Talk:United States/Introduction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a topical archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the topic:

"Introductory paragraphs".

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there.

1 Intro paragraph - current version 10:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
2 Missing the point a bit
3 Low unemployment
4 Formation of the country
5 "Republic" vs. "Democracy" dispute
- 5.1 'Republican' per US constitution
6 U.S. as sole superpower
7 Opening section
8 Controversial issues in the intro paragraph
9 Incorrect first statement
10 Intro
- 10.1 Oldest constitutional republic?

[edit] Intro paragraph - current version 10:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it. The former colonies proceeded to form one of the first constitutional republics in the world. Since then, the country has expanded its borders and obtained greater wealth and influence in global affairs. However, the path to development did not come without a price as American history is tainted with cruelties such as slavery, and the forced migration of millions of Native Americans out of their homelands and onto reservations.

In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands today as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower. The influence of the United States is, like any other nation, nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints.

[edit] Missing the point a bit

Since the late 20th century it has eclipsed all other nations in terms of relative economic, political, and military power as well as cultural influence.

I think that's missing the point a bit. Maybe since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been the sole hyperpower, but it's not like this is 100% new status. The US has been a superpower for the entire 20th century, I don't think any other country could really be considered a superpower throughout the century (the Soviet Union was one from end of WWII through the 80s, perhaps). Finding a succinct way to say that might be better than picking an exact point at which the US became a hyperpower (which seems to be the way that sentence has headed). — Daniel Quinlan 21:28, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Besides, eclipsed is not the appropriate word - it would imply that only the US is visible now, which is false. Furthermore, the US certainly hasn't overcome all other nations as a collective, but rather as individuals. David.Monniaux 10:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The US didn't become a super-power until at least the end of WW2, maybe in the years immediately following WW2. Exactly when, who can say for sure on such a description. In 1900-45, the US was a power, certainly, but not significantly greater than any other power. Remember, Britain and France at the time still had a substantial empire, and Germany and Russia were not exactly weak in comparison. aussietiger 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low unemployment

Should we still describe the US as having "low unemployment"? Tuf-Kat 02:24, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

This is a description of the characteristics of the US economy over the long term and not a description of current statistics I think. Even so, the average unemployment rate for the US from 1960-1995 was around 6% and we are not that far off of that number right now coming out of a cyclical downturn. I would say its a little early to be saying that this characteristic of the US economy has changed drastically enough to re-characterize our overall description of the US economy.ark30inf 02:41, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

6% is low in terms of both US history and the world at large (it was 14.6% as late as 1940, 8.5% in 1975, 9.7% in 1982, and the recent low point was only 4.0% in 2000 during the boom, the all time low was 1.2% in 1944 — it was last above 6% (6.1%) in 1994, only 9 years ago). 6% is below the historical average and only seems high relative to the 2000 low point (or if you've been listening to politicians too much lately) . Daniel Quinlan 03:11, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Formation of the country

Maveric149 wrote no, the nation was formed when the declaration; just like every other one

i think you misunderstood me. i absolutely agree with you that the colonies became independent at the moment they signed the declaration in 1776. but the entitity that currently exists at the "united states of america" didn't exist until the constitution was signed in 1789. between 1776 and 1789, the colonies existed in several configurations, but not under the one now known as the "united states of america"

I'm well aware that the Constitution was not ratified until 1789, but you are confusing that with the formation of the nation - whatever that name or configuation. --mav

but then you would have the article read "the united states...is a federal republic...created in 1776", when the federal republic we now know wasn't created until 1789...

Is a federal republic. Was created. --mav

"It was established upon the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 as a union between 13 colonies which had broke away from their mother nation, the Britain, in 1776."

No. This is not the widely held conception. The DOI does state "united States of America" but with the u in lower case. It is true that the republic was not created until 1789 (or some may argue the civil war or even never), but the US as a political entity was. It was just a confederation. --Jiang 23:30, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The DOI also uses the language "United Colonies"...

The DOI is stating that these united colonies are now free and independent states, implying that they are no longer colonies. It wouldn't make sense for them to remain as "colonies", would it? --Jiang 00:33, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It was established as a federal republic .... Better? --mav

Its status as a republic was not apparent until the South lost the Civil War. (Some states' rights supporters continue to dispute this.) If secession and nullification were legal, it would be considered a confederation. Let's just leave that out and state that it was established in 1776. --Jiang 23:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If the "United States of America" existed prior to 1789, who was the President? Who was the Chief Justice? Who was the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate? The problem comes when you try to specify a single date for the "creation" of the USA, when it happened it fits and starts. 7/4/1776 and 3/5/1789 were both key dates for different reasons. Compare with how presented at [1]. Saying it was founded in 1776 is too simplistic and technically incorrect.

That's what I wanted to begin with! :) Please, go ahead. --mav

No! No, no, no! It is incorrect to say that!

Also of interest is how Encarta handles it, a series of historical events, but no single date of founding...

Take a look at the Articles of Confederation: [2]

ARTICLE I The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

--Jiang 00:33, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh yes, I completely agree with that. But that "United States of America" is not the current "United States of America". That confederation had a different structure, and ceased to exist when the new structure came into existence, despite claiming to be perpetual.

Reddi, it was never certain whether nullification or secession would be legal. The Consitution is a compact among sovereign states - the states gave the federal government power, insead of the other way around. As a result, it was not certain whether states would be able to pull out of this contract. (This is how the South seceded!) It was also believed by some that laws could be nullified. Virginia and Kentucky resolutions? So no, it is/was not necessarily a republic. --Jiang 06:12, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

Remember confederation and federation are not the same. A federation is a single unit made up of sub-units that have come together to form it, it being greater than the sum of the parts. A confederation is in effect a club of independent units who share powers together and in a limited way act in unison. The original confederate United States of America was replaced by the federal United States of America; same name, different meaning. The difference can be highlighted in the different emphasis in the words. The confederation was in effect the United States of America (ie, the states were the basic units, the unity a case of some shared areas of interest) while the federation was in effect the United States of America, ie, emphasis on the central united unit with the states as sub-units. It is the same in the European Union (not the European Community, which is a different entity and not merely the old name for the EU as most people think), which is in effect a confederation of independent states like the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, etc etc. What are called Euro-federalists want the European Union to become the singular dominant unit with the UK, France et al as sub-units. The USA conferation failed because it was too ramshakle and lacked a unity. The federation created a central entity, the USA, with the states as sub-units rather than co-equal independent members of a club, the case in 1776. Remember also, 1776 marked UDI (a Unilateral Declaration of Independence), a UDI that unlike Rhodesia in the 1960s or the Irish Republic (1919-1922) worked and produced a real state. FearÉIREANN 06:40, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To put it more simply:

USA started with United States Declaration of Independence in 1776
then Articles of Confederation (a Confederation) in 1777
then United States Constitution (a Federal Republic) in 1789

All three were the same country with the same name, but the form of government changed. Daniel Quinlan 07:38, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

The entire debate about whether states can leave the union legally is silly. It is 100% illegal. At least not without an act of congress, I suppose... Article I, Section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Finally, the 10th amendment is pretty good proof that the Federal government is the primary power, not the states.

Daniel Quinlan 07:38, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

What you list is just what states are forbidden to do when they are part of the Union. there is nothing there stating that they may not leave. Once they leave, they may do all that.

The 10th Amendment reserves all rights not explicitly forbidden or delegated to the national government to the states. So? --Jiang 08:13, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Republic" vs. "Democracy" dispute

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 'Republican' per US constitution

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

US Constitution, Artivls FOUR section 4:

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

[edit] U.S. as sole superpower

OK, there seems to be an edit war brewing over the following sentence...

"The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints."

Since I wrote the sentence, let me tell you what I meant by it and why I put it there. Let's discuss it here and then build a consensus over whether it belongs in the article or not.

I read in this Talk page a heated debate about whether or not we should talk about the U.S. being the sole superpower or not. Actually, the debate was also about the sentence "In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs."

The original text before I modified it characterized the U.S. as "the" dominant global influence, etc. I weakened "the" to be "a" which I think is more accurate and less arrogant to boot.

I also added the sentence "The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints."

The intent was to qualify the previous statement that "Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it stands today as the world's sole superpower." What I was really trying to say was that even the world's sole superpower can't do whatever it wants to and why it can't.

Of course, the sentence is true of every other country but only the U.S. is the world's sole hyperpower and therefore the sentence I wrote has more meaning when written about the U.S. than if it was written about another country.

What I'm really trying to say is that the U.S. tries to "live by the rules". Yeah, yeah, I know we might argue that the doctrine of pre-emption breaks new ground by shedding the old rules and creating a new one. But leave that go for the moment and consider that the U.S. at least makes a semblance of living by the rules.

Richard 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the most recent instance of the "qualifier" sentence. (I've not really been much involved in this superpower argument since last year, when I made a point about it once on the talk page. I pasted the point into a later version of this talk page earlier this year. I'm just trying to clarify that I didn't view my recent edit to the article's opening as a strike in a war; so no personal offense intended, Richard.) Anyway, this is just my own idea here: but it seems that Richard's post above reveals a somewhat POV motivation behind including the sentence. It almost seems (I say almost and seems, mind you) to say he wants the paragraph to have a flavor of "The U.S. is the superpower in the world—but don't worry, for it tries to be a benevolent one."

I also advocate replacement of Richard's "a" with "the". Why?

1. It is "the". Facts are facts, regardless of the opinions that one may have about the facts. The mere idea that someone might have an opinion about a fact doesn't make the fact itself POV. Plus, even Richard has just written "the world's sole hyperpower".

2. If "a" is retained, then "In the decades after the Second World War, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs" becomes rather faulty—because the U.S. was already dominating over many other countries in those areas even before World War II. The point here is when it moved from dominating some or many countries to dominating all but the very top few. And, of course, when you add up all the things, you find that it dominates all other countries. It may be losing ground these days, and obviously has many failings; but superlative is superlative, not merely comparitive. If Sam has $1, Pat has $2, and Jo has $3, "Jo has the most money" is a more precise and more useful statement than "Jo has more money".

Richard's post (especially the "world's sole" sentence) also reïterates the point I made last year (about being the only one at present), which appears in item 11 (POV) of the current version of this talk page.

As always, no ill will towards anyone.

President Lethe 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the "joys" of Wikipedia is that your text gets edited mercilessly to the point that you may or may not remember what you actually wrote initially.

I think my original text tried to draw a distinction between two periods (1) the period between the end of WWII and the fall of the Soviet Union and (2) the period after the fall of the Soviet Union. That distinction has since been edited away.

Regardless of what my original text said, here is what I believe...

After WWII, the U.S. became one of two dominant military superpowers, THE dominant economic, scientific and technological power and A dominant cultural power (alongside Europe which was perhaps not quite as dominant).

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. became THE dominant military hyperpower, A dominant econmic, scientific and technological (alongside Europe and Asia) power and A dominant cultural power (alongside Europe, Asia) and Islam).

I will be comfortable with any wording that gets that idea across. I think a lot of our problems is that we are trying to load too much into one sentence and therefore there is no choice of "THE" or "A" which will work as long as there is only one sentence or even one paragraph. 60 years is a long time and a lot has happened in the last 60 years including the formation of the EU as an economic power, the rise of Japan and China as economic powers and the rise of Japan as a cultural influence.

If we can agree on the basic truth of the above assertions, maybe we can work on composing text that communicates that idea.

Richard 01:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment quickly and didn't read President Lethe's comment fully when I wrote it.

I want to clarify that my intent in writing the sentence "The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints." wasn't intended to say "The U.S. is the superpower in the world—but don't worry, for it tries to be a benevolent one."

What I really meant was (1) Being the only hyperpower doesn't give you the ability to do anything you want because there are limits to your power (cf. Iraq) and (2) the U.S. recognizes that acting arbitrarily can be damaging to international relations and international trade and therefore inimical to its own self-interest and (3) the U.S. actually believes that democracy and the rule of law are good things.

The sentence in question was written to try and address some of the complaints characterizing the arrogance of characterizing the U.S. as the "SOLE" hyperpower (which it is) and "THE dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs." which I thought was an overreach considering the more accurate assessment in my comment immediately above.

I'm not stuck on my particular wording. You guys now know what I believe to be the truth about the U.S. If you disagree, let's talk about where you disagree. If you agree, let's talk about what the best wording is to get these ideas across in the intro paragraph and elsewhere in the article.

--Richard 09:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Richard.

The first post that you made in response to mine struck me as pretty sensible.

(An additional response that I wanted to make to your original post (the one you wrote before I'd posted anything in this section) was just about the seeming desire to have it both ways. It seemed that, on the one hand, you wanted to say the U.S. was only a superpower—and, on the other hand, you wanted to say that it was unique as a superpower and so deserved a special sentence (a sentence that other countries don't get) about its being limited. My response to that idea would have been "O.K. To what other superpowers' introductory paragraphs shall we add a statement to the effect of 'Although this country's powers are super, they are not omnipotent and absolute'?" To continue with that viewpoint: shall we then add a statement to the article about China that its growing economic powers are limited in some ways? Shall we say the same about Japan? Shall we say "Islam is a growing force in the world—but its influence is limited by international laws, the laws of nature, &c."? (And clearly law is not an absolute check on any entity's power.) If we're not going to say it about all these other supposed superpowers, then saying it about the U.S. superpower looks biased. And, if we're going to say it about only the U.S., then it lends support to the idea that the U.S. is the only one. ... I'm making this point here more just to go ahead and express what was in my head before I had read your two replies; it's not a response to anything specific that you've written in your two replies. Mostly, it's some thoughts for other readers of this page to consider too.)

Actually, the China article does qualify statements on China's growing economic powers, such as potential obstacles in sustaining its growth rates and problems generated from its growing economic power. Even in the introduction. It's part of being NPOV. What Richard says is very sensible and benign. But you are also right, the qualification doesn't belong in the introduction, maybe further down the article. 128.135.36.154 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, your general idea that there are different measures of power (economic, military, cultural, &c., &c.) is a good point; but I'm not sure it fits in the introduction to the article. I don't see why the article doesn't have an entire section, farther down, about the U.S. as a/the superpower—or why there can't be a whole other Wikipedia article about that topic.

You wrote that your sentence isn't meant to say "The U.S. is the superpower in the world—but don't worry, for it tries to be a benevolent one." Then you wrote that "(1) Being the only hyperpower doesn't give you the ability to do anything you want because there are limits to your power (cf. Iraq) and (2) the U.S. recognizes that acting arbitrarily can be damaging to international relations and international trade and therefore inimical to its own self-interest and (3) the U.S. actually believes that democracy and the rule of law are good things." I think this explicit explanation of what you meant to say again reveals a POV motivation for including your sentence. First of all, any sensible reader knows that hyperpower or superpower status doesn't give a country unlimited control of the universe or even the planet; and any reader who isn't sure can click on the link to read the "Superpower" article. (I'm not entirely sure what distinction you might be trying to draw between hyperpower and superpower; the two prefixes are just the Greek and Latin versions of the same thing.) And, second, your statement about what "the U.S." "recognizes" and "believes" not only might have POV motivation, but is certainly POV in itself. You might be able to take an average of the sentiments of nearly 300,000,000 persons, or an average of the sentiments of all those in government positions (arguably all adults eligible to vote); but knowing an average of viewpoints doesn't justify a sweeping statement with no qualification. When you say that you intend your sentence to have a meaning about legal and natural limits to U.S. power, and about what the U.S. "recognizes" and "believes" (about which things are "inimical", what "its own self-interest" is, which things are done "arbitrarily", what "anything you want" would be, and what "good things" are), you basically say that you hope the reader will take, from your sentence, a certain POV impression. To say what an entire sovereign state (all its people and all its government) "recognizes" and "believes" is simply the kind of sweeping POV that shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, no matter how much it is (partly) supported by polls or anything else.

So it's revealed not only that your motivation is POV but also that you want the sentence to be read as conveying a POV idea. I might agree with some or all of those points of view, or I might not; but I can't condone their inclusion like this in Wikipedia.

I also find it interesting that, although you quite clearly reveal, on this Talk page, what you want the sentence to mean ("(1) Being the only hyperpower doesn't give you the ability to do anything you want because there are limits to your power (cf. Iraq) and (2) the U.S. recognizes that acting arbitrarily can be damaging to international relations and international trade and therefore inimical to its own self-interest and (3) the U.S. actually believes that democracy and the rule of law are good things"), you don't just write, for the article, a sentence that states it as clearly, but you instead seem to try to mask the POV by stating the obvious (that a country's powers are limited) and hoping that the reader will 'read between the lines' and say "Ohhh, what it's really saying is that Americans don't think they really can do just anything that they want, and that they actually like democracy, and that they think it's good to comply with international treaties that their government has signed."

I think your idea that people rework the opening paragraphs outside of the actual article has some merit; I might participate in that. Before then, though, I'm again going to remove your sentence (including the newer version of it), for the reasons I've expressed here.

The influence of the United States is, like [that of] any other nation, nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints.

I've put your newest addition to your sentence in bold. The addition further highlights that the sentence is a statement of the obvious and applies to any country and so is superfluous. We may as well point out that the U.S. is a sovereign state, and that a sovereign state is the unification of a people (a nation) on a land (a country) under a government. But we don't point that out, because it's obvious—and the same goes for the sentence about limits to powers.

Anyway, my personal opinion is, and has been since last November, (1) that the opening should simply say that the U.S. is the sole superpower in the present world, (2) that the opening shouldn't go into detail about what a superpower is and how the U.S. is or isn't a or the superpower (really, it should JUST say it's the sole superpower in the present world and leave it at that), and (3) a section later in the article can go into great detail about how the U.S. became a superpower on some or all fronts, and how it then became the superpower on some or all fronts, and what kind of competition it faces for its status as superpower from various other peoples, states, conglomerations, &c., around the world.

Again, Richard, I don't have any animosity towards you. I'm just trying to take a firm stand for my take on what's going on with this intro (and, obviously, the only take I can have is my own), and to explain clearly my thoughts about it so that others can consider them, reject them, accept them.

I'm glad that we are both for discussing this here and being civilized about it. Would anyone else like to join in?

President Lethe 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that I failed to respond to part of Richard's most recent post in this section. Richard wrote

My view is that, if the sentence in the introduction just says it's the sole superpower, and then saves the description of how it is a or the hyperpower or superpower, and how it got that way, and with what other entities it has shared that status at various points in history—if the point made in the intro is very brief and then it's expanded at a later spot in the article—, then we don't have to worry about the introduction’s accuracy or inaccuracy about in what ways the U.S. is a or the superpower.

My view is also that we shouldn't bother about inferred (not implied) arrogance in pointing out the fact that the U.S. is the sole superpower. As I said earlier, the mere idea that someone might have an opinion about a fact doesn't make the fact itself an opinion. Whether it is arrogant to mention the superpower's status is entirely subjective, not objective. Let's get the topic off the U.S. for a moment, to make an example: I can point out that my brother earns more money per month than I earn; this is a fact, not an opinion. The person hearing it might think that it indicates my resentment of my brother's higher earnings; the person hearing it might think that it indicates my pride in my brother's accomplishments. But the actual written sentence doesn't say anything by implication; all it does is state, by explication, a fact. Everything else the reader gets out of it is in the reader's head; it's subjective, not objective. The same is true for readers who are bothered about the United States' status as a or the superpower or Wikipedia's mention of that status. Their being bothered isn't reason enough for the article to change its statement of fact. When they're bothered about opinions expressed as facts in Wikipedia, they have good reason to want something to be rewritten; when they're bothered about facts in Wikipedia, their problem is with the facts and not with Wikipedia.

President Lethe 19:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree pretty much 100% with President Lethe's last post. My concern with the "arrogance" was less my own concern as an attempt to address the concerns of other people who were edit warring over the intro paragraph. I'm happy to just state that the U.S. was one of two superpowers before the fall of the Soviet Union and the sole hyperpower after the fall.

I wrote a bunch of stuff while was writing the above message but ran into an edit conflict because he saved his comments before I saved mine. Here is what I wrote...

I, too, am glad to discuss here on the Talk page rather than edit warring on the article page. I also want to say that I only got involved because it appeared that other people were edit warring over a sentence that I wrote so I wanted to explain what I was thinking when I wrote it. I am not personally attached to the specific wording of the sentence although I do have opinions about what should be said.--Richard

[edit] Opening section

I agree with some edits, but a list of what the US did after independence is not needed in the opening (which is explained later in history and other sections). Also, calling them 13 states doesn't sound as right as just calling them "former colonies".--Ryz05 07:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

THey were states when they formed the United States under the constitution. The earlier sentence talks about the colonies - how they got beyond the 13 colonies is needed as a link to the present day expansion of power & influence --JimWae 07:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In the opening, especially between the second and third paragraphs, there does seem to be a giant leap in time, but since American history has continued for more than 200 years, there's just so much to add in between but the opening is not the place to do that. If the reader wants to know the details, he/she should continue reading down the article. To explain how they got beyond the 13 colonies needs to include a lot more details or it'll just lead to confusion. But again, the opening should be kept short with only a few summary paragraphs. I understand your concern, but I think the article opening is best left the way it is.--Ryz05 07:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

These are not being presented as full expositions, just introductions to be continued later - and in same vein as other problems expressed in that paragraph. People will "continue down" if the intro has interesting topics that are "promised" for later. Innovations and sources of anti-Americanism are interesting to many --JimWae 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you "disagree with become more democratic" because you think it is less now or the same as then? Expansion of the franchise to non-landed, blacks & women is not a topic to get readers to want to "read down"? --JimWae 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave the opening the way it is without too much excessive detail. As to the democratics issue, the expansion of rights to blacks and women is considered a civil rights issue, not democracy.--Ryz05 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? How's that? Democracy = rule by the majority of the people. So, how does allowing more of the people the option to, for example, vote (and thus make themselves part of the majority that elects a certain candidate or passes a certain law) not act as an expansion of democracy? President Lethe 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You've removed <expansion> "through purchases and wars" five times tonight. You neglected to give much reason for doing so - other than "too much detail" and "too many ands". Using a comma is not "an excuse" for keeping it - commas are valid punctuation & that was a syntactically correct punctuation of a fairly short sentence. You missed probably the only valid reason to exclude it - the Louisiana Purchase & the Mexican WarS seem not to even be mentioned in the article. I wonder how much longer the bare mentions of democracy will last. --JimWae 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted so many times, but I was just trying to improve the article and keep it looking good and reading nicely. If you really feel like it should belong in that sentence, then you are welcome to put it in and I won't revert it anymore. However, someone else might see it and change it.--Ryz05 08:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remember WP:3RR everyone =) --mboverload 08:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, join the Harmonious Editing Club and never revert more than once. JimWae, can you explain why "through purchases and wars" is so important to you? How else does a country expand? I suppose it could be through mergers. But why is it important to mention it? What is the point you are making? --Richard 08:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been re-reading the edit history and JimWae seems to think that mentioning "through purchases and wars" may get the reader to "read down" for an explanation of how the U.S. expanded "through purchases and wars". That argument would be more appropriate in the History of the United States article but less so in this article. --Richard 10:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I improved a pretty crummy paragraph & Rcyx85 was editing out things like [[republic]]s to [[republic|republics]] and 13 states to 13 former colonies. "Read down" was a term introduced by him, and so I turned it back towards his "arguments". Though of course articles cannot be 300 MB long, I think his "arguments" were mostly specious. "Getting" Puerto Rico is the only war of expansion mentioned - twice - while Mexican Wars do not appear at all.
There are 3 kinds of tyrannies on wikipedia
1. The article's too long.
2. Let's make the article a featured article
3. This article is part of a series on ...
Anyway, I stopped reverting & did not violate 3RR - though I believe Rcyx85 did
--JimWae 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, JimWae, I think we're making progress by talking about this rather than edit warring. I still don't completely understand your objectives. I feel like you have a valid point although I can't quite nail down what it is yet. My current understanding is that you are trying to make points that are more related to the History of the United States article or, at least, the "History" section of this article.

There is an inherent problem in trying to write an intro paragraph to a topic as big as "the United States". It's not just that the article is too long (which it is starting to be) but also that we don't want the intro to be too long either. So we must pick very carefully what points we want to make in the intro.

I'm not saying that the current intro is perfect (far from it!) or that Ryz05 has a monopoly on knowing what is right for the intro. I'm not too happy with the intro paragraph either but I don't think we can get much improvement by making an edit here, an edit there followed by edit warring over the edits. That process is too slow, too painful and likely to piss off one or more editors. (Like me! Last night's back and forth edit warring is far from the Wikipedia ideals and standards of conduct.) More talk, less edit warring, please.

I would like to propose that we try to identify what the various concerns are about the current intro and then try to address them in the Talk pages first without actually editing the current article at all. With a bit of patience and amicable discussion (please observe WP:NPA), we can hopefully make some progress.

Once we get some consensus on a "good" intro, we can move it into the actual article.

--Richard 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop lecturing me --JimWae 18:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial issues in the intro paragraph

I think there are many separate controversial issues in the intro paragraph. I'll try to list the ones I have identified. Other editors may identify others or take issue with the way I have framed the issues. I'm happy to have them edit this list as long as it's done nicely and with discussion.

1) Superpower vs. Hyperpower - Both of these terms are defined in Wikipedia as being different from each other although the articles are marked as possibly violating WP:NOR. The definitions there match what I was trying to say about "before the fall of the Soviet Union" and "after the fall of the Soviet Union".

2) Whether the U.S. has become "THE dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs" since the end of WWII. I still believe that the truth is too complex to put into a single sentence or even a single paragraph. I agree with President Lethe that it's too much to put in the intro section. I'd just as soon leave it out altogether. It's too hard to make it work as part of a concise intro.

3) Whether the sentence "The influence of the United States is nonetheless limited by international agreements and the realities of political, military and economic constraints." belongs in the intro and specifically whether it is POV. I'm not convinced that what I wrote is evident to anybody who understands what a hyperpower is. See the definition of hyperpower and you will see that what I wrote is not there. The point I'm trying to get at is that with two superpowers (U.S. and U.S.S.R.) there is an inherent balance of power. With only one hyperpower, one might conclude that there is no balance of power. I'm arguing that there is an inherent limitation to the power of the U.S. as a hyperpower at this point in time. Even the British and Roman empires were not omnipotent. Moreover, the U.S. does voluntarily enter into agreements that limit its power. Those are facts. Is there a POV motivation in focusing on those facts in the intro? I suppose but maybe there's a POV motivation in not wanting to mention those facts in the intro. That's why I would like to have the objectives of the intro laid out explicitly so that we have a standard to measure them against.

4) I don't like the sentence "However, the path to development did not come without a price as American history is tainted with cruelties such as slavery, and the forced migration of millions of Native Americans out of their homelands and onto reservations." I think the issue is that similar sentences could be written about all the colonial powers (Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Russia, China, Japan). Perhaps I'd be happier if we inserted a phrase like "like any other colonial power of the 19th and 20th centuries... etc."

--Richard 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just now discovered your new section here, Richard. I have a (relatively) brief (me? brief? amazing!) response:

1. Thanks for your point about the possible hyperpower–superpower difference. I agree with your caution about their being marked as possibly violating WP:NOR. I'm not sure how many everyday users of English would say the U.S. is a hyperpower instead of a superpower; and perhaps the widespread dominance of one term over the other is something to consider.

2. I'm glad that we agree that this should be saved for a place other than the introduction. But I still believe that the introduction should include the brief point about the United States' superpower status. Why? That reasoning is what I expressed in my post from last year (repeated earlier this year).

3. I'm still mulling over your third point. At least for the moment, I do think the word superpower, not hyperpower, should be what we see in the introduction; it's my impression that we would find a much bigger percentage of the world's population saying "the United States" in answer to "What country is the world's superpower today?" than we would in answer to "What country is the world's hyperpower today?" You've written "Even the British and Roman empires were not omnipotent. Moreover, the U.S. does voluntarily enter into agreements that limit its power. Those are facts"; yes, but they are obvious facts, known by just about anyone who has a clue about how the world works. Does the article on the British empire say "But keep in mind, reader, that Britain's power wasn't absolute"? Does the article on the Roman empire say something similar? If the answers to similar questions about other powers in the history of the world are "No", why should the answer for the U.S. be "Yes"? I would also argue that every country on Earth voluntarily obeys its own and international laws to some degree or another. So why do we want to say about the U.S. something that is true of every country? We may as well say that the U.S. occupies some land and includes some people and has an economy and a culture. These obviously true generalizations add very little to the content of the article. And, sometimes, they seem to reek of "This statement exists for no other reason than to keep irrational editors from ranting about nearby statements and removing them." I do indeed have a POV reason for wanting your sentence removed: I think it tries to say, in a calm way, "The U.S. ain't so bad" (and you yourself seem to have confirmed this multiple times on this Talk page); and I think Wikipedia policy rightly proscribes POV and veiled POV. So my POV against your sentence is that your sentence is POV (you yourself have stated explicitly the POV ideas that you want the reader to glean from your sentence). My POV is that POV should be stricken from Wikipedia articles; that's the POV motivating me to press for the removal of your sentence.

4. I agree with your disliking the sentence. I think the information should be added somewhere in the article; but I think it requires too much detail to be in the intro. (One should also remember that balance isn't merely saying (again, let's used a detached example) "Some persons voted for x, while others voted for y", but instead is achieved better with wording like "Seventy-one percent of voters voted for x, while 22% voted for y, and 7% voted for z." This isn't a point about anything specific from you, Richard; it's just that it seems some Wikipedians forget about different things' different weights when they're trying to achieve balance, and I felt like making a point.) Keep in mind that it could also be said to be "excuse making" (POV) if, in mentioning bad things done by the U.S. in its history, one says "But, hey! other countries did it too! We weren't the only ones!"

Finally, a point about Wikipedia in general and country articles in specific. While other, more traditional encyclopedias have their shortcomings, I think that those produced for decades by large groups in the business (e.g., World Book, Encyclopædia Britannica) do have some lessons for us Wikipedians. World Book, for example, seems to have quite a nice general outline used for each article about a country of the world or a U.S. state or a Canadian province, for example; and I think there is something to be said for how World Book handles the ugly parts of history. Look up Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, the U.S., Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Australia, Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Belize, Russia, whatever—and, no matter what, you won't find the article starting off with some statement to the effect of "Life in this country sucks" or "This country is mean to other countries": instead, all that stuff is saved for later, in the history section of that country's article, and is expressed in a way that strikes me as quite NPOV.

President Lethe 20:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the longest "brief" messages that I've ever read. You want brief? Here's brief.

1) Can we say "after WWII, U.S. was one of two superpowers", "after fall of U.S.S.R. the U.S. was left as the sole remaining superpower"

2) Can we agree that only the comment about "sole remaining superpower" stays and all the rest about "dominant influence" is left out of the intro? Could be put somewhere else but it's too complex to deal with effectively in the intro.

3) I don't really care about my last sentence (i.e. the one about "limitations on power") anymore as long as we don't get other people trying to edit the "superpower" stuff out because of charges of arrogance.

4) Can we then move the sentence about slavery and massacre of Native Americans to elsewhere in the article?

It's not sufficient for President Lethe and I to agree on this. We need to build a consensus of the current editors of the article. Then we can document this consensus somehwere like Talk:United States/Introduction. If people want to object, they can object there but I would like to have a version of the intro that is more or less agreed upon by the people currently watching this article. The reasons behind the consensus can be documented via an inline comment (i.e. .

Your comments are solicited

--Richard 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It was briefer than my previous posts to you. :-)

I shouldn't spend much more time on this today; but I want to answer your latest post and to mention something that I thought of after my last post.

I was thinking of World Book’s articles on big cities in the U.S. Basically all the articles include, somewhere, a statement like this one (which may or may not be verbatim what the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of World Book says about Atlanta): "Atlanta faces many social problems experienced by other large urban areas. Major problems include crime and homelessness. Much of the crime is associated with the problems of drug abuse and gang activity. Rising housing costs have contributed to homelessness. In 1991, Georgia native and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter launched the Atlanta Project. The project is an effort to attack social problems in the poorest parts of the Atlanta area. Its volunteers work with community groups, churches, and local, state, and federal government programs to help the poor." Because the statement is made in so many WB articles about cities, I don't take it as "excuse making"; so maybe we actually could put in something like that for the histories of many big colonial powers and then it wouldn't seem so "excuse"-y.

1. Fine with me.

2. Fine with me.

3. And, if they do make those edits, our response should be what I said earlier (to point out that their annoyance is subjective stuff about facts, not something about POV in the Wikipedia), rather than to try to come up with some appeasing disclaimer.

4. Makes sense to me.

And, yes, others should speak up. It seems, though, that many persons tend to shut up when I'm around.

President Lethe 21:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect first statement

"The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it." The U.S. got their independence from England/Britian so should be changed to: "The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 from English Britian and fought a revolution to achieve it."

English Britian??? aussietiger 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I think that it is important for the intro to mention the spread of democracy and rights, which are integral to U.S. history. In particular, I think this sentence:

While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was tempered by the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865.

should remain in the introduction in some form. -Will Beback 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If spreading democracy (excluding rights as that's subjective) is an American goal, then it should be mentioned in the history section in where it says about expanding nation (near the beginning). I tried to say that "the republic was destined to spread democracy across the continent," but someone disagrees and changed it to just "the republic was destined to expand across the continent." You can change it to what I said earlier if you want.--Ryz05 22:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The focus on 'spreading democracy' is not a part of the national character; rather, it is part of the present political character of the nation. The notion that 'Manifest Destiny' in the days leading to the expansion of the nation to encompass the present boundaries was based on a desire to 'spread democracy' is simply wrong; the expansion was not driven by any notion of freeing people from tyranny and to argue that would be quite historically revisionist of the author. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was tempered by the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865." this sentence doesn't feel right in the introduction. You don't see the dispossession of indians in the introductory paragraph for Canada, nor do you see the ill-treatment of the Maori in the New Zealand. And shit, while we're at it, lets mention the effects of the British slave trade in their opening paragraph. Netheros99 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The development of the political systems, civil liberties and rights, and treatment of minorities are as key to the the picture of the U.S. To focus the conversation more, I brought it up here because an editor has removed it twice, explaining:

I feel that this is inappropriate to make an implicit statement of how terrible America is for Indian and African treatment it shouldn't be stated right off the bat.[3]
Whoever revised my edits did a much better job of making NPOV, but I still have an issue with this line right off the bat. I feel that its misplaced and should be explained in the body of article[4]

This editor seems to be objecting to the POV that the civil rights movement was a good thing. I'd be open to re-writing it. We might simply replace the last clause with "...this progress was tempered by the mistreatment of some groups", for example. -Will Beback 23:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Will, I don't have a problem with the sentence itself, I just feel that it's not needed in the introductory paragraph. I agree with the other author, why throw something in the introduction that asserts a negative quality to America right off the bat? As I said before, you don't see anything like this with any other country on Wikipedia. But if you TRULY believe its NPOV, then I'm sure the Germans wouldn't mind the holocaust being mentioned in their introduction. Netheros99 00:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to spin it as a negative. The improvements in the situation for minorities are a good thing. The sentence covers both the growth of civil rights and "the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens". That seems like an equally important statement as "Since then, the country has expanded its borders and obtained greater wealth and influence in global affairs." or "Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it emerged as the world's sole superpower or hyperpower." While these other sentences cover winning the Cold War and the U.S.'s material wealth, its political ideology and its treatment of its citizens seem worth a sentence. -Will Beback 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryz05 just reverted my edit to the paragraph discussed above with the edit comment "What was wrong with the previous version?". I think the revert was a bit rude since it asserts that I have to explain what's wrong with the previous version instead of him having to explain what was wrong with my version. But since I'm a believer in the 0RR rule and refuse to engage in edit wars, I will take up the challenge and explain why I wrote what I wrote.

Here's the original text which Ryz05 reverted to:

While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was tempered by the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865.

Here's the new text that I wrote which was reverted out:

While the United States has been a leader in the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was initially limited to white males. There was a corresponding disenfranchisement of females and minorities. The history of the United States is tainted by shameful acts such as the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865. It is only in the last century and, in particular, in the last half of the 20th century that democracy and civil rights have been afforded to all regardless of gender, creed, race or ethnic origin.

My original problem with the paragraph started from the fact that the word "tempered" is misused in the original text.

Here's the definition of "temper" as a verb make more temperate, acceptable, or suitable by adding something else; moderate; "she tempered her criticism"

chasten: restrain or temper

There's no way that you can reasonably use "temper" in the way that it was being used. You could say that "the rapacious drive for land was tempered by a desire to do things legally via treaties with the Indians" or any number of variations on the theme but I was trying to keep the general thrust of the statement.

And the real point of the paragraph is lost because we are left with a "progress" balanced by "sins" statement. The real point is that all of that is "past history". Many of these indictments of American conduct are about things that happened and have been rectified.

If you didn't know anything about the U.S., the previous version of the paragraph would leave you with the sense that neither of these sins (against Indians and against African-Americans) had been rectified.

Ok, Ok, Congress hasn't officially apologized to blacks for slavery or to Indians for the sins of the past. Nor have we paid reparations to either group. However, we shouldn't just cite the sins without also citing the rectifications made in the 20th century and there have been many.

So, how to get the point across but without coming across as a POV slam or POV defense of the U.S.? Answer: "Just the facts, ma'am"

I thought about saying "limited to white males with property" or "white Northern European males" or "white Protestant males" but I figured that would just stir up another POV firestorm.

Read what I wrote. It's a reasonable statement of the facts without being terribly POV. We could also list a host of other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. This is not a place for that. U.S. history hasn't been uniformly pure as the driven snow. There've been lots of times when we have departed from our ideals.

I'm not trying to indict the U.S. I was just trying to address the horrible misuse of the word "tempered" and, while I was at it, providing a more accurate statement of the facts.

Now, if you object to the phrasing "tainted by shameful acts", I'm willing to debate that. Want to propose a less harsh phrasing? I'm all ears. Just as long as it doesn't do violence to the English language.

I'm going to replace "tempered" with "limited" for now and I'll hold off putting back the rest of my edits pending further debate here.

Richard 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the previous paragraph:

This is a picky point but I didn't like the sentence "While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens".

I wanted to put "the nation's history" alongside "the development of constitutional democracy, etc". I didn't like putting "the nation's growth" alongside "the development, etc." I didn't like the emphasis on growth although I understand that the idea is that growth was achieved on the backs of the Indians and the African slaves. However, that leaves out other departures from democracy and civil liberties like the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, McCarthyism, etc., etc. which oppressed other people like women and, yes, even white males.

I know it's hard to capture all of that in a single paragraph but I think my paragraph did a better job of it than what went before.

--Richard 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is important for the intro to mention the spread of democracy and rights, which are integral to U.S. history. In particular, I think this sentence:

While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens, this progress was tempered by the dispossession of Native American lands as well as the official sanctioning of African American slavery until 1865.

should remain in the introduction in some form. -Will Beback 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this is inappropriate to make an implicit statement of how terrible America is for Indian and African treatment it shouldn't be stated right off the bat.[5]
Whoever revised my edits did a much better job of making NPOV, but I still have an issue with this line right off the bat. I feel that its misplaced and should be explained in the body of article[6]

Here's the original text which Ryz05 reverted to:

Here's the new text that I wrote which was reverted out:

My original problem with the paragraph started from the fact that the word "tempered" is misused in the original text.

Here's the definition of "temper" as a verb make more temperate, acceptable, or suitable by adding something else; moderate; "she tempered her criticism"

chasten: restrain or temper

So, how to get the point across but without coming across as a POV slam or POV defense of the U.S.? Answer: "Just the facts, ma'am"

I thought about saying "limited to white males with property" or "white Northern European males" or "white Protestant males" but I figured that would just stir up another POV firestorm.

I'm not trying to indict the U.S. I was just trying to address the horrible misuse of the word "tempered" and, while I was at it, providing a more accurate statement of the facts.

I'm going to replace "tempered" with "limited" for now and I'll hold off putting back the rest of my edits pending further debate here.

Richard 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the previous paragraph:

This is a picky point but I didn't like the sentence "While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and guaranteed rights and liberties of citizens".

I know it's hard to capture all of that in a single paragraph but I think my paragraph did a better job of it than what went before.

--Richard 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the intro at the beginning of the article is just a summary of 200 years of US history, so some stuff might be left out for the sake of briefness. I know it's a complex topic, but much of the explanation were given in the section on US history and its perspective main article.--Ryz05 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a summary and so the question becomes "What belongs in the summary and what doesn't?" The answer is critical because the summary claims to be the distilled significant points that are worth communicating. Aside from my issues with the misuse of the word "tempered', the real issue is whether we wish to leave the reader thinking "Oh, the U.S. made progress on democracy and civil liberties but that progress is debatable because of the oppression of native Americans and slaves". As I've stated above, it is my desire to assert that most of that oppression tainted the history of the U.S. (i.e. some dead white men did that stuff 100+ years ago). The last 50 years have witnessed the acknowledgment of past sins and efforts to ameliorate the sins of the first 150 years. Why are the sins against the native Americans and slaves more worth mentioning than the lack of suffrage for women? Why are the sins of the first 150 years worth mentioning and not the efforts to redress them in the last 50 years?

--Richard 06:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not that they are chosen because they are more worth it, its that the second paragraph in the introduction is talking about the time before the last one hundred years, in other words, before the US became a major power in the world.--Ryz05 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not gonna sell that line to me. That would argue that the progress on democracy and civil liberties ended before the US became a major power in the world? or that the mistreatment of native Americans and slaves stopped being an issue before the U.S. became a major power in the world?

Now, admittedly, the emergence of the U.S. as a superpower after WWII did influence how we and the rest of the world viewed colonialism and oppression of minorities. After all, we couldn't put all those fancy words in the U.N. charter and then ignore those principles at home. But that's a discussion for another day. What I'm saying is that you can't argue that democracy, civil liberties and oppression are important in discussing the first 150 years and are irrelevant, settled dusty history in the last 50 years.--Richard 06:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. It seems neutral enough with the mentioning of advancements in rights and liberties, and that slavery ended in 1865. The discussion of civil liberties and democracy is relevant since the country is founded, and is clearly laid out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.--Ryz05 06:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

update: I changed the second controversial paragraph by taking some descriptions from the CIA World Factbook, which I also made reference to. This negates the mentioning of slavery and dispossession of Native American lands. Hope the edits will abate some of the controversy and make the intro more neutral.--Ryz05 19:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I continue to find wholesale reverts of edits rude and annoying. In general, such behavior tends to discourage the open and inviting philosophy of Wikipedia. Moreover, reverting an edit which is not wholly unacceptable takes the position that your version is so superior to the new edit that there is nothing of value in the new edit. This is highly arrogant.

Please take the time to read the new edit carefully and understand the rationale behind the edit. The editor is encouraged by WP:BOLD to "be bold" (i.e. make the change first and discuss later at least if the changes are not controversial). Editors are also asked to assume good faith.

No one "owns" the intro paragraphs and no one can claim to represent the consensus of the editors because there is no clear consensus. Certainly not one that has been indicated by a vote. I should know... I've read just about everything that has been said about the intro from Talk:United States/Archive 1 through Talk:United States/Archive 15.

(BTW, a consensus is not a majority position, it is a near-unanimous agreement. This is why votes are considered "evil".)

I will explain why I have made the edits that I have made and I will make them again. Please observe WP:3RR. I do not wish to engage in an edit war but this is getting truly annoying.

OK, here's the current intro text with my comments

The United States of America (the U.S., the U.S.A., the States, the United States, or America[2]) is a federal republic in North America. With a history of over 200 years, the country is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world.[3]

The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions.[4] While the nation's growth was marked by the development of constitutional democracy and economic advances, the two most traumatic experiences in the nation's history were the Civil War (1861-65) and the Great Depression of th 1930s.[4]

At first glance, the last sentence in this paragraph is a non sequitur. What do democracy and economic advances have to do with the Civil War and the Great Depression? If you make a great leap, you can argue that the Civil War was a threat to constitutional democracy and the Great Depression was a threat to economic advances. But that's a lot of meaning to load onto one poor little sentence no matter how long it is. I don't care if it came from the CIA World Factbook. Apparently, the CIA is full of people who can't form a logical, cohesive sentence either.

Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States became a dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it emerged as the world's sole superpower[5] or hyperpower.[6]

The first sentence of this paragraph is broken for two reasons. First, it is not the victories themselves that caused the U.S. to become a dominant global influence. I suppose one could argue that "buoyed by" means that the victories contributed to the U.S. becoming a global influence. However, there are better ways to make the point. Secondly, mentioning the end of the Cold War in 1991 in the first sentence makes one wonder what the point is of mentioning "the collapse of the Soviet Union" in the second sentence.

In summary, some small changes need to be made to the current intro paragraph to get across the points being made. I will make them now. You are welcome to further edit my text if you think it can be improved. I don't claim that my text is perfect. However, I would really appreciate it if you would lay off using "revert" and reserve that tool for vandalism or blatant POV.

--Richard 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made the changes described above. As a result of this round of edits, the verbiage about the native Americans and slavery have been dropped. I'd be happier with that stuff in but I will leave it for somebody else to raise the issue and put it back. I do not feel strongly that it has to be in the intro paragraph and I've already struggled more with this intro than I really wanted to.

--Richard 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe the previous version make the intro flow a lot better, without being too repetitive. some of the objections you raised could be improved by making simple edits to the previous version, without reorganizing and resummarizing.--Ryz05 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The version I just looked at seems reasonable. Thanks for the effort, everybody. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback, so why soften the last sentence of the intro? It was there to confirm the US being the sole superpower or hyperpower, so you can't soften it just by saying that it exerts a dominant influence, which make it sound repetitive because saying it's a superpower is saying that it exerts dominant influence.--Ryz05 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor addition: If someone don't like the last sentence of the intro, then let them change it, because at least someone says that the intro looked good enough.--Ryz05 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, due to a lack of reponse, I'm just going to change it to the previous version. If anyone disagrees or feel it should be "softened." Please leave a message. Thanks.--Ryz05 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I suppose it's the nature of Wikipedia that if you don't get a response within an hour, you feel that no one is going to respond. I spend more time on Wikipedia than most but being away for a few hours is, at least for me, a common occurrence.

That said, here's the point about why I don't like the last paragraph. It's all about trying to maintain a NPOV. There have been many discussions in the past about whether the U.S. is THE world's dominant power in a variety of areas. I think I even wrote in this talk page an area-by-area analysis of where the U.S. is "the dominant" and where it is "a dominant". I'll do it again. Maybe I'll do a better job this time.

Simply put, the dominance is clear in military terms but not so clear in other arenas. And, you're trying to make one little sentence say too much and, as a result, the sentence is vulnerable to criticism.

What "dominant influence" means in the economic arena is a little unclear to me. I won't get into it too deeply here but the value of saying this in such a short phrase is certaintly debatable. Being the biggest economy doesn't mean we dominate are able to dominate as much as we used to. Are we more dominant than anyone else? Yes but are we the only dominant economic influence? Hardly. If the economic arena includes natural resources then OPEC and the Middle East also dominate.

What does "dominant" mean in the political arena? That we get most of what we want? I suppose we do but getting what you want involves wanting what you can get. That we set the agenda on the stage of world politics? Maybe. But we certainly didn't "win" on the issue of the U.N. and Iraq. How dominant are we politically?

How about the scientific and technological arenas? Perhaps we have dominated and arguably continue to dominate but the world is changing and that dominance is being challenged by Europe, Japan and even China and India. Asserting our dominance without mentioning the challenge is arrogant and POV.

Culturally dominant? What are you saying? That the whole world watches our movies and TV programs? Maybe that's true but that's also changing. That everybody wears Levi's, Gap jeans and Nike shoes? That's also changing. It's claimed that the trend-setter in style and film is Japan. Wanna debate this? I don't. I just don't want to claim that we dominate the world. Although I guess it's true that we are flooding the world with McDonald's, KFC, Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

Look we can debate this until the cows come home. I actually don't care that much about this sentence personally. However, I know that, in the past, the sort of phrasing that involves "THE dominant influence" has attracted editors who come in and argue that this is POV. And that will start another edit war. And, for what? So that we can say that the U.S. is THE dominant influence instead of A dominant influence (or the pre-eminent influence)? "Dominant" is a strong word. "THE dominant" is an even stronger phrase.

A little softening will go a long way. BTW, being a "superpower" is primarily about military power. Yes, military power rests on economic strength which rests on scientific and technological capability. However, you shouldn't assume that being a military superpower implies all the rest. The Soviet Union remained a military superpower for easily a decade after it had lost on those other fronts.

--Richard 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's dominance is unmatched means to say that no other country can match the influence the US has in the world in those specified terms (economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs), which is true IMO. If you still disagree, we should probably ask someone else regarding the issue. But at least we have one user (Will Beback) who thinks that the current introduction looks fine, so there's no reason to change it, at least for now.--Ryz05 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

NO, I disagree vehemently. Just because you have one other user that thinks "it's fine", doesn't mean it's fine. If you look back through the history of Talk:United States/Introduction, you'll find plenty of people who are a lot more opinionated about this than I am. The agreement of two people who are currently watching and commenting does not a consensus make.

I've said it before. You and the other people who have pushed the introduction to the current state do not own the introduction. If you want to identify specific points of contention and ask for a "Request for Comment", we can see what sort of consensus can be mustered. A consensus really requires 75-80% on one side to even be considered a possible consensus. 90% would be better. Failing that, you should strive for NPOV and offer both sides.

I'm not that exercised about the intro text as it stands. It's kind of OK with me although I have a quibble about the last sentence and I would prefer the original text about democracy, civil liberties, etc. However, having watched the intro battles for the past month or so, I think it's worthwhile to address people's concerns rather than pushing your (or my) particular POV. That's the Wikipedia way.

--Richard 00:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That previous debate hardly centers on the last sentence of the intro, which is what we are currently debating. That last debate is more about the mentioning of slavery and the dispossession of Native American lands, so it can be said they are all okay with the sentence stating the US is a dominant influence. If you want more opinions (and fast), you should start a Poll or something.--Ryz05 01:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was directed at the previous paragraph. Regarding the final paragraph, it seems to go into to much detail about "dominance". I'll let you guys work it out. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I don't think it's necessary to leave out the list that comes after "dominance," or otherwise "dominance" could be too broad when it's used alone, which I don't think Richard will like.--Ryz05 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest constitutional republic?

It is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world, and has existed for over 200 years Anything being put in the opening paragraph shouldn't be a matter of contention. Either it is definitely the oldest constitutional republic in the world, in which case we take out 'considered to be'; or it is one of the oldest, in which case we say that; or we remove this claim from the intro entirely and leave it do be dealt with in the appropriate section. Nomist 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute the claim that the USA is the oldest still existing constitutional republic. (Ref. to the Library of Congress website at [7]). I.e. the above part should be removed or rephrased to "one of the oldest". The fact that San Marino is a rather small country probably lead to this being overlooked. Travelbird 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on San Marino says it was founded in AD 301, but it doesn't mention a constitution. I'm thinking that it came after the US. Maybe we could say the the US has the oldest constitutional government. Jaxad0127 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does (look right at the top for "Constitution"). The date given is October 8, 1600. That would be over 150 years prior to the US Constitution of of 1787. I'd still prefer one "of the oldest" because that preempts the discussion about what constitues a valid "constitutional government" . Travelbird 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see it anywhere in the San Marino article. Jaxad0127 05:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not on the San Marino article but on the article by the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/sanmarino.html#constitution Travelbird 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but from the looks of it, the government was reorganized in 1926. That would still leave the US Government as the oldest. Jaxad0127 16:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The government wasn't reorganised, rather an electional law was passed. That would be similar to an American amendment to the constitution, only that (as in many countries), details of how the government is elected are not included in the constitution of San Marino, but are organized in a seperate law. Travelbird 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A few more thoughts : The USA is the third oldest republic in the world, surpassed in age only by San Marino and Switzerland. It is the second oldest constitutional republic. But it is the oldest presidential republic (Switzerland didn't introduce the presidency until sometime in the 19th century, San Marino has never had a president). So I would propose changing "constitutional" to "presidential". Travelbird 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Switzerland article says "In 1798, the armies of the French Revolution conquered Switzerland and imposed a new unified constitution." Helvetic Republic was a state lasting for five years, from 1798 to 1803. It is the predecessor of modern Switzerland. - --JimWae 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then since the current US Constitution was ratified in 1787 and Switzerland in 1788, The US is the second oldest republic. Jaxad0127 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives