Talk:United States - Wikipedia

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 Template:Todo1

The wording "...cultural dominance of the United States..." is funny and inaccurate.By cultural dominance we can understand obviously some parts of mass media cultural products, like movies from the big californian studios, few trade names in the industry like Coca-Cola or Burger King, and many names in pop-music. However culture refers commonly to much wider areas in the literature, fine arts and social sciences which are more important in any country than the imported *products* of some american corporates. I think the sentence should be changed to better express the difference between the global market of mass media cultural products, where USA is the dominant player and what is culture as a whole. In fact, yes, I agree, because the total aggregate of the system equals a beknowst amount which could be used in a beneficial manner subsequently over the possessions formerly held by innovative strategies and technological bums. --AntonioB 16:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Re: PENDING TASKS! I am trying to add more depth than "strong manufacturing sector", and "capitalist economy" (without lengthinging it). People come to wikipedia to learn, not to be told nothing by a group of people afraid from saying somthing. Be bold and improve on my edit. Please do not continue to revert back to a poor summary of the CIA factbook! Thanks, --Sansvoix 02:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your comments on the US financial system "exploiting labor and resources, primarily in nations open to the global economic policies enforced by the WTO and World Bank" is a gross misrepresentation of how the US economy works, filled with faulty Marxist stereotypes rather than a factual description of how the US economy actually works. First of all, most US foreign investments are in other advanced industrial nations, not in developing countries as your sentence implies. Second, US gross income receipts received from outside the US accounts for only 3 percent of the US GNP; if you net out US income payments to the rest of world, then the net income for abroad is less than a 1/2 percent of GNP. Third, the US is a net debtor country, not a net creditor, with foreigners owning more than twice the amount of foreign assets owned by the US. Thus, the US financial system currently is geared more to attracting excess foreign savings into the US than it is for the US acquiring assets abroad. Finally, the use of the terms "exploiting" and "enforcing" are judgmental and POV. Nicholas F 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

My comments 'exploiting labour and resources, primarily in nations open to the global economic policies enfoced by the WTO and World Bank' is a gross UNERREPRESENTATION of how the U.S. economy works! Feel free to add to it in the U.S. Economy article. Your impressive jargon makes me believe you understand something of international trade and finance! But still, your view is filled with faulty stereotypes, that probably are not Marxist! First of all, the advanced industrialized nations tend to be following WTO, and World Bank policies. Not all though, for example the Russian Federation has a very protectionist market, hence the flow of capital between Russia and the United States is on a very tight leash. Lastly, the trade deficit does not apply here, as the trade deficit does not take in account the flow of capital! Nonetheless, U.S. firms compete in the world marketplace through foreign-affiliate sales instead of just exports. American investors profit from free flowing capital througout large trading blocks (enforced by WTO). How US firms compete in world markets goes well beyond trade. In 1999, foreign-affiliate sales were $2.4 trillion, while national exports were at $933 billion. Still, even those trade figures are just a small drop in the sea of capital that moves in and out of the United Sates. 'Net Debtor' and 'Net Creditor', are terms of international trade, but do not really apply in this situation.

The terms 'exploiting' and 'enforcing' are not judgmental. If one country has copper, and you build a copper mine, you are exploiting the situation for overall benifit. But you are correct, the WTO does not directly enforce rules of trade, only sets out strict guidelines.

--Sansvoix 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The problem with the word "exploiting" is that it has a double meaning. The Mirriam-Webster Dictionany defines exploit as:

1 : to make productive use of : utilize (exploiting your talents) (exploit your opponent's weakness)

2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage (exploiting migrant farmworkers)

The first definition presents no problems, but the second definition does add a judgmental element, as I am sure you are aware. This ambiguity to the meaning of "exploiting" is one reason that its use (or should I say exploitation) is popular on the left, as one can imply the second definition but a fall back, just as you did, on the first definition when challenged. It is best to replace this word with "use" or "utilize" when only the first meaning is meant.

The figures I quoted are from the capital and financial account, NOT the current (or trade) account. Your mixing up of this basic distinction suggests to me that you do not have a strong background in economics. The data on US income earned from abroad includes the the US share of profits for foreign-affiliate sales. The total sales volume of foreign-affiliates of US firms is a very poor measure of the US income from these sales. First, many foreign affiliates are either joint ventures or have substantial amounts of local ownership, thus a share of the profits of these affiliates accrues to the local economy. Second, these affiliates also purchase local inputs for their production, the value of which also accrues to the local economy. Finally, the wages of the local workforce also accrue to the local economy. This last is is not insubstantial.

My views are not based on any stereotypes, but rather an actual study of economics. The data I presented are the standard ones used in the economic profession. And yes, I am not a Marxist. Although I realized that there are many sociologists and political scientists who still (unfortunately) use Marxist theory, Marx has been totally discredited in the economic profession.

Nicholas F 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Back to the topic at hand.

'The US Financial sector is the strongest in the world, achieving capital gains through exploiting markets, labour and resources, primarily in nations open to the global economic policies supported by the WTO and World Bank.'

I feel it important that this is in the economics section. Not because I want to start a Marxist revolution (I don't), or debate economic theory with some guy on the internet, but because it really is the only sentance that explains how the system works. You seem to be particularly concerned with the word 'exploit'. But it is the only one I know of that is appropriate, and is not a term exclusive to the 'left'. You utilize the outcome of market exploitation! Using words such as 'utilize' instead of 'exploit' only serves to contribute to fuzzy ideas and a lack of logical thinking. And no self-respecting economist would want that. Well maybe a politically motivated one. Just think about it --you don't use a situation, you exploit it! --Sansvoix 03:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are avoiding which definition of exploit you intend, the productive use or the the unjust use. Surely you do not believe that all productive uses are unjust. Your sentence as written could be interpreted either that the financial system effectively uses markets, labor and resources to create wealth (NPOV) or that the financial system unjustly abuses markets, labor and resources for its own selfish benefit (POV). Which is it? Would you be just as happy with a sentence that reads "US workers create income for themselves by exploiting capital and resources provided by their employers"? It is the (deliberate?) dual meaning of your sentence that creates fuzzy ideas.

An aside to this debate, your focus on capital gains (the rise in value of assets) ignores the other types of income created by financial markets (i.e., dividends and interest). Nicholas F 08:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

What are you trying to suggest? Sure, I agree exploit can be a loaded word, but it has greater meaning than the words you suggest. For that reason alone it should stay in place. Furthermore, in the context I have put it, it doesn't appear as a negative! Your example also doesn't make much sense, workers don't exploit wages, they exploit the oppertunities which result in them recieving wages!--Sansvoix 09:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am not trying to suggest anything, just attempting to clarify what YOU mean by "exploit". You still haven't answered my question, do you mean "productive" use or "unjust" use? If you agree that it can be a loaded word, then that argues for avoiding its use. Nicholas F 09:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please stop sabatoging this article, Nicholas F. Your problem with my addition seems not to be my use of the english language, but instead the fact that I am not writing disinformation you want, loaded with fuzzy words and jargon! You clearly are attempting to encourage the reader to move on, and not think about the economic facts which I am fairly adressing. Your additions, at first glance, seem appropriate, but in actuality they are an attempt to hijack the facts.

For example, you changed: "The United States falls behind most industrialized countries in terms of social welfare and its social safety net." To "The United States, when compared to most industrialized countries, trades off smaller government-provided social welfare and social safety net for greater opportunity for individual entrepreneurial activity and more flexibility in its labor markets.

For those of you reading this, Nicholas F has changed what once was a fact, to a faraway concept glossed over, and imediatly justified. Which belongs in a encyclopedia? Furthermore, a concise explanation for the mechanics of neoliberalism (as well as a link) was already there, but it too was modified.

It shouldn't take me 5 days to edit one article, but I feel Wikipedia needs to be a source of information, not a mashing togeather of glossed over concepts linked with propaganda! And it's not just Nicholas who is doing this! I'm seeing it more and more! Can someone help me out here?--Sansvoix 00:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Wikipedia needs to be objective, but your edits fall far short of that goal. I once again am appealing to you to state up front what definition of the exploit you want to be convey in you sentence productive use or unjust use? Your failure to answer what is a simple question indicates that you purposely intend leave the reader with the impression that the US financial system is unjust, but that you lack the courage to come right out and say it. Is it unjust? Perhaps an argument can be made for this position, but this is a subjective judgment call and not a question of fact and does not belong in an objective encyclopedia article.

In addition, your sentence incorrectly describes the primary function of the US financial system. Most of its activities involve domestic transactions, not foriegn transactions. Although there are still large scale foreign transactions, today these are more geared to attracting foreign capital INTO the US market rather than having US capital employ (justly or unjustly) foreign labor and resources. These are facts, I've presented the data, you've ignored them. Finally, the purpose of the financial system is not focused just on capital gains, but rather profits of all sorts. Your insistance of using this term suggests that you are fixated on Marxist captal vs. labor view of the world. As written, your sentence is simply a polemic against the US financial system and is devoid of any supporting facts. I will drop my rewrite of the description of the financial system if you insist, but I will not agree that your sentence should remain.

Next, why did I change your phrase of "advocates greater rights to holders of capital" to "advocates greater individual economic rights"? Well, no backer of neo-liberal economics goes around talking about "rights of holders of capital", they use the language of "individual economic rights". If you have a sentence that mentions what is advocated, then you should use the language of the advocates and not put words into their mouths.

Now for the changes that I made to your sentence on the social welfare system. By saying that the US is "falling behind" your sentence includes the unstated premise that either the US is trying to keep up with other industrialized nations or that is should be trying to keep up. The first would be incorrect and the second is subjective. The smaller size of the US welfare system is a conscious policy choice and my edits were designed to reflect this. A large social welfare state is not free and comes with costs that places a burden on the economy. Is it worth these costs? That is a subjective judgment. Most EU countries, for example, have made different policy choices, believing that it is well worth the cost. I will attempt another rewrite that makes this policy choice more clear and, hopefully, wont be read as advocating that this was the proper choice.

In conclusion, I am willing to compromise to come to more neutral language, but I see no reason to concede to your hidden subjective subtext or allow factually incorrect descriptions to remain. I have raised, on several occasions, specific objections to the your language which you have failed to address. I also do not want to turn this into an edit war, so I hope we can come to an agreement on the langauge soon.

Nicholas F 03:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll talk about what I've said. I would of liked it if you brought your concerns up front here, instead of creatively editing out my additions.

You suggest the phrase 'advocates greater rights to holders of capital' is somehow inapropriate, and not neoliberal. In actuality, neoliberalism is based on the grounds that groups of capital holders can pool their resources and create a new entity with greater rights than any one individual. Backers of neoliberal economics definaly care about the "right of the holders of capital". I believe I origionally wrote 'corporate rights' instead of holders of capital, but I must of changed it in the edit scuffle that ensued. Either one works.

Next I believe I wrote 'falls behind' not falling behind. 'falls behind' is the NPOV language I chose instead of 'worse', or 'inferior'.

And lastly, I believe I've made it very clear that the use of the word "exploit" is the only term that means to take advantage of a situation for benifit. I suppose it can be read in a negative or postive context, depending on the readers opinion on globalisation, but that is for the reader to decide not me (or you)! That is why I have used the word in a neutral context. Anything else would be manipulation!--Sansvoix 09:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

As there have been no futher comments for 24 hours, I will be restoring my information.--Sansvoix 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here lies the raw disagreement, as of 08:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC):

Pt 1 -Regarding neoliberalism

...and advocates greater individual economic rights. Previously, the United States was a proponent of Keynesian economics. The United States provides fewer government-delivered social welfare services than most industrialized nations, choosing instead to keeping its tax burden lower and relying more heavily on the free market and private charities.

-OR-

...and advocates greater rights to corporations. Previously, the United States was a proponent of Keynesian economics. The United States falls behind most industrialised nations in terms of social welfare and its social safety net.

Pt 2 -Global economy

The US Financial sector is the strongest in the world, achieving capital gains through exploiting markets, labor and resources, primarily in nations open to the global economic policies supported by the IMF, WTO and World Bank.

-OR-

nil

Comments welcome! --Sansvoix 08:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

RFC comment. Generally, being more precise aids in being less judgemental. First, "previously" is too vague in relation to Keynesian economics. Be specific, and say from the 30s to the 70s. Second, find some comparative statistics to put in the second sentence of Pt1 - in relation to government share of GDP, share of public services like water, health and education, life expectancy, distribution of income etc. Third, "individual economic rights" is too vague to be meaningful. Is it an economic right to have good healthcare? Rights to corporations has some meaning but again is very vague. Fourth, put "the US financial sector is the strongest in the world," with statistics to back that up if it's true. US economic dominance overseas is linked to IMF etc, but not limited to financial sector and deserves more than half a sentence. Again, more precision is better. Finally, giving more space overall to the US economy summary in this article (main article is separate), the biggest and most important for the global economy, seems fair. I mean, do we really need that table of top-twenty cities and populations, and boringly-similar pictures of the top three? Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion - from a Non-American, as requested.

1. Write about the economy first, not about the economic policies as now.
2. Push the first paragraph - about policies to the end, perhaps to another subsection under "Economy".
3. Do not use the term "neo-liberal". As a non-American, when I read the term, I only get the impression that I am seeing a private family dispute using secret codewords.
4. The last sentence of the current first para: "The United States falls behind most industrialised nations in terms of social welfare and its social safety net." does not belong there. The issue of poverty, social problems etc. should have a paragraph of its own. The only reason why it would belong there is if you are drawing a link between the abandonment of Keynesian policies and the supposed decline in social welfare and social spending. If you are, that link should be made explicit.
5. Finally, the "Previously" is misleading. It should be made more exact and the history previous to that should also get a sentence of its own.

--Ravikiran 14:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I endorse Ravikiran's comments. I have been attempting to make corrections to Sanvoix's edits on specific wording within in the sentences and had ignored the problem that, as constructed now, the first paragraph on the economy now begins with a discussion of ideology, and not economics. In addition, Sanvoix misuses the term "Keynsian". While one can discuss Keynsian policies adopted to face certain economic problems, there is no such thing as a Keynsian model on how an economy should be organized.

Nicholas F 15:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sansvoix, I am very disappointed at your lack of substantive response to date to the objections that I have raised. Contrary to your claim, everything you have done has not been backed up on the discussion page. I find it ironic that you feel the right to freely edit the text of other contributors but feel that your own language is in someway sacrosanct. Your continued use of loaded words, such as “exploit”, “falls behind”, and “capital owners” as well as your rewriting the first paragraph to emphasize ideology rather than economic (see Ravikirin’s comments above) suggest that you are more interested in pushing an ideological agenda than contributing to Wikipedia’s project of creating an objective online encyclopedia.

I will once again list my objections and invite you to address these with substantive comments:

1. “Greater rights to holders of capital” vs. “Greater economic rights.” Our dispute over these two terms is probably emblematic of the two differing points of views that we hold. You did change this subsequently to “greater rights to corporations.” This is better, but still a problem. “Greater” is a comparative. To what are you comparing? Greater rights than other actors in the economy? Or greater rights than advocated in other economic models? Isn’t this covered in the statement “advocates limited government intervention in the economy?”
2. Social welfare. “Falls behind” is POV in that it makes a judgment of what it means to be ahead. I could have just as easily written “Most other industrialized nations fall behind the US in reducing the burden of the welfare state.” I believe this to be true, but recognize that this is an opinion to which others could object. I changed my original edit based on your objection and offered a compromise that I hoped you would accept as being neutral and factually based and included a statement on policy choices that places this fact in context. My sentence did not state or imply (I believe) any judgment on whom, the US or the more socialized industrialized nations, has made the better choice. Can you specify what are your objections to the sentence as I re-wrote it?
3. The US financial sector. You added a sentence on the US financial sector, but instead of providing any factual data, you try to link it to your view that the US financial sector abuses other nations and by pursuing open global economic polices. You offer nothing in the way of proof other than a bald assertion that this is so. Previously, I presented data that undermines your argument. You ignored this data.
4. “Exploiting”. Perhaps the most blatant abuse that you attempting to impose on this article. I have pointed out in detail how your use of this word is a deliberate attempt to hide a judgment behind a word with a double meaning. You claim that you need to use this word as it is the only term that means to take advantage of a situation for benefit. Consulting the same Merriam-Webster Dictionary as before, I see the term take advantage of also has two definitions. 1: to use to advantage : profit by. 2: to impose on : exploit. Thus it also suffers from a dual meaning, one of which is judgmental.
5. “Market-oriented” vs. “Neoliberal.” I didn’t raise this objection before, but the term market-oriented is a better choice than neoliberal. First, it is a term most readers with which most readers would be familiar. Second, although the US has been following more neoliberal policies than in the recent past, it is hardly a model of a neoliberal economy. There are still far too many taxes and regulations in place than most neoliberals would find acceptable.

Finally, Ravkirin makes some other good points, particularly that the section should start with a description of the economy and not economic policies. The first two sentences from the CIA’s World Factbook section on the US economy make a better starting overview. The discussion of policy should be moved to the end of the section.Nicholas F 17:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am very uncomfortable by the personal tone here. I do not feel like I am doing anything wrong. All I have done is answered the call on the top of this page requesting to 'Improve the sections on Foreign relations and the military, and Economy, without necessarily lengthening them.' --I am trying very hard to do this, but my statements are being deleted or modified in an apperent effort to ignore the topic compleatly! Furthermore, it was previously simply a copy from CIA factbook, and you can confirm that by viewing the page history back to my first addition. Right now the issue is between the two different options which I have posted at the top of this section.

Nicholas, I've already adressed your concerns in the previous section, and I don't feel your commentary on that discussion is fair to me. I did not say think or do the things you say! This is not a pissing contest, I'm just trying to put some information in an article that was previously mainly trivia.--Sansvoix 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

However I do now have time to entertain a couple of things which you have not yet brought up. In your #1 issue, you ask what I am comparing it too. I am comparing it to before neoliberal polices were introduced. Rd232 suggested that I clearify the timlines of Keynesian economic and neo-liberal prevelance.

The US financial sector being the "strongest in the world", was somthing I did not add in my edits. I believe it was there before, and is on the CIA factbook website. I did not provide any reference data, which you are free to do.

I think neoliberal is important, as the section happens to be focused on current economic policies. Whether it should be focusing on the history of the US economy instead, is up to debate I suppose.--Sansvoix 00:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so you now compleatly removed every one of my additions since the very start. I don't have time for this anymore. Congratulations.--Sansvoix 02:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

And consensus prevails yet again. --Golbez 04:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure. Here is what I feel should be in the article if anyone wants to break 'consensus', and work with me to put these important facts (not necessarily in this form) into the article. --Sansvoix 05:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Since the Reagan administration, the economy of the United States has followed the neo-liberal model, which advocates limited government intervention in the economy and trade, and advocates greater rights for corporations. From the 30's to the late 70's, the United States was a proponent of Keynesian economics, a theory which claims government intervention is necessary for market and social stability. Today, the United States falls behind most industrialised nations in terms of social welfare and its social safety net, areas it poineered in following Franklin D. Roosevelt's adoption of Keynesian economics

And,

The US Financial sector is the strongest in the world, achieving capital gains through exploiting markets, labour and resources, primarily in nations open to the global economic policies supported by the IMF, WTO and World Bank.

Yet it's the form that we have the biggest complaint with. --Golbez 08:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

As of this time of writing, the US 'society' section has 7 paragraphs on RACE, 1 on religion, 3 on education, 2 on language, 3 on culture, and 2 on sports.

I don't know about Americans, but the rest of society does not primarily devide itself on basis of RACE!!!

There is no mention of quality of living, poverty, wealth, class, or anything to meaningfully base society on. This is disgusting. Anyone want to help me fix this? --Sansvoix 02:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Race is a huge issue in American politics, culture, and media, and is a dominant issue (if not the dominant issue) in any sociological analysis of American society. [comment here was deleted by Sansvoix because he found it offensive] But I agree that there should be a discussion of class in this article as well. --Coolcaesar 04:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Umm, Coolcaesar, sorry, but it's not a huge issue. It's there. It's an issue. But it's not as big of an issue as is presented in the article. It's not something to base the "society" thing on. And I say that as someone who has lived his entire life in the United States.

Sansvoix, I'll take a look and see what I can do. 05:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

To user Matt Yeager: I disagree with your underestimation of the race issue. To user Sansvoix, I disagree with your deletion of my hostile characterization of your ignorance of American society and American sociology. If you feel my comments are stupid, say so. Deleting them simply indicates bad faith and an oversensitive inability to tolerate constructive criticism.

Now, turning back to Matt Yeager: You must lead a very sheltered life in a very bland area of the United States. For once, visit a bookstore (and I mean a big one like Barnes & Noble) and browse the magazines (and I mean the serious ones like the New Republic and the Atlantic Monthly). Turn on the television and watch some of the major networks. What underlies so many punch lines on Saturday Night Live and Mad TV? Race. What gets the headlines? Race. Remember O.J. Simpson? The trial of the century? The race card? What gets people focused on the U.S. Supreme Court (well, besides abortion)? Race. What did people just riot about in Toledo, Ohio, and not that long ago, in Cincinnati? Race. What issue has resulted in several constitutional amendments, and the passing (and eventual judicial overturning) of literally thousands of federal and state laws? Race. What issue dominates every major election, employment decision, traffic stop, casual encounter, award ceremony, etc.? Race. Remember Denzel Washington? Clarence Thomas?

I agree that other issues like class and gender should be also discussed in the main United States article. But please get your facts straight before you deprecate race as a an issue of continuing importance to contemporary American society. --Coolcaesar 02:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiousity, Coolcaesar, where do you live? Your page seems to indicate California, but in a big city, or not?

I ask because I live in a city (well, a trio of cities) with about 160,000 people--not huge, but not exactly sheltered. I don't know what happens in the city you live in, but my headlines tend to deal with hurricanes and Harriet and the like, not with race.

As for "what issue dominates every major election..." I have to ask, I'm really not trying to be mean... but what the heck was that supposed to mean?! I'd say that the war in Iraq, gay marriage, taxes/tax cuts, economic programs, abortion, flip-flops, etc. mattered a heck of a lot more in the 2004 presidential election. When was the last time that race played a dominant role in a presidential election? What, the sixties? As for other "major elections"... I don't know what else qualifies as "major". When was the last time that race played a major part of a Senate race? I don't know about California, but I can't recall race playing a role in any race in at least the last 9 years or so.

What gets people focused on the Supreme Court (past abortion)? I'm sorry, you might have forgotten, but not too long ago someone sued to get the Pledge of Allegiance out of our schools. That one caused a wee bit of attention to be given to the Supreme Court, I believe. You might recall a certain judge who put the Ten Commandments in his courthouse and his case got taken to the Supreme Court. Just a slight controversy over that one, wasn't there?

As for the rest of what you're saying... really? Every casual encounter is dominated by race? Really? I'd hate to see how you act around people. Where I come from, probably 99% of people act pretty much exactly the same around Hispanics, blacks, and Asians as they do around whites (except if race happens to come up--say, there's a discussion of Steve Nash getting the NBA MVP award). And I do remember Denzel, although Clarence is a little before my time. But do you remember, say, Condi Rice? Remember the huge buzz around her being the first black NSA? Neither do I.

Don't get me wrong--race still matters (unfortunately), but its importance is greatly overrepresented in this article (religion's importance, for one, dwarfs that of race). I tried taking a look at "demographics", but there's nothing there that really deserves to be deleted. I think that basically the other sections need to be expanded. Sorry if this was too harsh. Matt Yeager 03:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Uh, actually, by elections, I was referring to the Voting Rights Act. If race wasn't still such a big deal, we wouldn't have so many state and local jurisdictions operating their elections under federal supervision. Also, I think you are sheltered in the sense that you have not lived in a truly diverse, strongly segregated city like Los Angeles (where the abruptness of boundaries and the depths of poverty can be rather shocking).

By the U.S. Supreme Court, I was referring to Brown v. Board of Education, as well as all the huge affirmative action cases over the years, of which the most recent were Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (both decided in 2003).

Also, keep in mind that race is a huge issue in employment (which is a big issue for most people, unless you happen to be among the lucky few who don't need to worry about a job). Haven't you ever filled out those optional EEOC questionnaires? Ever read an employee handbook with all the clauses about how discrimination on the basis of race is against company policy? When we have arrived at a truly color-blind society, then such language will be unnecessary.

As for casual encounters, you're obviously not familiar with the huge literature (again, I suggest visiting a Barnes & Noble sometime) on race relations. Remember Danny Glover's complaints in 1999 about not being able to hail a taxi? How about John Howard Griffin's Black Like Me?

The most chilling lesson, by the way, of Griffin's story (which is required reading in most California schools), is that the most dangerous racism is not that which comes from fire-breathing demagogues — it's the kind which comes from ordinary people who are unable to see it in themselves. Which, of course, reinforces that famous phrase from Thomas Jefferson that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Finally, pay attention to popular culture sometime, and note the large number of songs within America's dominant music genre (rap) in which the violation of minorities' civil rights by police is a major theme. --Coolcaesar 04:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

In order to save a bit of time, I'm cutting out the colons, okay? ;)

Your first paragraph... what's the point there? That only people who live in big cities have reasonable opinions on race? As a matter of fact, in the Tri-Cities, Washington, there's (give or take) a 75/25 split on whites/non-whites (not far off from the nat'l average, and much closer than LA is). I have white, Hispanic, black, and Asian friends, and trust me--race just almost NEVER comes up. It's just not that big a deal. Maybe it is where you live, I don't know.

Forget affirmative action cases for a second, okay? Two of your main examples (Brown v Board, "Black Like Me") come from over forty years ago. This isn't an article on the history of American society--if it were, then race would deserve a far greater section than it deserves for society today.

As for recent affirmative action cases and such--sure, that's notable... but not extraordinarily so. Definitely, race as an issue is still out there... but it's not that much in most pats of the United States.

I'm going to quote you here, and you tell me how this makes sense...

"As for casual encounters, you're obviously not familiar with the huge literature (again, I suggest visiting a Barnes & Noble sometime) on race relations. Remember Danny Glover's complaints in 1999 about not being able to hail a taxi? How about John Howard Griffin's Black Like Me?"

I'm totally lost. Literature is different than casual encounters. Black Like Me was fifty years old. I don't remember Danny Glover complaining about not being able to hail a taxi, but why is that notable? People have difficulty flagging down taxis all the time.

And, in closing, if police infringing on minority rights is a major component of rap, I must really be missing something. In all I've heard, it deals mostly with drugs, guns, and (for lack of a better term) getting girls to shake it like a Polaroid picture. :) Matt Yeager 05:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I approve!--Sansvoix 09:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Now I see the problem after reading Matt Yeager's user page. It's a generation gap. I grew up during the rise of gangsta rap, when NWA, 2Pac, Notorious B.I.G., and Dre were topping the charts, when O.J. Simpson was on newsstands every day and on TV every night, and when Rodney King and the L.A. riots were still a fresh memory. Matt was still a toddler at the time.

Of course, it's true that those things I just mentioned were 10 years ago, and all minority middle classes have continued to grow since then. But many, many inequities still exist. For example: There has never been a black, Hispanic, or Asian President, or Chief Justice for that matter. Indeed, no female African-American or Hispanic justice has ever sat on the Supreme Court, as well as no Asians, male or female.

Of the nation's top 25 universities, none of their tenured computer science faculty were black as late as 2001 (and the last time I checked, the current number was around 2 or 3). Residential segregation (and hence, school segregation) is nearly as bad as it was back in the days of Brown v. Board of Education (the research results from the Civil Rights Project at Harvard Law School in 2001 and 2005 was heavily reported this year due to the 50th anniversary of the case). In November 2004, the Alabama electorate failed to approve a constitutional amendment to get rid of their state constitution's blunt endorsement of segregation. That same fall, the Chancellor of UC Berkeley (the nation's top public university) announced that not a single African-American student had enrolled that fall in the College of Engineering.

Getting the picture? Anyway, I'm not sure we are going anywhere, so this is the end of the discussion. I have better things to do on Wikipedia such as tending to my pet articles like Freeway. --Coolcaesar 06:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

In the port rankings, the given rankings give an inaccurate picture. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are tops of the list in total value of trade, but ports like Houston and New Orleans are three to four times busier than the California ports in terms of tonnage. In fact, many ports in America are much busier than the ports listed as the top in America in this article. LA and Long Beach figures are skewed higher because of the high value of the imports they receive - namely high tech products and cars; while the much busier ports elsewhere transact more in less precious basic commodities. In the shipping industry, Los Angeles and Long Beach are considered almost minor compared to the massive operations around Houston and New Orleans. see http://www.aapa-ports.org/pdf/2003_US_PORT_CARGO_TONNAGE_RANKINGS.xls

Also, a ranking of the top cities in terms of population is misleading. Metropolitan area rankings should instead by used. I am from Austin but there is no way it can be considered more important than Atlanta or Miami, which are missing from the list while Austin is present.

Finally, despite the painfully obvious efforts of our Seattle based friends, Seattle is not worth mentioning except where it ranks in objective measures - meaning nowhere. If you think your home city is important, cite facts that prove it.

jasoncward 11:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I feel obliged to revert the comment,

There is also an ongoing debate as to weather or not the U.S. should declare English the national language, however ,there have been no serious bills in congress to make such a move in any recent year.

because there is no evidence -- no citation, nothing in the Talk page -- to support the claim that a debate is ongoing. And the comment is "fluffy" in that no debators are mentioned by name or affiliation. It just isn't "wiki" enough to be included here. That's not to say you can't document the comment and put it back later. I just feel that, for now at least, the comment should be kept out of the article.--GraemeMcRae^talk 06:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Science

Someone (not logged in, but using an IP address that has a fairly long history of useful edits) added a Science section, an addition which was reverted a short time later by User:Tyler McHenry with the explanation that gave four things wrong with the new section: (1) POV, (2) vague and (3) not a useful addition, (4) not in line with Wikipedia style. My opinion is that it might be possible to address each one of these objections, and turn the section into a valuable addition to the article. I do agree with User:Tyler McHenry, though, that it isn't suitable as it stands. In the hope of resurrecting it some time in the future, and to take some of the sting out of the revert for the person who submitted it in the first place, here it is, exactly as it was in the article, ready to be edited and improved:

The United States has made many significant and fundamental contributions to scientific and engineering knowledge. The prodigious efforts of its scientists have directly contributed to the strength of the national and world economy. Its scientists have received more Nobel Prizes and published more original papers than any other nation. Most original patents have been awarded by the national government. It was the first nation to create an atom bomb, design a nuclear reactor, and land people on the moon. The national government funds several national labs. Many international scientific and engineering organizations are in the United States.

However, the United States' scientific leadership is in jeopardy since the Bush Administration does not fund scientific efforts at the same level as previous administrations.

Now, for my ideas about how to improve it. First, if the section is about Science, let's confine it to science, and not engineering. Second, let's just say what the U.S. has accomplished in science without speculating on how this has strengthened our economy. God knows, we don't want to step into that! If the author knows how many papers have been published by people of each nationality, and how many patents have been awarded to people of each nationality, lay those factoids on us! Otherwise, let's just stick to what we do know -- the Nobel prize count is well documented. And if you're going to pick out some great inventions for which the United States is known, can you please pick something like the transistor instead of the atomic bomb? As far as the funding of science is concerned, much of it is funded by corporations, not the U.S. government. Bell Labs, for example, was a powerhouse of science from 1925 to 1984, funded completely by AT&T and the Bell System. So if the author has information about the funding of science by country, and in particular whether (and by what amount) funding has declined during the Bush Administration, then, please lay those factoids on us, too. So the next paragraph is what remains of the section after the unsubstantiated parts have been excised and the one part I know how to substantiate has been substantiated. I invite the original author (or anyone else) to answer the questions I've raised here, and either fix the paragraph, above, or add to this paragraph:

The United States has made many significant contributions to science. As of October 2005, U.S. scientists have received 114 Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology or Medicine, which is more than the next four countries (Germany (34), United Kingdom (29), Switzerland (19), and The Netherlands (17)) combined. (See Nobel laureates by country).

--GraemeMcRae^talk 08:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just to note, I do think it's reasonable to include a section on Science, it's just that the section as written was a jarring drop in quality compared to the rest of the article, which is a well-written rather high-profile article; the paragraph just seemed like US cheerleading with an anti-bush barb thrown in. I think your proposal is a good way too go about this, although I suggest that any science section focus on tangible acheivements made by US scientists or companies rather than listing accolades (i.e. link to some of the most important actual advancements that the nobel prizes were won for instead of linking to the prizes). -- Tyler 09:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

A good point, Tyler. My main objective in moving it here is to give the person who wrote it an opportunity to spruce it up and get it back into the article.--GraemeMcRae^talk 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

"First patents for the transistor-principle were registered in 1928 by Julius Edgar Lilienfeld in Germany" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor. I'm sure US citizens have invented stuff, but apparently not the transistor. Manufacturing isn't exactly inventing. What;s wrong with the atom bomb? (hmmm, maybe that was German too ;)) - Simon

I remember back in the late 90's, the estimated population of the United States was over 360 million. Now they are saying that there's less than 300 million people in the US?

I remember being taught in the late 90's that 270M was the rough population figure for the US. Maybe my textbooks were outdated... -- Tyler 23:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I, too, would love to know where you heard 360 million. That's at least 25% larger than any official census estimate from the present all the way back to 1980.--chris.lawson 01:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ohh...jeez. You know that picture of the dollar bill under Economy?

Is it considered counterfeit, or am I ranbling? Because if it is an exact copy, then wouldn't the US government be in flames about this? Or something? There should be something saying "Fake" or "counterfeit" on it, like play money... anyway... Flameviper12 16:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

No one counterfeits $1s. There's a reason there's no security features on the $1 like you see on the $10 and $20. It probably costs more than a dollar to create a convincing fake $1, even with a high quality source photograph like this. However, we have images of higher denominations, but again, really, they're nothing more than if a counterfeiter put a real $100 to a computer scanner. We aren't helping anyone beyond what they could easily do themselves. --Golbez 22:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

well that explains a lot. Ive heard the 20 dollars bill is the most counterfeited of american bills (hence why there has been 3 versions of the same bill in so little time).

Alright, I moved a boatload of stuff over to a daughter article here. Thoughts? Improvements? Matt Yeager 01:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good! Would it need to be tied in with the main article Demographics of the United States?--sansvøix 03:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Already is (well, at least it's linked to). Matt Yeager 05:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

RJ I revised the opening paragraphs by removing irrelevant materials, mentioning Puerto Rico, and condensing the section on pre-1492. 67.176.74.236 22:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Richard Jensen 11/7/05Reply

Which is false, since Puerto Rico is not part of the United States. It's unincorporated, meaning it's not an integral part of the republic. --Golbez 22:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico is owned and operated by the USA. It does have a unique status but it is in no way independent. It uses US dollars, its inhabitants are all US citizens, appeals from its courts go to the federal courts on the mainland, the State Dept controls its foreign policy; the Treasury in Washington collects taxes, the Navy guards its waters and DHS handles customs. The District of Columbia was not named after a nonexistant poetic name for the country Richard Jensen

Actually, the treasury doesn't collect taxes from PR; Puerto Ricans pay no federal income taxes, and accordingly have no federal representation. Furthermore, the U.S. census does not include PR. And no one said it was - it was named after Columbus, as was "Columbia". That should be fixed. However, you deleted the entire mention of Guantanamo. Please use edit summaries; I've reverted your changes. --Golbez 03:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Never mind; District of Columbia and Historical Columbia both state that DC's name came from Columbia, rather than directly from Columbus. Or something. It's kind of a stupid argument anyway, they're one and the same. --Golbez 03:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico taxes are controlled by Washington; see URL = welcome.topuertorico.org/economy.shtml for proof. RJ

DC's name certainly comes from "Columbia" but that was not in 1790 an old poetic term for America; the poetry came later. RJ

PR is in fact represented in Congress with a delegate (Luis Fortuna, elected 2004)(and it votes in presidential primaries).RJ

Fortuna is non-voting, just like DC's (but DC is taxed). PR is an unincorporated territory of the US, to include it with the fifty states, one district, and one incorporated territory is simply wrong. It can become independent again; the rest cannot, barring some radical circumstances. --Golbez 05:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why does the final box, "International Ties of the United States", list "Continent of Europe" and "European Union"? Is there some logic here that I'm missing?

Scrutchfield

Wow, I see no logic to that box at all. Thanks for pointing it out, it should be fixed or removed. --Golbez 23:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The area of the US is 3,537,441 square miles, not 2,808,072 square miles. I've edited accordingly.

And who put in the above note? Anyway, don't good sources on area occupied by jurisdiction usually say something like "1,000 square units (including 200 square units of inland water, but excluding 500 square units of inland water); 1,500 square units (including 700 square units of inland water)"? This should be clarified. The U.S. has plenty of large bodies of inland water whose inclusion or exclusion as part of the total area can greatly change the figure. President Lethe 17:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, I got my information from the US Census Bureau-http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html However, you're correct. It was listing land area, instead of total area. My bad. Using the CIA World Factbook, the total area is 3,718,711 square miles. Now, I didn't register because it's a small, inconsequential edit, and I'm quite lazy. If you think it's wrong, go check the facts and make your own edit.

Before, the list of the World largest countries was: 1)Russia, 2)Canada, 3)China, and 4)USA. For some reason USA has increased its area and gone past China and become the World third largest country. Is this change of way of measuring the area caused by political reasons or is it just a mere statistical coincidence?

(a) Sign your posts, please, with ~~~~. (b) I think it's a function of whether the area of Taiwan is included in China's area. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes if you consider Taiwan, China is bigger than the 50 states + DC. However, if you include US territories (or US territories minus Puerto Rico), the US is bigger than China including Taiwan. This is all assuming you count land and water area, if just land China and the US are both bigger than Canada, and I believe China (without Taiwan) is bigger than the states plus all territories. TastyCakes 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, China's area has not changed, and Taiwan is of course not included. In 1997 the area of the United States was officially 9,372,614 sq km. To day it is 9,613,418 sq km. Somehow United States has expanded with an area like the size of Oregon. I just wonder what has really happened here. Cato from Oslo.

In the picture of Americana (baseball bat, US flag), why is the apple pie there? Apple pie originated in Europe, I believe, not North America.

See Apple pie in American culture. :-) President Lethe 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Apple pie in American culture: "using his penis to penetrate a homemade apple pie, having earlier been told that a vagina feels like "warm apple pie", illustrating the pie's place in American culture..." Now I understand!--sansvoix 04:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

1. I used the word superpower in the introductory paragraph: "Also referred to, with varying formality, as the United States, the U.S. (or the US), the U.S.A. (or the USA), the U.S. of A. (or the US of A), the States, and America  Administrator note, the superpower consists of fifty federal states and one federal district."

2. It was removed as being point of view.

3. I specifically linked to the "Superpower" article—which readers should see, along with many other sources (too numerous to list; both in Wikipedia and without), to determine the term's validity when it's applied to the U.S.

4. I inserted the term as a relatively agreed-upon fact. My insertion is not meant to say that superpowers are good or bad, and is not meant to say whether it is good or bad that the U.S. is a superpower. It is simply a thing that most persons familiar with the word would agree on. If you ask "What nation or nations is or are superpowers in the world today?", the first answer almost invariably will be the U.S., in whatever country you ask the question.

5. I inserted it in the introductory paragraph for this reason: it seems to me reasonable that an encyclopedia article's opening paragraph on a country should provide four basic bits of information: (a) the name by which the country is generally known in the language of the article; (b) the general form of the country's government; (c) the general geographic location of the country; and (d) anything that is highly likely to be considered a defining characteristic of the country, such as some sort of extreme (largest population, smallest area, northernmost, southernmost, coldest, rainiest, only one with absolute monarchy, whatever, ... or superpower).

6. The opening paragraph gives common names of the U.S. in English; gives a very basic description of the form of government; offers the general location on the globe; and describes a feature that, in this case, is not only a defining characteristic but, indeed, is considered by many to make the country unique (the only one of its kind) in the world. In introducing a country, it's likely to be interesting, informative, and useful to the reader to offer some detail that sets the country off from most, or all, others. We could point out the United States' high rank in land area or in population; but the U.S. is only close to the top in those areas, not actually superlative—while it is a superpower, and is very often defined, by experts and laypersons alike, as the single superpower in the present world.

7. Later in the same article are the words "Since the mid-20th century, following World War II, the United States emerged as the dominant global influence in economic, political, military, scientific, technological, and cultural affairs." That's a pretty good definition of a superpower. But, in the opening paragraph, we might want to be more concise, offering simply the word rather than the definition—and, as I said, the word superpower itself is a cross-reference to the "Superpower" article. There are many defining characteristics of the U.S.; but one of the most significant, and the one that may well make the U.S. unique in the present world, is the country's superpower status.

Please, consider these points. If there is disagreement, let's discuss it.

Thanks to all for their efforts with this article.

And, to those to whom it matters, Happy Thanksgiving!

President Lethe 16:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The USA is as superpower. That is a significant and distinguishing status, and therefore appropriate in the introductory description. --StanZegel (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is not a matter of American nationalism; the United States is objectively the nation with the world's largest economy and military-industrial complex. It's the country's most defining characteristic, and deserves lead mention. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 20:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking at this page for the first time. It came up because we were trying to work out what to do visually for the Romania article. Much to my surprise, I found that this (United States) is kind of visually mediocre. George Washington, G.W. Bush, Statue of Liberty: inevitable, fine. But three maps (two very dull at this scale) and an illegible (at this scale) chart on ancestry of Americans? Bland skyline shots of NYC, Chicago, and LA—it's hard to make the New York skyline look this dull, shoot it from Brooklyn Heights or across the Hudson in New Jersey! Dollar bill, sure. LA freeway interchange, OK. Highway sign, harmless (but why I-5, not the much more iconic Route 66?). A nice enough picture of a building at the University of Virginia, but nothing to shout about. Elvis on a stamp, fine. A rather cliched (though nicely done) picture of an apple pie, etc. atop an American flag: it isn't the Americana image I'd have chosen, but I guess it is one way to do Americana without going regional.

How about some wilderness? The U.S. has a lot of that. We have some amazing photos at Grand Canyon. A small town, maybe from New England? A Californian suburb? Something that shows the Spanish heritage of the Southwest? Or the image from Apollo Theater, or some equivalent? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you 100%. I've tried! The zealots that run this article like it their way. I have no idea why those graphs, lists, charts are there... especailly considering they are all on other linked pages for those interested... but I've been told they are valuable... the skylines don't contribute to the article, there should simply be a nice one of New York! The visuals only embody how painfull this article is! Not that anyone would actually read the mess. I've literally put over 5 hours of work trying to improve it (and fend off personal attacks by fundementalist conservatives when I tried to add neoliberalism to "economy"... Bretton Woods anyone?), over a few weeks it was all reverted for pretty vague reasons.

phew, sorry about that rant

Wikipedia might as well go ahead and create censorship board for anything related to the U.S.A. Seriously though, its gotten to the sad point where a committee is needed to validate changes... --User:Sansvoix 09:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)--Reply

-- I love it when people who have never worked on this article come on and tell us how terrible it is. If you want to see a picture of the Grand Canyon, then why don't you just go ahead a put one in instead of just complaining about it? Many people have complained in the past about the lack of a picture of small-town America, but then they never actually try to post one. The city pics have been discussed at length and should be left as is. Anyone who says a pic from the top of the ESB building is "dull" probably needs to see an eye doctor. --Jleon 00:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Didn't I just state that I've spent 5 hours trying to improve this article? We can't just add a picture of the grand canyon, or anything else for that matter, because this article is so cluttered with useless... and you guys for whatever reason are a stonewalling any changes. To say that we havn't tried to do anything to improve this is an outright lie! --User:Sansvoix 01:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

-- I think it should be pretty obvious that my comments directly addressed the complaints of Jmabel, and not yours. Ok, so your upset that something you wrote about the economy got reverted. Well, did you even bother to start a discussion here about it? --Jleon 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am not "upset" that my improvements on the economy got reverted, I'm frustrated that All the changes got reverted for some pretty bogus reasons. The obvious issues with pictures and graphs, vauge info.... This article is recognised to need a overhaul, and I went to the economy section first because it was the worst, and there was a plea out to fix it! Half of this discussion page is me fending off attacks from some guy after I tried to "start a discussion."...--sansvoix 04:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

-- If you're talking about that stuff above, it looks to me like you and Nicholas F were just arguing about the use of the word "exploit", and apparently no one else felt the debate was compelling enough to join in. The bottom line is that all of the complaints about the pics are over things that no one has even tried to include yet. --Jleon 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the commentary, but you are compleatly wrong!

As I've stated before, I have tried to fix the pictures, and many other things. --sansvoix 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jleon, usually on articles that have a large number of active editors and a great deal of discussion, I consider it more polite to make suggestions on the talk page and seek responses, rather than wade in and start editing. But if you think that it is more appropriate that I wade in and delete the images that I consider contribute very little and replace them with ones more to my liking, I will gladly do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Despite what I said in the previous paragraph, I don't like to wade in and stomp on articles other people have been working hard on. So I have merely added two images that I think are a positive. I figure I will wait for reactions before doing more. Jleon, if this isn't bold enough to satisfy you, just let me know: I'll check your user contribution list and see if I can find something to dispute, if that's your idea of a good time. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

-- I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. If everyone decided to write a detailed opinion about the overall article before they "wade in", this would be pretty slow going. Perhaps if you check the talk archives you'll have a better sense of what changes people will likely be more receptive to. The two changes you made were fine though, and I doubt if anyone will try to remove them. --Jleon 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you need to get a "clue" here, no need for snotty language! I find Jmabel very easy to understand. We don't want be forced to write detailed opinions backing up minor changes, but even when tried, it is compleatly useless as the other guy tends to respond even more intolerently. But more importantly, you are using degrading language, and not just with your intitial sentance.. "perhaps if you check" is rude, please say something such as "Have you checked argument X in the recent archive?" Social skills are important on the internet, as they are in real life! I've been known to be anti-social on occasion but.. common, your just being blantantly hostile. --sansvoix 06:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

The foundation date has stood for some time as 1607 (Jamestown). Calling the date of the first permanent European settlement within the present boundaries the date of foundation of the United States, seems to me quite a stretch. Being the first British settlement to last, it could also be the foundation of Canada. Was Israel founded when the first settlers arrived there? Or perhaps, instead, the foundation of the USA should be pushed further back to the first permanent human settlers: Native Americans?--JimWae 05:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Polls say that 85 percent of Americans are Christian . No reference made . If you make the link to religion in the united states that appears above this claim you will find a table that suggest the figure is 79.8 percent. Seemingly a conflict there.

For a long time, English has been the common first language of Americans, but now I hear Spanish is getting popular. Any info on Wikipedia about this?? Georgia guy 22:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I dunno. Spanish is becoming very popular in the West Coast and Southwestern states in terms of everyday commerce. For example, many retailers like Wal-Mart now have dual signs in their stores in both English and Spanish. I've seen trilingual packaging for a few products in Spanish, English, and French (the last is to make Quebecois consumers happy). Some government services like driving tests are available in Spanish, while the standard legal summons form in California (which starts all lawsuits) is a dual English/Spanish language form. But English is still the dominant language of American law, science, arts, humanities, government, etc.

It's possible that we may see a shift to a more bilingual America in our lifetimes, but I doubt it. A lot of historians have pointed out that so far, all immigrant groups have shifted to English as their primary language as they assimilate, become educated, and begin to achieve a normal distribution through the various income-earning classes.

Also, it would be very difficult for any language to displace English as the primary language of academia due to the massive expansion of English during the 20th century to accommodate the development of modern science and engineering. Hundreds of thousands of words would have to be translated. On the other hand, English did displace German in the 1940s just as German displaced Latin in the 1870s, so another language shift cannot be completely ruled out.

In any case, English is probably here to stay as the primary language of American law and government, since several states have English-only clauses in their constitutions which would have to be overturned before Spanish could replace English in government affairs. On the other hand, there is precedent for operating a bilingual legal system within the United States — Puerto Rican lawyers have to be bilingual because the local legal system uses Spanish but the federal legal system uses English. --Coolcaesar 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Note that both New Mexico (Spanish) and Louisiana (French) have an additional official language to go along with English. It really varies. In New England, there's a very low proportion of people who speak Spanish at a native or near-native level. It's sort of like that in the Southeast as well--outside of Florida (where Cuba provides a huge Spanish cultural base).

And Hawaii (Hawaiian). Tomer^TALK 02:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Probably, nationwide, I'd guess 98% (at least) of adult residents speak passable English, and well over 80% speak it as a native language (though they may also speak Spanish as a native language). Most Hispanics (15% of the population) speak Spanish (not all of them, though).

Spanish is certainly not widely-spoken enough to qualify as the second language of the United States. The language of the United States is English, then there's a huge gap, and then you have Spanish, then... French, I guess... Except for a few recent European immigrants, virtually everyone speaks English or Spanish fluently, but the vast majority speak English fluently. The Spanish knowledge of most Americans is words like "excelente" or "hasta la vista", while all but very very few Spanish-speakers know at least basic English ("My English is not good", etc.--you'd find a ton of Americans who couldn't say the Spanish equivalent, "no puedo hablar español", or something to that effect). Matt Yeager 23:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Most Americans with a highschool education can say "no hablo español" well enough to make themselves understood by a spanishspeaker. That said, I'd have to agree...Spanish is not likely to become more widespread in the US than it is now. Just because product labeling includes Spanish (and French, German, Italian, Dutch, Hmong, etc., depending on the locale) more frequently now than 20 years ago doesn't mean Spanish is more prevalent, just that product labeling in Spanish is more frequent. (See also Marketing, Advertising, Pandering for customers) Some people like to point out that sampling by the census bureau indicates an increase in native spanish speakers. That may be the case, but I've seen the long form, and I can tell you, the results from it can easily lead to a lot of ambiguous interpretations of the data it collects. Also, just because there are a lot more native spanish speakers in the US doesn't mean that none of them have bothered to learn English, nor that they use Spanish more frequently than English. That said, there are certainly places in the US where you can go and hear almost only Spanish. Of course I can go to neighborhoods in Wausau, Wisconsin and hear only Hmong, or to the south side of Minneapolis and hear only Somali... Tomer^TALK 02:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, guys, using Spanish as a primary language is much more common than you think, and growing all the time because of immigration. It may not be that evident in most parts of the U.S., but the population along the U.S.-Mexico border is booming, and native Spanish speakers are not assimilating linguistically in these areas as other waves of non-English speaking immigrants did in the past. The push-factors that drove assimilation in the 19th and early 20th Century are no longer as strong as they were, when they still exist at all It is very easy for Mexican immigrants who remain in Texas and the Southwest to use Spanish first and foremost into the second and third generation. The geographic proximity of Mexico, internet and telecommunications technology, etc., has changed the entire dynamic. A Russian immigrant coming through Ellis Island in 1910 might have moved to an ethnic neighborhood in NYC, but there was virtually no contact with the old country, and little Russian "media" available, as it were. When mass immigration from Eastern Europe slowed, then stopped, there was also no fresh supply of native Rusian speakers to keep the old language going as at least some of the children and grandchildren of the original immigrants moved up and out.

That's all different now. The current wave of immigration is overwhemingly from a single country, Mexico, and there's no ocean separating El Paso from Ciudad Juarez. Spanish language TV, internet, newspapers and magazines, etc., are plentiful, and travel back and forth from the new country to the old-- even for illegal migrants-- is commonplace. Moreover, with no signs of this immigraion explosion abating, the constant influx of new Spanish speakers creates a "critical mass" for the language pool that allows it to slef-perpetuate and grow. Philologists and linguistic researchers have been documenting this phenomenon in the State for over a decade now, but its always a very sensitive area since people are fearful of being labelled racists or bigots, and its difficult to talk about language without also addressing race, ethnicity, and assimilation: always political bombshells.

But to stick strictly with language-- you are right, Spanish isn't about to displace English any time soon, and a command of English will be necessary for at least a long, long time to really be upwardly mobile in the States.

FYI, I made one change to the "language" section, deleting a line asserting that Spanish was on the rise in the U.S. in part because 1/5th of the country was formerly Mexico. That, at least, is NOT responsible for Spanish increasing in the States. That was over 150 years ago! Texas and the Southwest were relatively sparsely populated at the time of the Mexican-American War, and the English-speaking population of the annexed areas (mostly resident in central and north Texas) outnumbered the Spanish-speaking population back then. It was only subsequent immigration and high-birth rates that increased the Spanish-speaking population, not the annexation process itself. Perhaps a minor point, but by the same logic, the entire Louisiana-Purchase area should be seeing an increase in French-speakers since it was once part of France.

The article has these two points. "The immense military and economic dominance of the United States has made foreign relations an especially important topic in its politics, with considerable concern about the image of the United States throughout the world.", and "The United States Armed forces are considered to be the most powerful military (of any sort) on Earth and their force projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other nation, or collaboration of nations."

Do these conform to the NPOV policy? The military dominance of the US is pretty clear indeed, but this sounds a bit too extreme, and you could think of counterexamples. For example, Russia posesses more nuclear weapons, and it could be argued that a united Russian-Chinese force would be quite a match to the US military force. I, therefore, think that the sentence should be rephrased somehow, so that the American military dominance remains clear, but it doesn't sound like "US can kick anyone butt anyway". Thoughts? Solver 21:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I disagree and think it's fine as is. It says "their force projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other nation, or collaboration of nations." This is true. Russia and China may have larger armies, but they do not possess the ability to project that force the same the U.S. does even if combined. It sounds extreme because that is what comes with being a "superpower." I personally don't see a problem.Gator (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I removed the "collaboration of nations" part, which is not clearly the case & does seem like POV. If it were the US against the entire rest of the world, the outcome is not clearly in the US's favor. --JimWae 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's good that you came here to discuss this, but I reverted it, because this discussion has just started and I think it should finish before any changes to this part are made.Gator (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think the burden is on anyone who wants to keep that part to demonstrate that it is not POV - and that it ought to be removed until such happens --JimWae 22:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Saying that no other collaboration of nations can rival the US still doesn't sound right, as one can also use extreme examples - US against every other single country, then the outcome would likely not be a US victory. So thanks to Jim for removing this. Other articles already show the US power projection dominance - such as articles on aircraft carriers or carrier battle groups. When reading those, the situation becomes pretty clear.

Ahh, edit conflict. Then let me also add this point. Military of the United States asserts that the US army is superior, and shows exactly why (what equipment, spending, etc. make it superior), but doesn't use terms like "superior to any other collaboration of countries".

Personally, I feel that this falls under what WP:NPOV mentions - don't jump to conclusions instead of the reader, but show him the facts. I am confident that an assertion that the US army is superior to any other possible collaboration does not fall under the category of extremely obvious assertions - while, for example, the assertion that the US military operates more aircraft carries than anyone else, does. Solver 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, this is basically a gateway to a ton of other articles, so you can't dump all the info here. It's already too big. The link to the full article is there to provide proof. That said, the second part, "or collaboration of nations" is simply not correct (U.S. vs Entire World? U.S. loses), and the other articles do not support the claim. I say remove it. -- Dpark 23:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Alright... as I'm looking over the page, it looks really, really good. It's got a ton of useful information and (while it's longer than most articles) it really isn't too long. I think this page is just about ready to take a second try at becoming featured. The "pending tasks" thing at the top of the talk page has basically been reduced down to "make the page better", which (naturally) is going to be a never-ending job. I think this page is as good or better than most FA's. Thoughts? Matt Yeager 05:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Half the lead is on geography - with too much detail. The 4th paragraph has 2 topics & should be 2 paragraphs, with the 2nd expanded a bit--JimWae 06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Definitely, the intro needs a bit of work. Once that's done, though... Matt Yeager 06:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

This page has been recognised to need work on various areas, specifically those listed on the top. But with such a high profile article it is very hard to make or discuss any changes (they tend to get reverted, people are impossible and rude, etc). There are several parts of the article that are overly detailed, yet others that are tediously vague and rambling. --All the best for anyone trying to fix the thing, I've had to give up. I have spent several hours researching and editing the page (not to mention the time spent trying to explain my changes to the economics section --to no avail). Everything was reverted, some of it piece by piece over days, which I though was pretty odd. But if thats the way Wikipedia works, theres not much I can do!--sansvoix 07:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Human rights in the United States needs to be linked to from this article, presumably from someplace in the government section. Where? JeffBurdges 15:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

yes, i was asking myself the same thing. Ive recently been through the People's Republic of China page and the Cuba page, all very well done with their Humans rights parts. But im disapointed that there is no section of human rights in the United States page. After all, there is a lot of ground to cover, from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib, where prisoners have no rights whatsoever and recieve numerous tortures. The american influence in latin america/africa/middle east is also something that is just plain wrong. Specially what they have done to Africa, all of the oil of nigeria is in hands of american corporations. I suggest placing it on the politics section.

Good luck! The United States repeted, blatant crimes against humanity (and democracy) do deserve a spot on this article (somewhere between apple pie and "most powerfull military of any sort"). Unfortunatly I've noticed that Wikipedia, by nature, does come with a bourgeois or west-centric viewpoint..."general consensus" might not be with us on this one. But go ahead, the truth will prevail sooner or later!--sansvoix 23:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is it even necessary to include Largest Cities as a heading? I know that America is a large and economically powerful nation, but is it so powerful such that it warrants a title of its Largest cities?

I totally agree. I don't see any other nation putting up Largest Cities as one of their headings. Why is it that the United Statesa has a largest city heading?