Talk:United States/Archive 18

message: The article for Pensacola, Florida and St. Augustine, Florida both claim that Pensacola is in fact the oldest and first colony established in the United States but it was abandoned due to a hurricane two years later (making St. Augustine the oldest continually inhabited colony). Should this article mention those or is it not important enough to warrant inclusion? Waqcku 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Eurpean Settlement

message: Currently at the beginning of the introduction, the "Americas" abbreviation has with it a note pointing to Americas (terminology). This page is merely a list of regions in the Western Hemisphere and places whose names include "America". Whereas the relevant section in this article, found right below the introduction actually explains the terminology, this footnote simply leads the reader to somewhere else inexplicably, when the reason why the note might be reasonable is in fact satisfied right below. This note should be removed. —Centrx→talk 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americas terminology footnote 

message: Didn't congress say that English was the common and unifying language? And isn't that political lingo for "official language"? Seriously. And I know some people will say "no, it's not political lingo for 'official language'", but I think it's obvious that it is, seeing as congress introduced it in the middle of the immigrant debate, and what other purpose would a federal legislature have to call a language "common and unifying" if they aren't making it official? 69.153.5.43 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Didn't congress say that English was the common and unifying language?" No, I don't think they did. And if they did, the senate didn't. And if they did, it doesn't matter til the president signs it, which he hasn't. --Golbez 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the Senate actually has passed that amendment, but the House and Senate still need to hammer out the differences. And Golbez is right, until it passes by the President, it's not law. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is actually quite simple to answer. As of right now there is no official language in the United States. Period. English is, as it has always been on the federal level, the de-facto main language of this country. Please do not add speculations here, an encyclopedia is to feature facutal content only. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is no law. What you described above is true and that's why English is the de-facto official language of the US. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Language? 

message: I've worked for the past month to update Portal:United States and keep it better maintained.  Though, I think the portal would be even better with broader participation.  Perhaps people that have worked on this article would be interested?  One way to broaden participation is instead of choosing the "selected article" myself each week, if others would nominate articles and help make decisions.  (same goes for pictures, though these are stocked up through July 29)  If you would like to nominate or weigh in on what should be featured, please visit the portal. Or if you would like to help in any other way (update news, improve the topics box, etc.) please also stop by. I think the portal is close to featured portal status, and added participation would get it there. Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominate articles for [[Portal:United States]]

message: The demographics part of this page leaves alot to be desired.
It says how many "white" people there are. It breaks down the "types of white" people and gives their percentage.
It does not give a percentage for African Americans or Native Americans, or Latinos. It just gives facts about them (which I am not disputing). Rivka 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is trying to avoid controversy in an odd manner, like some white Americans will get frightened over this statistical fact. But my advice is simply go to the U.S. Census website on the net to find out on the percentage of racial groups in the U.S. I thought of collecting the data to send as an edit to the United States article-demographics. Then again, someone could delete it or report me for "vandalism" or the edits are inflammatory to any racial group. Don't you think it's ridiculous in a free country like the U.S. and no matter how someone get educated enough on dealing with people, can't handle the issue of race? Well...the percentage of racial groups isn't the same violation, like if an anon IP leaves a racially charged message. --Mike D 26 05:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Is the United States the longest surviving republic? The tiny Republic of San Marino is an independent nation and has been so from the middle ages. It's current constitution was written in 1600. --58.105.130.75 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But has it been a republic since then? Signaturebrendel 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions.  Looks like you obviously missed the link at the top of this page!  --Coolcaesar 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest surviving republic? 

message: I heard somewhere that a bill that just passed has a thing attached saying the  oddicial language of the us is now english --24.239.174.223 12:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You heard imprecisely, at least. Go to the top of this page and click on item 9 in the table of contents. — President Lethe 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  official language 

message: Is there any value in mentioning the USA's, or US cities, comparative rankings (education, life expectancy, crime, pollution, poverty, ) vs. other nations? I'm thinking of the Mercer World-wide quality of living survey, WHO estimates Healthy Life Expectancy, ... Thanks, Hu Gadarn 22:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there is a difference. If other nations have the same information, then we should keep it consistent with this article. Oyo321 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global ranking? 

message: Someone has added a gallery of pictures of large metro areas. I was under the impression that it was decided to leave out a table (text or pictures) of information. Thoughts? — President Lethe 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the same impression.  The table that was removed was better looking and more informative than this latest incarnation.  Good jester but it's just too big.  I say remove it. Sorry...—MJCdetroit 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery of cities 

message: The only mention of the U.S. indigenous population in the History section of this article is the first sentence:
:::"Before the European colonization of the Americas, a process that began at the end of the 15th century, the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by Native Americans and Alaska Natives, who arrived on the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago."
No mention is made of what happened to these native populations... Morganfitzp 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many died of diseases brought by Europeans to which the Native Americans did not have any anti-bodies. There was some genocide and then the reservation/boarding school/urbanization policy of the 20th century. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this deserves some mention in this article. In articles about other nations where "some genocide" has occured (Germany, for example), there is at least a paragraph or two about it having happened. The article on the United States makes no mention of native populations beyond circa 9,000 B.C., more than one hundred centuries before the arrival of Europeans. Morganfitzp 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Morganfitzp. The Native Americans are such an important part of United States history (seeing as they've been there since before the US even formed)they surely deserve  a bit more space than they've got right now. Even if just a stub section, such as States and Territories, was added with a link to Native Americans in the United States, it would much improve the article. Thε Halo Θ 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they do. I didnt mean "Some genocide" to sound derogatory and Morganfitzp is right we do have such a section on the Germany article, as there should be. Unfortunately I am not an expert on the issue so go ahead and add the section. Signaturebrendel 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert either (living in the UK), but I'll take a swing at it in the morning if someone else hasn't :) Don't worry btw, I didn't think you were being derogatry. Thε Halo Θ 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I put up the best stuff I could find, and then edited like a demon to cut the size down (the article is pretty big already). I borrowed heavily from the main article, and I think that I got all the infomation that really needed to be said. However, there might be some stuff I missed, so I'm going to ask a friend how knows about the subject. Thε Halo Θ 10:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good idea to my ears, Mr. President ;) I do think though, that we have to keep the infomation short, as the article, truth be told, is already very long (too long in the opinion of many), which is why the section I started was so short. Therefore, I think that the real question now should be what to put in/what to leave out so that we get a balanced view of Native American history in the US. Thε Halo Θ 15:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not edit or delete the paragraph on Native Americans, because it gives the explanation on who were the first peoples in the U.S. before there was even a country or republic. Wikipedia has an article entirely devoted toNative Americans and every ethnic group (i.e. German Americans, Irish Americans and Italian Americans for further study there). I read what some posters complained about American history books published in the last 40 years became more focused on the contribution of women, gays and lesbians, and minorities (African Americans, Mexican Americans and Japanese Americans) in U.S. historical events. I like the inclusiveness and expansion of knowledge in what other people -- as Americans and great historic figures -- has positively contributed, but not because he or she is Black, Jewish, Chinese, Polish, Mormon or Muslim. The Wikipedia article on the United States has created links for those who want more on United States history. American history shown great strides in creating a country out of many peoples. I really don't like the gripes of American history books should leave these individuals out of the picture, something Wikipedia wants to avoid is bias and ignorance. --Mike D 26 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please do not edit"? This is Wikipedia. — President Lethe 14:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike D, can you explain what point you are trying to make here? I don't understand you. From reading the discussion above it seems that Pres Lethe is proposing to integrate information about the Indians into the article rather than keeping them segregated in the linguistic equivalent of a reservation, something that it seems it would be hard to quarrel with. PL, I've removed your emphasis and indented for you, I hope you don't mind. --Guinnog 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize to go off, because PL and others complained the article is a bunch of P.C. propaganda (to carry a section of historical contributions of every hyphen-American group). His idea was rejected and I wasn't comfortable on the huge reaction against PL, with name-calling and opinions about he's an agent of the P.C. media. I'm fine with the idea on integrating parts of the Native Americans in the article, but I told him there are articles devoted to minorities and cultures in the United States. I said "please don't edit" as in erasing sufficient data, but you many edit when you're done to reorganize the data on Native Americans, so I horribly misspoke. --207.200.116.138 06:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous people

message: Here are some random thoughts and references, somewhat in connection with the section immediately above (which is about how much mention to make of Amerindians in the History section of this article).
I find the single initial mention too little, because treaties, conflicts, and coöperation with various groups are integral parts of the history of this country. I won't say that every single bit of the Amerindian part of this history is the most important part of the history; but, at the same time, the present wouldn't be what the present is if anything in the past had been different from what it was. So the Indian stuff is inextricable from the rest of the history, and deserves mention.
Some days ago, I happened to be reading in an 86-year-old book, called Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language | Based on the International Dictionary of 1890 and 1900. Now Completely Revised in All Departments Including Also a Dictionary of Geography and of Biography, Being the Latest Authentic Quarto Edition of the Merriam Series | with a Reference History of the World (published by G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A., 1920; Copyright 1909 and 1913). At the back of the book is a long section called A Reference History of the World | Including a Chronological History from 6000 B. C. to the Present Time | A Historical Gazetteer of All Existing Nations and Their Dependencies | Being Especially Full in the Treatment of the British Empire and the United States | with Maps, Tables, Charts, and an Exhaustive Index, by John Clark Ridpath and Horace E. Scudder, thoroughly reëdited and greatly enlarged by Edwin A. Grosvenor, LL. D., of Amherst College. And page 99 of that section is the start of the U.S. history section; this is its interesting opening:
:The country and its aboriginal inhabitants. The beginning of the history of the United States must be looked for in Europe. There had been indeed from a remote antiquity a race of men scattered over the country now included in the Union, but they had scarcely changed the character of the country more than the wild beasts which they hunted; here and there they had filled the ground a little; they had built light boats in which they traveled on the rivers or pushed out a little way into the ocean; they had baked a few rude utensils, and constructed houses for shelter which could be taken down and carried away whenever the roving home was changed; they had sharpened those senses which they had in common with animals, and the eye and the ear were trained to exceeding cunning; in their contest with nature they had learned endurance; in the loneliness of the wilderness they had learned silence; and the ties of blood had effected a rude tribal relation, and a dim sense of justice and right mingled with the easily understood claim of a strong arm and a resolute will. The men who reached the highest point of animal courage and cunning became the chiefs, and took their names from the beasts which they overcame; the women were scarcely more to them than the nurses of their children and the drudges of the wigwam. They spoke a language, with various dialects, which was pictorial whenever it ventured beyond the expression of the simplest idea, and they drew from the operations of nature the outward form of a meager mythology which, it may be, embodied the faint revelations of an eternal life. There are some signs of races in the country, especially in the southwestern portion, antedating the red men, and possessed of a higher order of mind, but science has not yet reduced these signs to a clear and positive system. There was nothing in the life of the roving tribes which answered to the command to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it.”
I found rather insulting the belittling as well as the repeated likening to animals. (What? Only animals use the senses of sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste? &c.) (Not that I think animals are bad; I love them. But I think the comparisons in that paragraph reek of something derogatory.) But I find some kind of truth in that one opening sentence: "The beginning of the history of the United States must be looked for in Europe."
The people who came and explored and settled were European; they did this stuff because of what was happening in Europe. The effects they had on the Amerindians, good and bad, were as much because they and their ancestors came from Europe as because the Indians did not.
Anyway, I won't get into long commentary on this. As I say, the two are so intertwined that you can't pull them apart. Same for what was going on in parts of Africa. All this stuff is stuck together in U.S. history.
I'm not the one to judge how much to put in other articles and how much to put in this article—partly because I personally wouldn't mind if this article were twice as long, but other editors (and that warning every time I go to make an edit) wish it were shorter than it already is.
I just found that one passage interesting both in terms of the view from that time of the Indians and in terms of the point that sort of does explain why texts on U.S. history so often have so little to say about the pre-European peoples.
Other reasons, of course, include the large percentage of them wiped out by disease and war, the percentage of artefacts that didn't last long because of what they were made of, and the lack of written texts among many of the peoples.
Just two other points:
Alistair Cooke, in his 13-part America: A Personal History of the United States documentary TV miniseries from the early '70s, and in the accompanying book (Alistair Cooke's America), specifically devotes the first whole section to the French and the Spanish in what became the U.S., because, although it ended up being the English and their descendants who took over large parts of what the French and Spanish had claimed, the two other European cultures deserved significant mention. What I mean by significant is ... well, imagine having a documentary of U.S. history in which, for the first whole hour or more, you don't even hear about the English.
And it's the non-English, pre-1776 European history in what became the United States that is the subject of "Immigration — and the Curse of the Black Legend", an op-ed contribution by Tony Horwitz to Sunday's The New York Times, which I'm still reading and which shows just a few of the points about which so many of us are unaware, in terms of French and Spanish doings in what became the U.S. Really, even though not all of us will agree with all the conclusions in the piece, or like The New York Times in general, I recommend it for the facts (as opposed to opinion) about non-English European stuff in what would become the U.S.
Anyway, my thoughts on this have too many details for the relatively few words I've written here to give anything close to an accurate picture of my own view. And, of course, my view is only mine, and there are zillions of other views. But I thought I'd share the one paragraph, mention Cooke, and link to the opinion piece, just as maybe a spark of some discussion and some improvement of this and other Wikipedia articles.
President Lethe 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief portion of the United States article on the subject of the "first Americans" and "previous colonial rule" is worthy. The Native Americans are truly indigenous to North America for at least 20,000 years (or more depends on the experts in anthropology). The first colonies other than French and Spanish ones in what became the U.S. is 1. New Sweden in Delaware, 2. New Netherlands to become the New York area, and 3. Russian-American Company of Alaska. But that's not my point, the necessity to discuss any French and Spanish contributions to U.S. settlement deserves it's articles to explain further more on the subject. Wikipedia articles of New France, New Spain and the articles of state histories: Maine, Louisiana, Florida, New Mexico and California cover the subjects without any scarcity of sources and anecdotes. Other republics became states much later have their own articles: Republic of Texas, Vermont and the brief period of the Southeast U.S. as the Confederate States of America during the civil war. There's always more you need to know in history courses and actually I have Alistair Cooke's America in my house bookshelf. --Mike D 26 05:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amerindians, English, French, Spanish 

message: Something that I haven't been able to find on the wiki is a comprehensive list of the religious organizations and groups that have been founded in America. Should we create one? The Fading Light 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a list would defenitely be justified considering the many, many religous groups in the United States. The problem is whether or not such a list would ever be complete. But as there are other lists of similar nature such as List of automobile manufacturers which may or may never be fully complete, I'd say go ahead. Unfortunately I am not an expert on the issue but such a list sounds like a good idea. Best Regars, Signaturebrendel 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it has much place in this article except as a mention and a link to the list. This article is big enough as it it. But I do agree a list is appropriate. Jaxad0127 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Good separate list-type article. Also good in main article on religion in the U.S. Probably not to include in the regular U.S. article. — President Lethe 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Religions Founded in America: Needed?

message: There should be something about the United States appalling human rights record. I know it's going to be difficult without american nationalists trying to revert it and make the US look like the promised land, but I'm sure it can be done Pure inuyasha 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What else would you like added? Slavery and Native Americans already have several mentions. Jaxad0127 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to out on a limb and say he want Gitmo mentioned. Or maybe he was referring to the Japanese Internment...but I sincerely doubt it’s the latter. Then again, I'd like to see the human rights record of another nation and lets see how they stack up comparatively. Lets talk about the appalling human rights record of the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, China, or Mali. Squiggyfm 04:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I fail to see how something prior to 1906 would not fit in to a nation's appallinghuman rights record?  Why only include the recent stuff.  And does this mean that in 2106, people shouldn't care about Gitmo? --Squiggyfm 17:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most historic stuff is already on the article. Jaxad0127 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Guantanamo, while certainly conteoversial, is too small of a deltail to be mentioned in this article. The bottom line is that in an article that gives of a brief overview of something as complex as a country, especially the US, certain things need to be omitted, only the most important and inconic characteristics of a country should be mentioned here. Such topics do not include current news events and other characteristics that are not absolutely essential. Guantanamo Bay is simply not an integral part of understanding the US. For example the "Middle class squeeze" is a very important current phenomenon in the US, yet it is too specific for a section or sub-section here. There is an article called Human rights in the United States in which a mention of Guanatamo Bay belongs. Signaturebrendel 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to suggest your edit on references in Guanatamano Bay's prisons for suspected terrorists is informative, but does not belong in the article. The economics section has discussed the income disparities of the rich, poor and middle class in America, which is relevant to the status of capitalism and economic freedom has triggered an effect in the U.S. standard of living. Human rights in the U.S. are traditionally among the best records, although every country has made its' mistakes on the treatment of prisoners. --Mike D 26 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights. 

message: Excuse me, I am here to inform you that the largest city in the USA is Los Angeles, CA
:Excuse yourself, (whomever you are...you didn't sign your entry).  In terms of population, no, it is not.  I beleive you are referring to area (sq mi). Arx Fortis 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simply that all of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are part of Honolulu County, which is a combined city-county, which means that the city of Honolulu extends over a thousand miles. It's the longest city in the world, not just the USA. A similar issue is with Tokyo; the island of Iwo Jima, among others, is politically part of Tokyo-to, which means the city of Tokyo extends nearly as far. --Golbez 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the largest city in the United States by area is Sitka, Alaska, with an astounding 2,874 sq. mi. of land (!!!!).  Sixtus LXVI 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's a little unfair, since it, Juneau, and Honolulu are all unified city-counties (or city-boroughs). Jacksonville seems to be the largest pure city. --Golbez 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but althat's the way they do things in Alaska.  Sixtus LXVI 05:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest City 

message: In the history section, the picture of the Battle at Gettysburg has the caption dubbing it "the bloodiest battle". Wasn't this title explicitly given to Antheim?
:Antietam is the bloodiest single day in American history, while Gettysburg, lasting more than one day, is the bloodiest battle. Jaxad0127 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: Civil War picture 

message: In the 19th century a lot of German Russian-Mennonites immigrated to America. Some of them heard about the Adventmessage and they were Seventh-Day-Adventists. Are there (in America) German Adventist-Churches? Simon Mayer.
:Yes there are. Signaturebrendel 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Seventh-Day-Adventist Church 

message: I think this image needs to go for copyright reasons: please consult the image information page and the talk page  for more detailed information. No fair use rationale has been specified for the image's use on this article and AP specifically denies that fair use is available for this image. Hence, we need to be very, very careful when making fair use claims for it. As per Wikipedia copyright policy, "by permission" usage of an unfree image (even one only unfree for commercial purposes) is unacceptable unless it is merely in addition to a good fair use claim. This picture, though iconic, does not seem to have a valid fair use claim in this article. In articles about the photograph itself it seems plausible, but there is no critical commentary on the photograph here - there shouldn't  be, this article is about far broader themes - and it is basically decorative. For that reason it needs to go. If anybody disagrees and wishes to reinsert it, please be aware that a full fair use rationale for the particular usage in this article needs to be written on the image description page. TheGrappler 06:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Coolcaesar 09:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you may be splitting hairs on this one.  This is one of the most reproduced images of the 20th century.  You can bicker about this one but I can upload another [version] of it from the National Archives and Records Administration that would really make this argument null and void.  Just my thoughts anyway.....--Looper5920 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not fair use. Get rid of it. --Guinnog 10:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, in response to Looper5920, does NARA have a license that gives them the right to re-license ad infinitum to downstream users? Or is the photo licensed by AP for viewing on NARA's Web site only? NARA doesn't have the right to just unilaterally put a photo into the public domain; that would be an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. It's really important to make sure that we get our fair use justifications right, because if we stretch it too far for too many images, then AP will get pissed off (they are very big and wealthy and can pay for some very expensive and nasty lawyers) and then they might get an injunction barring Wikipedia from using any AP-owned images altogether. --Coolcaesar 10:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most reproduced", unfortunately, does not mean "copyright expired". Coolcaesar is quite correct. Copyright is a bind unfortunately - but that's what it is meant to be :-) But there as a massive abundance of free images for the United States - I only wish that other countries had copyright laws as liberal! Federal gvt images copyright free, all pre-1923 publications copyright free... there is no need at all to rely on fair use! I have some lovely European images dating back to the 1890s I can't upload for copyright reasons (yep, even taking into account the 1923 thing... and even taking into account the 1909 thing for those really hot on their WP:PD!). If we are building a genuinely free encyclopedia then we need to be hot on this stuff - especially in a flagship article like this one, and especially if we are sinking in an abundance of free images for it anyway. TheGrappler 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg]] 

message: A user named Rotten removed the health section with the reason being "Mexico doesn't have a heatlh section."  As if that's a reason for removing it???  I tried to add it back but somehow duplicated an entire section at the end.  Could someone add the Health section back?  Arx Fortis 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and brought the section back. Rergards, Signaturebrendel 06:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Section Removed?? 

message: It appears that there is no Wikiproject whose scope covers the United States.  If this is true, then I propose a Wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject United States.  One example of why such a project would be useful can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Question on state templates.  There seems to be a lack of standards for the infoboxes used in various city articles.  To understand what I mean, consider the infoboxes being used in the following articles: Chicago, San Francisco, Tulsa, Miami, Stamford.  
--Richard 22:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there definitely should be a US Wikiproject. I have just written four full-size articles on life in the US and posted them in the two "main" templates: Template:Life in the United States and Template:United States topics. Of course there are some article covering subjects in the US that are on neither template. The sheer number of US related articles and the lack of standards is plenty of reason for a US wiki project. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A WikiProject is an excellent idea.  I've been working on Portal:United States (because no one else was updating it).  But, I definitely could use assistance, and eventually would like to take a back seat on that.  The portal could be maintained like the main page, where one person takes care of the featured article, others work on the featured picture, and different people update the "Did you know" and the news.  That would be ideal, but I would be happy with any assistance.   WikiProjects are often a good way to coordinate portal maintainance, among other tasks and coordination for the WikiProject. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have left a post on the Wikiproject:Wikiprojects talk page. There has been one request on a Wikiproject:US places-but that is a bit to specific IMHO. There are dozens of articles w/ "in the United States" in the title, thus I have proposed the project and if you support it you can sign here: also feel free to tweak the description a bit. Also here's the temporary project page (feel free to add to it): User:Gerdbrendel/Wikiproject United States Signaturebrendel 23:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a Wikiproject on the United States 

message: Okay, including me, four have signed up as being interested in the Wikiproject:United States. We need about three signatures more, so if your fond of the idea sign your name here:Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About 3 more sigs needed