to stay, since that's pretty much all the coverage we have of Canada and makes up a large portion of the Native American coverage. Hard to work that in without having editors throwing NPOV flags one way or the other - Working it into history seems to have worked well. Think we're running out of things to cut, although I do look forward to getting a chance to read through the new culture section. Might be a sentence or three uncovered in the main that can be moved, but I haven't really looked yet. MrZaiustalk 05:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)