Talk:United States/Archive 27

message: Although this is a minor problem, but throughout the article some photo captions end with a point (.), and others don't. I think there should be a universal structure regarding whether to end the captions with or without one. Thoughts? >> Abdalla 03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending Photo Captions 

message: According to the US section of the List of official languages by state, there are several official languages in various territories and states of the United States, including Hawaiian and Spanish.  As there is no de jure official language on the federal level, it is inappropriate (per the infobox country docs) and a little clunky to list 'none de jure & english de facto'.  As such, I've replaced it with regional_langauges and a (presumably exhaustive) list of languages copied from the aforementioned list article. This is the most accurate way to address it in the infobox that I can find. MrZaiustalk 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, I suppose only listing regional languages implies that there isn't a dejure official language at the federal level. One problem: I can't see your edit? There must be some sort of syntax error-I'm sure you'll have that fixed in seconds ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's looking like an error in the template itself.  I've posted a report of the glitch to Template Talk:Infobox Country, and reviewing the template's code to see if there's an easy fix. Doesn't seem to render any but official_languages, even if all three are included.  It should be fixed shortly, however, so if we leave it be for now, we'll be fine.  Better off with the language temporarily absent from the infobox than ambiguous or incorrect, assuming it gets fixed on the quick. MrZaiustalk 05:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick update.  The infobox is at fault.  The spoken_languages option that I attempted to use earlier was completely missing from the template source, and the regional_languages option was only accessible #if the official_languages option was set.  However, as in the case of this article, it certainly should be possible to do the one and not the other.  Updated my post on their talk page.  Given the intricate nature of the template, I'm reluctant to mess with it, but if it's not resolved by tomorrow, I'll just rig up a sandbox and fix it myself. MrZaiustalk 05:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your dedication, Signaturebrendel 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Language section is completely horrible ... looks cluttered. Regional languages? In what sense? English is hardly a regional language in the United States, comparable to the others listed. Furthermore, it's misleading because the infobox template is about the United States rather than parts of it. On another point, its just fortunate that everyone knows already English is the official language of the Federal government, though by precedent rather than statute, so promoting legal fictions (that the US has no official  language) is unlikely to misinform anyone. I understand the topic is sensitive politically, but that being said, I repeat, the infobox template is about the US as a whole. This article would do well to copy the box on the United Kingdom infobox, which confines "regional" official languages to a note, while stating that English is the de facto language (the same legal fiction is maintained to a certain degree in the UK; both the US and UK of course are older than the fad about declaring "Official language"s in the constitution). But this Regional languages thing really doesn't work. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I would argue that it is only accurate when discussing it like this.  However, if you'd like to change it to spoken languages and only list the languages that are spoken by 1% of the population (ie Spanish and English), that would be acceptable.  It's simply inaccurate to list an official language on the federal level, and kinda clunky to have to deal with having de facto and de jure spelled out in an infobox.  PS, didn't see this note until after reverting the regional languages, but the list does accurately reflect the languages officially recognized by the United States and its territories. MrZaiustalk 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official langauge(s)

message: FACTUAL ERROR: The following statement in the geography section is simply not true. I just cant figure out how to put this note anywhere else so please read this and correct the problem.
"The United States is the world's third largest country by land area after Russia and the People's Republic of China and just ahead of Canada.[16] By total area, including inland bodies of water, it is either the world's third or fourth largest nation, depending on whether one counts two territories governed by China but claimed by India. 
The United States is smaller than Canada, period. The borders have not changed in a long time. Check your facts before you post erroneous information. Check the CIA World Factbook (where the following numbers come from) or just do a google search of anything but this website. It goes Russia at 17,075,200 sq. km, CANADA at 9,984,670 and then the US at 9,826,630. Fourth is China with a landmass of 9,596,960. These are facts and the integrity of this website demands someone correct since I cannot. On a side note, every respectable source I checked (US gov't pages and encyclopediae) states that China is smaller than the US. 
:That's precisely where the rankings came from in the first place.  Had you verified the source  listed in the article before posting, you'd have seen precisely what's listed in the article. The numbers you cite above are not the total land area, but rather the total area inclusive of inland seas and lakes. Note that the article also plainly includes the ranking you mentioned, depending on the CIA-ref'd debate over the Indian/Chinese border. MrZaiustalk 05:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography section - total vs land area

message: The current version of the article contains an economic fallacy.  It cites the current median income level and then says this is comparable to current levels in Switzerland and the United Kingdom based on exchange rates.  However, this is a well-known fallacious way of making income comparisons, because it does not does not take into account purchasing power and cost of living.  While it is true that someone in the UK making 30K in British pounds could exchange those for approximately 60K dollars, this certainly does not mean that making 30K pounds in the UK is an equivalent income to making 60K dollars in the U.S.  The relevant comparison is PPP-adjusted (purchasing price parity adjusted) median income.  I suggest that the passage about income comparisons either be eliminated or replaced with a PPP-adjusted median income comparison.  As it stands, this passage is misleading at best and will contribute to misunderstanding among readers.
:The currency convergency rates are PPP rates right from the OCED. BTW: Income is not always representative of purchasing power even within a country of even state. Who is more affluent a household of five making $115,000 or a household of two making $90,000? Furthermore, $500,000 in costal California buys you a tiny condo, but a 2,500 sq. ft. in the Central Valley or a 3,500 sq. ft. home w/ 3 car garage in Chicago's better suburbs. Household income is an imprefect measure as are all other measures! Yet, the current comparisons are utilizing the best possible convergency rates and simply provide an overview of how much households make (how much they can buy for it is impossible to explain anyways-see above) - This is something people wanna know-they want to compare their gross annual household income. You can compare households in the UK to households in the US in terms of total gross annual households income just like you can compare households in SF to households in Chicago and a household of two to a household of four regarding gross annual household income. Signaturebrendel 06:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the section states that the UK has a median household income of roughly $39,000 - $7,000 less than the US. There isn't any mention of "everyone in the UK [earning] twice as much as people in America". What the article does say is that "someone working in the US would earn roughly the same VALUE of money as a person working in the UK" (though I need to mention that household income is not the same as individual income as 42% of US households have 2+ earners). The figures are not based on current exchange rates but on Pucharsing Power Parity rates obtained from the OCED - in other words they measure the "VALUE of money." Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Income, Exchange Rates, and Purchasing Power 

message: A recent edit replaced the GDP info et al with CIA stats that seem to conflict with statistics found elsewhere in the article.  We need to pick a source and stick with it.  Anyone have a clear preference? MrZaiustalk 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the IMF, it's the most neutral and independent IMHO. Signaturebrendel 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: Having a section on War on Terrorism just makes the USA look stupid.  Please change it to "Recent History" or something meaningful. 199.125.109.67 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'satirizing' is the word, not exaggerating.--Primal Chaos 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Terrorism 

message: Do we really need a tag recommending this article by split. Two concerns:
*The article is already split w/ links to more detailed articles
*The actual article is only ca. 65kb long (excluding reference mark-up) -besides we're well aware of the article's length
I don't think the tag is really needed here. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can see why it would be considered. Simply, look at the table of contents. There are 9 subheadings under history alone. Would it be possible to summarize that entire section and have a single link to History of the United States which would then have links to extended articles on each topic? See United Kingdom#History. -Martinman 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, 9 sub-sections are a bit excessive, though I am not that fond of having only one long section as in the UK article either -I like having relatively short sub-section that are easy to navigate. I think perhaps two, three subsection would be sufficient. That said, I too see "why it [the tag] would be considered," but don't think it's needed... any more thoughts? BTW: I will do some pruning on the article later on. Just a couple of weeks (or months ;-) ago I managed to get the article down to about 107kb... so far I've pruned about 2kb 3kb. But some sections such as "history" are outside my area of expertise so will abstain from pruning them for now. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The history section covers more than the history, however. Might be able to merge 'em two or three subsections, but I doubt it can be taken much further without compromising the article.  The culture section, on the other hand, could probably be halved or cut by a quarter by moving one or two of the least important aspects to Culture of the United States, if not yet present.  The Health section could also be trimmed a fair bit. Keep in mind that, for an article of this importance and that has spawned so many others, it may not be realistic to shoot for a size much under 100k.  There are cases where length is warranted.   Also keep in mind that WP:LENGTH does not attempt to regulate the length of the references/see also/extlinks, or, as I understand it, infoboxes or columns.  Be careful when measuring the length of this particular article, with that in mind. Need to strip out the -- and second <ref name> entries before making an accurate measure of this article's length when attempting to meet the article length guideline. MrZaiustalk 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as the total kb figure includes reference mark-up I don't think much smaller than 100kb is possible (see the length measurement comment by MrZaius above). One idea to cut kbs a bit would be to get rid of that somewhat oversized Largest cities table. The Germany article -which made FA- doesn't even have such a section and the UK article simply uses a couple of bullet points to infrom us of the country's largest cities (though some copyediting is required in that article as I prefer text-format). Signaturebrendel 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of places where the article can be trimmed, but there's nothing that really can be split - the articles already exist for the history section, and noone's suggested that anything else be broken off into a separate page. Removing the split tag.  Feel free to replace with VeryLong, but should remove as soon as we hit the point where there's nothing left to cut. MrZaiustalk 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Quick note - We're now back down to mid-April levels of 106k including all refs and the like. Aggressive cuts have been made throughout the article.  Is there anything else left to trim or axe? MrZaiustalk 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split tag

message: "At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²) and with more than 300 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area (...)" Well, wich is it? 3rd or 4rd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.7.182.14 (talk • contribs) 
:Check out the United States#Geography section, or its main article Geography of the United States.  Both explain the discrepancy.  The US is the third largest when only counting land mass, behind Russia and slightly behind China and Russia.  The US is the fourth largest in terms of total area (counting certain bodies of water) when using realistic maps.  When using maps that recognize Indian claims over lands governed by the PRC, the US it the third largest in total area. MrZaiustalk 13:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behind Russia and slightly behind Canada and China. :) FMB 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: You'll have to excuse me if I've posted this in an inappropriate section of this discussion page, as I am usually familiar with only small article discussions; however, the small issue I moot is that it is stated in the economy section that "...Government activity accounts for 36% of GDP."  According to the Burea of Economic Analysis (BEA), government at all levels (federal, state, and local) was valued at 12.4% of GDP to the economy in the year 2006.
I'm not sure if the person who posted the 36% figure was intending to inform the reader of some other figure of government that would account for 36% of GDP, but for now, I'm going to post my information.  I am open to arguments and edits, of course.  Please reply here though, so I can see to what the 36% figure refers.
thethirdperson 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like you caught an error in the section I recently re-wrote. Though I myself do not know where the 36% figure came from - I simply kept it w/o fact-checking it. Nice job, checking facts! Signaturebrendel 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: I noticed that the list of largest cities was reduced from 10 to three.  Shouldn't this have been discussed first?  If it was, then pardon my query, but I don't see it on this page. ++ Arx Fortis 02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell, just do what the Canadians do (1st paragraph of section): describe and link -- after all that is the joy of the piped link.  This article is too long already.  :) Corticopia 02:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent point and all the more reason why perhaps this might have been discussed first. :) ++ Arx Fortis 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made suggestion above-no one sounded any opposition. I have also made the suggestion a while back-again no opposition. If you would like to revert my pruning of the "largest city" section and discuss changes here first-feel free to do so. I think the section was far to detailed-see my post in the "Split tag" discussion above. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, such a change was suggested before in multiple FA/GA reviews and the FA-related section above, posted myself earlier this month. MrZaiustalk 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Five looks a lot cleaner than ten.  Nice fix. MrZaiustalk 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Cities 

message: I'm not sure if this question has come up before, but shouldn't the senate majority leader be listed in the infobox?  Black Harry 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority leader carries no special powers, and is not the head of the senate. He is, at best, third. --Golbez 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate

message: The Health section has been rather bloated compared with the other sections for a while, dating back at least to the last peer review.  Finally got around to taking the scissors to it, and cut:
* Metrics specific to a couple of states in favor of newspaper report for simpler ref and more straightforward stat.
* Medical research - Warrants one or two sentences, but all we had before was a breakdown of funding sources, which are not so significant as to warrant coverage if the impact and history is missing.
* Minor fluff/crufty wording
* Obesity cruft (I believe I might have added this initially - Whoops) - Was lopsided, covering only one public health issue that wasn't rooted in funding problems.  Absent mention of drug use & impact and other causes of illness and death, it didn't make sense to cover obesity in particular here, rather than the main article.
MrZaiustalk 09:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks Good! I was thinking about pruning it myself - you did an excellent job. Thanks, Signaturebrendel 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Health

message: The bias on this wiki is so thick I could swat it with a spatula--RCT 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: mmmm... really? Is this an earnest comment? If so, I disagree, I think the article is really getting to be quite neutral. Signaturebrendel 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Americanism '''IN''' the article on America? 

message: While only indirectly affecting this page, based on previous discussions on this page, there may be some interest in participating in the discussion about a request to move America → America (disambiguation) and ultimately replace America with a redirect to United States. older ≠ wiser 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of Requested Move discussion at [[Talk:America]] 

message: Yea, I know its common sense but like all other countries listed in Wikipedia, it should state in the first sentence as it is a country. Wikipedia is used by all over the world, not just United States. So I think its nescessary to begin the article with the sentence:
"The United States of America is a country of federal constitutional republic made up of 50 states, one federal district, and several territories."
Maybe it might not sound right but you can use another sentence. Even the United Kingdom says "is a country" in the first sentence.
PS. Please dont delete this discussion like before without an answer. I want a fair answer.(Icedevil14 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the US is a state, not a nation-state, consisting of several "peoples." Some would like the US to be a nation-state, but it isn't and shouldn't be. Now that we have seen both viewpoints, let's remember the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. So, as interesting as it is, let's take discussions of what we think the US should be to another venue. Thanks, Signaturebrendel 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, know what your talking about. The United States, is a federation of several 'states'.  It is a nation with a common language, history, and customs and identity as well and has always been thought of as such. As far as the above discussion - my response was to the query - period and entirely relevant - and not what I think it should be but what it is. Tone down your snide remarks and study history first. --Northmeister 05:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what I am talking about very well and the US does not constitute a nation-state but rather simply a state (Yes, countries are refered to as states as well, even if they contain sub-units of government also called "states.") No sociologist in his/her right mind would call the US a nation-state. Not all Americans share a common identity, history or even language. Afircan American history, for example, is hardly the same as that of Irish-Americans and Muslim-Americans have a different identity than born-again Christians. This is also not a historical but a sociological issue-thus I suggest studying some sociology, ethnic studies and economics first rather than just history. BTW: Bashing mutlicultralists and globalization advocates such as myself by accusing us of advocating "cheap slave labor" is completely un-called for and utterly inappropriate. Signaturebrendel 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your using pyscho-babble or social-babble to try and redifine what a nation-state is. You could take out Americans and replace it with Germans or Russians, or French. All nations have different ethinic groups - some more than others. What you don't understand is that in America differences are set aside while the Individual is prized for who he is not by his group. Each individual together existing in the same mass culture that is distinctly national is a member of that nation. Economics - READ Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln - then Carey, economist for Lincoln to understand how America became the leading industrial nation by 1900 and the policies of FDR on how we maintained this prosperity until 1970 when the free-trade dogma began to take shape and de-regulation began - I know personally of the tragedy of free-trade upon my home state - the prospered under the former system practiced since 1860 and to some degree before that under Hamilton's wisdom. Sociology is a fascinating subject and I did well in those studies when I attended college some years ago - but it is not Fact nor absolutely scientific in a manner that History and actual culture is. Although people in my country indentify with sub-cultures - they are actually in the main culture every day and English is the language of unity -of our Constitution - Declaration of Independence - Bill of Rights - Gettysburg Address - King's Dream Speech and is interlinked with our indentity. To put people in groups and label them as such thus pre-judging them by that group rather than as individuals is inherently racist. As far as globalists - only stating FACT - its the worst threat since Communism against all NATIONS period - and it will fail like all tyrannies of the few do - especially in a land like America that prizes its Independence every 4th of July. --Northmeister 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but social scienctists and their textbooks do not identify the US as a nation-state, so it will not be identified by this article as such. As for globalisation and the importance of nationhood we obviously have to very different viewpoints, but this is not the appropriate venue to discuss them. BTW: Please remain civil, calling my post "pyscho-babble or social-babble" is unprofessional and in violation of WP:CIVIL. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: HERE HERE! Most Americans and people in Denmark, Sweden, France concur with what you said. To destroy nations and countries that have existed for centuries - including their distinct cultures with a mass unnecessary apparatus like the EU run by the few is inherently genocidal in nature and inherently wrong.  I love a Diverse world made up of Diverse civilizations organized into unique nation-states - Diversity is positive for the world. It makes earth a beautiful mosaic.  To undo this with globalization - to prevent devloping countries from the rewards of capitalism and freedom and independence is wrong.  To prevent our Children from owning their own country, and the children of Nigeria from owning theirs, of Britain from owning theirs, of Russia owning theirs, of China owning theirs - but instead replace that with a few controlling all - is inherently wrong and undemocratic. That's how I see it.  --Northmeister 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you are of course entitles to your opinion-but Wikiepdia talk pages are not the appropriate forum to air them-please see WP:NOT. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: BrendelSignature stated that the US does not consist of a single distinct nation - noone ever said it wasn't a country. MrZaiustalk 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's parsing words.  We are a nation, country, republic.  Always were - are considered such by treaty and international law.  It doesn't matter what anyone thinks or what sociology thinks - its what is in reality.  --Northmeister 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as Wikipedia is concerned what sociologists say is of the out-most importance to this article. We are a country, a republic but not a nation-state. Sociologist have long indentified that reality. So long as most sociology textbooks identify the US as a diverse country that is distincly not a nation-state, this article will follow suit. It is simply the dominant theory in academia that the US not a ntion-state - and this article will continue to reflect that. Signaturebrendel 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also important what Historians and international law as signed and agreed to by the United States itself, to have to say on this matter and has equal if not more weight on an article about a nation-state like the United States of America; then a few sociological books. Both deserve mention to remain NPOV. We are a nation precisely because we share a common history, common traditions and holidays, a common language etc. all the criteria of nationhood. You already lack understanding of the dynamics of this country with your statement we are a 'state' only. If that were true, then the Confederacy was right and Lincoln was wrong. The Union could not be dissolved because it represented more than a federation of sovereign states - it was a nation.  Your ignoring years of American history and the deaths of thousands for the very concept you state doesn't exist. Further, as far as civility I would take a look at your original comments and read a little on showing good faith. To go around quoting wikipedia policy, to charge that this discussion has no merit - is highly against the spirit of Wikipedia and ASSUMING GOOD FAITH on behalf of other editors who in particular ask questions on a talk page and those who answer them. What reliable sources have to say is important. If reliable sources - are behind your contentions - and they represent the consensus view rather than a rogue view - I have no problem. This is also true with my definition which is the legal definition by international law and treaty. As far as reality - well I live America every day. --Northmeister 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are using the term nation-state correctly. The US is obviously a sovereign country-no one has ever argued that point. But it isn't a nation-state, it's simply a country, a state. Unlike countries, nations are not a concept defined by law, they are cultural concept used by the very same sociologists who point out that the US is not a nation-state. The WP article says it quite well: "state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity"- only the former applies to the US, not the latter. Not all Americans have common traditions or even common holidays (do Jews celebrate Kwanza?... mmm... I forgot) The US is home to a multi-tude of traditions, ideas, customs, values and cultures; thus, it is a country but not a nation. As for calling my posts babble and stating that I have any sort of "lack of understanding" - that is against WP policy as it represents some degree of out-right hostility. The sources are behind me on this one, so there actually shouldn't be a problem as the one thing we both can agree on is the importance of proper sourcing. You are, of course, free to disagree with me, most sociologists and anthropoligists (Who apperentaly also lack an understanding of this country). BTW: The editor asked a rehtorical question-he/she was aware that the US is a country (country, not a nation-state) and simply wanted to raise awareness that the first sentence could be worded better in his/her opinion. NOTE: I will no longer respond to NOR read any posts in this section as it has gotten too far off-topic. I am going to be on a 24h WP break from now on-when I come back I will simply ignore this section. Signaturebrendel 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need books to know my country - nor am I ignorant of sociology, pyschology and all the 'ologies that study man - I know enough that this article should not rely on their definition alone. That said, we do agree on reliable sourcing. You're free to ignore what you wish. But, I am troubled by your POV pushing as I've seen it over the course of a year. We need balance and NPOV in this article. The view you present is not the only accepted one and is not predominant. --Northmeister 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Putting aside this whole debate about whether the United States is a nation-state, would anyone have a problem with adding the word "country" to the first line so that this article matches all of the other articles on countries?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Plainly no less than three people feel that the word, when used in the second sentence, results in a far better written paragraph.  There are at least two words used in the prior sentence that plainly imply "country", and, again, it is the second word of the second sentence. There is no compelling reason to compromise the first sentence to clone other country articles. Focus on making this article stand out as well written and well thought out. Keep in mind that this article is currently an FA candidate, and that there are several much more significant topics to be dealt with. MrZaiustalk 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just dont get why the first sentence differs from most of the other country topics. Just because it "sounds right" or is in "good style" doesn't make other topics more of the same. All topics about country should have the same style, especially in the first sentence. Stating that it is a federal constitutional republic in the first sentence doesn't seem right at all. The USA is a country. There is nothing wrong with putting itself as a country in the first sentence. There is no reason for it not to sound bad or blatant, as all other topics start off the same.(Icedevil14 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the United States a country? 

message: :Putting aside this whole debate about whether the United States is a nation-state, would anyone have a problem with adding the word "country" to the first line so that this article matches all of the other articles on countries?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Plainly no less than three people feel that the word, when used in the second sentence, results in a far better written paragraph.  There are at least two words used in the prior sentence that plainly imply "country", and, again, it is the second word of the second sentence. There is no compelling reason to compromise the first sentence to clone other country articles. Focus on making this article stand out as well written and well thought out. Keep in mind that this article is currently an FA candidate, and that there are several much more significant topics to be dealt with. MrZaiustalk 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just dont get why the first sentence differs from most of the other country topics. Just because it "sounds right" or is in "good style" doesn't make other topics more of the same. All topics about country should have the same style, especially in the first sentence. Stating that it is a federal constitutional republic in the first sentence doesn't seem right at all. The USA is a country. There is nothing wrong with putting itself as a country in the first sentence. There is no reason for it not to sound bad or blatant, as all other topics start off the same.(Icedevil14 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back on topic, should we add the word "country"?

message: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_States - The intro paragraph is sound and the problem was largely resolved.  Ongoing debate in the two sections above this seem more off-topic banter than discussion of the article at this point.  Note that there are several points that need to still need be addressed in the FAC. MrZaiustalk 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right the discussion above has evolved far beyond what WP talk pages are meant for. Sorry-I'll try and ignore any further posts to that discussion and will take a 24h WP break. Once, I am back-I will concentrate on helping you get this article that I have put a lot of work into up to FA. Signaturebrendel 01:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence: "These epidemics combined with violence by European settlers to marginalize the Native American population in the United States." in the history section among others done in other parts of the article are heavily biased and POV. They are not historically true - do not mention reasoning or reliable sources for their inclusion etc. I worked extensively on this article a year ago to prepare it for Featured status. We had made considerable progress by the time I took a year break. Although there was much work to be done. Since then, an overt bias has edged its way in several layers that is not acceptable for an encyclopedic approach to an article on a nation-state like the United States. In particular the section on culture and other wording changes to reflect a particular point of view not held by all scholars nor by Americans.  Reading portions of this article I am amazed it is the same country I live in every day. There is to much emphasis on diversity and not enough on our unity. E Pluribus Unum and assimilation has been a constant factor in society and works every day on a level as small as McDonalds and Walmart - Mickey Mouse and Superman (Truth, Justice, and the American Way). The United States for example ethnically is roughly 70-75% European (most with mutiple ethinic ancestry) and 10-15% Hispanic (which is a European derived culture not entirely the same nation to nation) whose population is predominately European or mixed European/native - together they constitute 80-90% of the population. Roughly 12-10% are African or mixed African and European - whose culture is very southern and who share common roots with southern Whites at many levels. Large cities host ethnic neighborhoods, yes, but the vast majority of America is a melting pot where neighbors of different ethnic backgrounds live amongst one-another and their children intermingle at school, the mall, etc.; where as generations pass one to another the greater majority of people have diverse ethnic backgrounds and can not identify with one single root - except being American. On a personal note I am English-Dutch-Irish-French-Native American - lets see what am I in thise little salad bowl of ours. Well, I never thought of myself as anything but American. Further the vast majority speak English everyday another character of the country - although Spanish is prevelant in many homes the children of these new immigrants are in schools and a society where English is the predominant and de-facto official language - these children also share the same culture as other Americans in regards to sports/television/movies etc. etc. Reading past posts - I am amazed at the POV that has crept into the article here - particulary by those who have an agenda to push a POV - which is against wikipedia policy.
Every paragraph needs refinement - other nation's articles that have been featured should be used as models. The size of the article needs to be reduced and the POV pushing statements removed for what they are. The historic section should be pithy and precise - not POV. The other sections reduced to acceptable norms - and cleaned-up. --Northmeister 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Largely fixed the NA complaint & removed POV tag - replaced the one sentence that you took issue with using two noncontroversial statements in later sections covering Indian Wars. . MrZaiustalk 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus

message: Despite my contentions above - I do approve of the efforts of editors here to make this a featurable article. As far as the nation-state issue - it's not really important for the article and we should move on. The historic section needs improvement at certain levels - sentences like the one above especially. I second MrZaisus above on refinement for featurable status.  --Northmeister 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Status

message: I added some info on the high level of consumer goods that the US enjoys, someone deleted it for some reason. The economy section needs more NPOV work, but this is a start.--Rotten 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll restore your worthwhile info, while properly formatiing the cites.—DCGeist 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please us US, not U.S. El_C 03:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FAC nominator and most engaged contributor to the article recently, MrZaius, has sought to consistently apply "U.S." It is a proper style, and the one most commonly used by U.S. publishing houses, periodicals, and the U.S. government itself. I encourage you to examine the official U.S. government webpages and online documents cited in the article--I believe every single one uses "U.S.," not "US." Please also consult the style of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press.—DCGeist 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You may also wish to review Nationmaster#Criticism and controversy. El_C 03:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will. Superior sourcing for the data may well be locatable, but this well serves the readership for the moment.—DCGeist 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Nationmaster itself says it's from the ITU... but some other sources indicate even higher levels of consumer good penetration, although they were a few years old. Anyway, I don't understand how the criticism of Nationmaster can be applied to my sources.--Rotten 04:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consumer goods. 

message: Just a little point -- the number given for the U.S. population growth rate is way off, at least according to the CIA world factbook (which says that it is .894% per year). Kier07 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have never fact-checked the rate but just adopted the one already mentioned in the text into the demographics infobox. I have replaced it w/ the CIA factbook rate. Thanks for fact-checking, Signaturebrendel 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population growth rate