Talk:United States/Archive 28

message: Why is the simplistic, common sense description of the location of the US in the LEAD cited? Doesn't matter all that much - Only removed the cite this morning because it had been done once before and didn't see anything in WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources that seemed relevant, but I'm curious: Is the section directly paraphrasing Bartleby's?  If so, is it safe to assume that that could be fixed with relative ease? MrZaiustalk 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure what the challenge is.  While the description may be common sense, it has required collaboration from numerous editors over time to achieve it.  I find it ironic that you remove relevant citations -- specifically, not just Bartleby's but its mirroring of an electronic version of the two-volume Columbia Gazetteer of North America -- based on vague (and somewhat disagreeable) FAC comments while, for example, glazing over the third paragraph which (save the last sentence) is completely unsourced and, thus, contestable.  This article will not become an FAC candidate by removing citations when it's already thrice almost four times the length it should be.  Corticopia 14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was requesting a clearer definition of contestable - Again, I didn't do the initial delete, just restored it when it was reverted with a less clear explanation than the deleter. Don't care all that much - trying to get a decent notion of how the guideline works.  Also, please note that the article length is actually only twice the normal guideline, when measuring only the prose, stripped of templates, references, and wikisyntax, as called for in WP:LENGTH. MrZaiustalk 14:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who did the initial delete, then?  I apologise for pointing the finger.  As for what may be contestable: the basic constituents of the U.S. (50 states (48+1+1), federal district, insular territories) and their locations; whether or not the last is part of the U.S. proper; its overall location in the Western hemisphere (discussed above).   When all fails, citations are preferable to none.  And, even at 60K, counting only the prose in an article's length is like reckoning a human to comprise only its skeleton.  ;)  In any event, it remains too long ... which is probably one of the major hurdles to it being an FAC.  Corticopia 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there were a fair number of calls for condensing things a touch, but I haven't seem many calls for large cuts, 'cept for one calling for axing a large portion of the Demographics section. MrZaiustalk 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the material described above is (a) easily verifiable via consultation of any standard reference book and (b) covered in the main text of the article. The words "relevant" and "bona fide" have been used to characterize the specific citation in question. No convincing argument has yet been made that it is "relevant"; as for "bona fide," the content of the citation certainly is, but its application absolutely is not. Suggestions that any matter of fact, no matter the ease of its verifiability and the fact that it has provoked no challenge, must be cited at each and every appearance of it in Wikipedia are obviously baseless. The statement made above that the third paragraph in the lead is "completely unsourced" is confounding--the paragraph is a summary of material covered in the main text. In standard lead format, it requires no citation at all. The citation in question and demands for more in the lead are clearly out of order, per WP:CITE.—DCGeist 15:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DCG, au contraire -- WP:CITE specifically indicates to source information that may be challenged.  The breadth and diversity of U.S. constituents would seem to justify sourcing and, this content was discussed at length.  You also seem to be insistent on removing citations from the lead, really with no or conflated basis in policy, while supporting a verbose synthesis with little sourcing in the form of the third paragraph.  Also, given the fact that these citations were in place for some months before you alone decided to remove them -- i.e., with no modicum of consensus -- is no cause to part with them now.  Anyhow, despite sophistry, no convincing argument has been put forth to justify the removal of citations either.  Until then, I will continue to restore.  Prune elsewhere. Corticopia 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You 've just made your third revert of the day. I'm making my second now. Want to keep going, or do you want to find support from other engaged editors for your unique postion? P.S. Is the reference to "sophistry" a compliment or an attack?—DCGeist 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your pick, but considering you've no consensus to support removal of citations that have been in place for months, I am not the one who will be yielding. Corticopia 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it appears I do. All recently engaged editors have either explicitly supported the cite's removal or accepted the removal without qualification. At the moment you stand alone and on the verge of violating the three-revert rule.—DCGeist 19:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry: the only other editor who appears to have even hinted at that explicitly is Mr. Zaius; others have made vague comments which are just that which I can't qualify.  A consensus that definitely does not make.  Your continued removals may evn be considered to be a Foundation issue.  Anyhow, rest assured I will be back in a day and will continue to re-add citations that you alone have removed after months.  And that's all. Corticopia 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I really can't and won't respond to your diatribe above, which seems to not only be rather verbose, fallacious, off-topic, and a failed or obscure attempt to make a point, but I will be back later to re-add citations you and few others seem content to remove in direct contravention of policy, and to make other edits I choose. Corticopia 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Seems to not only be rather verbose"?  What's your native language, son, Klingon? Just come right out and say it: "Corticopia declared his verbosity by issuing a Declaration of Verbosity."And, just so you're forewarned, we will still be choosing for you.—DCGeist 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbiage aside, your recent edits to the lead have made sourcing it even more important, since the notion that the U.S. is comprised of (among other things) 'fourteen territories' is arguably uncommon knowledge and requires reputable citation.  Thank you -- despite fallacious groupthink, I'll be back later to re-add. Corticopia 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And if DCG et al. insist on specificity in the lead (per FAC commentary, allegedly) regarding the number of U.S. territories and nonconsensual, imprecise phrasing regarding the  '2 commonwealths, Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands' as opposed to the 12 other territories, I will continue to insist on said editors producing a citation or, in lieu, will add the omnibus citation as before.  And again this is not a revert, but rectification of a poorly worded and unsupported statement not arrived at through any consensus.  This is not going away. Corticopia 03:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it all depends on what "this" is. If "this" is your disruptive set of changes, it definitely will go away. If "this" means your hilarious joke--"And again this is not a revert" (and from someone who whined about "sophistry"!)--you're absolutely right. We'll never forget your whopper.—DCGeist 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like, what are you talking about?  I have fully explained the reasons for my edits and corrections of your badly worded, unsourced content, with only gibbering and continued ad hominem argument from you in response.  You have failed to address the points above.  So, deal with it or refrain from commenting.  Corticopia 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely no comment. Corticopia 06:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I stated my opinion that Corticopia is not a Wikipedia troll in the classic sense. However, repeated deliberate gaming of the three-revert rule--which I carefully evidenced--along with turning an entirely normal Wikipedia debate into something personal and uncivil with charges of "sophistry" () is behavior more than fairly characterized as "indistinguishable from that of a troll." See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments for details from other editors on Corticopia's behavior.—DCGeist 21:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite question

message: Hardly much comment necessary at this point; just the facts. Fellow editors, Corticopia has engaged in repeated edit warring. In the past four days, four different editors have been compelled to revert his single-minded edits: myself, Black Harry, Mrzaius, and JimWae. Corticopia has had to be cautioned on three seperate occasions in the past three days that he was verging on a 3RR violation on this article alone (; ; --see bottom of diff). I don't believe that Corticopia meets the classic definition of a Wikipedia troll, but in recent days his behavior has become indistinguishable from that of a troll. Corticopia demands "deal[ing] with it" (he grants, via his clever li'l Wikilink, the alternative of "shutting the fuck up"). The most effective way to "deal with it" is clear: Ignore him and revert him until and unless he (A) apologizes for his behavior and (B) promises to stop (i) disrupting collaborative work on the article and (ii) disregarding prevailing consensus on its style and structure.—DCGeist 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no comment. Corticopia 06:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I stated my opinion that Corticopia is not a Wikipedia troll in the classic sense. However, repeated deliberate gaming of the three-revert rule--which I carefully evidenced--along with turning an entirely normal Wikipedia debate into something personal and uncivil with charges of "sophistry" () is behavior more than fairly characterized as "indistinguishable from that of a troll." See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments for details from other editors on Corticopia's behavior.—DCGeist 21:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please ignore him

message: I'm working on a 12" iBook, running Safari full-frame. Putting the climate map back where it was, it (a) lines up with the second, nonclimatological graf in the section, and (b) squeezes (I almost wrote violently squeezes) that graf from the right, with the Mt. Hood photo on the left. In short, it looks much worse, given my particular setup. You've checked it multiple ways and it does look better in most/all of them?—DCGeist 06:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern was that when the graphic is dropped down to avoid the squeeze mentioned above, it bleeds into /* Environment */ at a high resolution.  Might want to just consider cutting one of the three images, as there doesn't appear to be a clean way to make it readable at both high WS resolutions and lower ones. Which should we axe? MrZaiustalk 07:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I miss ol' Hoody, but you made the right choice.—DCGeist 10:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography section/climate map location 

message: The Abraham Lincoln assassination after war radicalized Republican Reconstruction policies, which ended in the Compromise of 1877 over the disputed 1876 election, leading to Jim Crow laws which disenfranchised the newly freed slaves—Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs) 
:Fixed the grammatical issues. As far as describing Reconstruction goes, I've posted: "These policies, aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves" but we should continue to mention "Reconstruction" in the preceding sentence, given the importance of the term. MrZaiustalk 09:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This resemble a sentence? (not to mention [[Easter egg]]s) 

message: The most recent comment on the FAC discussion called for the Largest Cities, Economics, and Demographics tables to be removed, as distractions.  Personally, I'm not sure whether I consider them more of a distraction or a benefit, so I just removed the wholly redundant sections of the demographics table that were dealing with stats mentioned in Education, the lead infobox, and the demo section proper. Still:
* List of United States metropolitan areas and List of United States cities by population are both linked to in the last sentence of the demo section - Was the commenter correct that those links are adequate in and of themselves, and the shrunk-down largest cities table should be axed?
* Econ & Demo - Should what remains of both be moved to the main articles, if not already present?
Again, note that I'm really asking here - I'm neither in favor of or against moving or removing the remaining tables. MrZaiustalk 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **And this from a Cultural Creative...for shame.—DCGeist 10:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The images are another style issue that depends to a great extent on the reader.  I personally find a lengthy article intimidating and dull without the color and interruption of periodic graphics, including the tables. MrZaiustalk 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactely the point behind them. There are certain key figures that need to be mention in this and not the sub-articles, that can either be placed in a "disguised list" paragraph or an easy-to-read infobox. Signaturebrendel 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's why you would check The economy of the US, for example. These tables don't belong into the main article, but definitely belong into specific sub-articles is my point.--Svetovid 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Economy section table provides very, very basic facts about the US economy that would read like a random accumulation of facts if they were put into text. (unless more text to explain them was added w/ the economy balooning in size) It is the most direct and easiest way to convey essential pieces of information to the reader in as few words as possible. BTW: I have left a comment explainig the need for these infoboxes on the FAC page. Signaturebrendel 16:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables

message: Tensions increased, not over who would win a debate over states rights, but because of stakes involved, including:
* territory - and wars fought to keep expanding it
* political power - South losing it as North grew & gained majorities
* economic - southern fears that slavery would be made illegal in states too
* moral - objections to Fugitive Slave Laws & being forced to enforce them
--JimWae 09:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about the Civil War section, keep in mind that we have lengthy American Civil War and Origins of the American Civil War articles for a reason.  Try to maintain a minimal summary here, without increasing length.  The topics you mention are dealt with at length in the linked articles. MrZaiustalk 09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tensions increased with increasing debate?  

message: Because the list is so long, I changed it to
 
But I thought perhaps the usage above may justify a template on its own. If you're interested, please discuss at Template talk:Reflist#Contained in a box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. MrZaiustalk 10:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: This article all but completely glosses over slavery and the large role it played in the United States, with only cursory allusions to its existence being given.
:The word "slavery" appears in the article five times, including in the lead historical summary; the word "slave" (or "slaves") appears eleven times; the word "enslaved" appears once. Please consult a dictionary for the meaning of the words "completely" (yes, we know, "all but") and "allusion."—DCGeist 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: My concern is small, semantic, yet vexing: Did the UN Charter "become active" shortly after the war's end, or more properly was it not the organization—that is, the United Nations itself—that did?—DCGeist 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They both did - The UN Charter is a legally binding treaty. MrZaiustalk 10:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Legally binding treaty"?! What country are we writing about?—DCGeist 10:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as any treaty is binding.  Keep in mind, this one we haven't unsigned MrZaiustalk 10:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Charter phrasing 

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

message: I realize the article is semi-protected as a FAC but the defense budget description here needs to be 470 billion, not 470 million.
:Thanks for pointing that out, MrZaiustalk 14:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense budget

message: A check of the cited source () shows that it (a) offers no data at all on the Hispanic/Latino population and (b) could not even otherwise be used to derive the percentages given in the infobox, as it ennumerates millions of people who reported multiple ancestries, without breaking those down. Does anyone presently involved in the article have an idea about how the infobox percentages were actually arrived at?—DCGeist 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I took the info from the 2000 Census - but have replaced it with 2005 Economic Survey data. Signaturebrendel Regards, 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Yes, there was something funny with the citation syntax around there, but all resolved now. Excellent fact sheet you came up with.—DCGeist 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity infobox in Demographics section improperly cited 

message: Who the hell decided that food and clothing should go together? They should each have their own section, or at least rename the section as 'culture', and put other 'culture' topic in there as well. --MKnight9989 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh...we're looking for him...and when we find him...well, I don't want to say too much, but oh, boyo. As for renaming the section "Culture," that's definitely something to ponder v-e-r-y carefully.—DCGeist 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My favorite food would have to be cotton 

message: The US is being brought before International Court over the banning of democracy to the citizens of Puerto Rico.  Basically because they are banned from being able to vote for the US president.
*Puerto Rico voting ban lands US in international court - By Michael Richardson; Date: Published on Wednesday, June 13, 2007
CaribDigita 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be far more appropriate to deal with in the Puerto Rico article & Human_rights_in_the_United_States.  The matter cannot be effectively dealt with here - Note that there is no detailed description of the history of Puerto Rico & the plebiscites in which Puerto Ricans have repeatedly chosen to remain a Commonwealth, coverage of which would have to be added to give context to the above.  Also note that no non-state other than the District of Columbia has a vote in the electoral college, but the article lacks any meaningful discussion of the college as well.  In sum, to add your source would require adding at least three other unnecessary & minor points to the article that are already dealt with in the main articles. MrZaiustalk 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone want to write about US being brought before International Court? 

message: The climate zone map included in this article is not very accurate. Could someone make a new one based on a reliable source (rather than just a copy of a copy of a copy)? Kaldari 23:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking at Central California I have to agree. According to the map the Monterey Peninsula is in a different climate zone that San Mateo County - as are San Benito and Santa Clara County. As a resident of coastal California I am really quite doubtful that the US weather service would put these areas in two different climate zone ...because the climate is pretty much the same! :) Signaturebrendel 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The median income figure for 2006 is wrong - the one listed is for 2005 (and was reported in 2006). The rest of the data in that box is probably a year old as well, but I haven't checked.
:The latest data available in the Census Bureau income forum is used - this data was published in '06 and pertains to the year '05. (Beleive it or not median income levels don't actually change that much - sometimes they drop a little, sometimes they rise a little w/ no significant change since 1999) I expect new data for the year 2006 will be avaialable in the stats forum in July or August - but don't look for any significant change ;-). Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Median Income 

message: -                                  	1990x1000	2001x1000	unadjusted % in 1990	unadjusted % in 2000	adjusted % in 1990	adjusted % in 2001	%decline	numericalchange
Protestant-no denomination supplied	17,214   	4,647    	9.81%               	2.23%               	10.04%            	2.36%             	-7.68%  	-73.00%
Born Again \2                      	204      	56       	0.12%               	0.03%               	0.12%             	0.03%             	-0.09%  	-72.55%
Other unclassified                 	837      	386      	0.48%               	0.19%               	0.49%             	0.20%             	-0.29%  	-53.88%
Rastafarian                        	14       	11       	0.01%               	0.01%               	0.01%             	0.01%             	0.00%   	-21.43%
Agnostic                           	1,186    	991      	0.68%               	0.48%               	0.69%             	0.50%             	-0.19%  	-16.44%
Jewish                             	3,137    	2,831    	1.79%               	1.36%               	1.83%             	1.44%             	-0.39%  	-9.75%
Christian Science                  	214      	194      	0.12%               	0.09%               	0.12%             	0.10%             	-0.03%  	-9.35%
Salvation Army                     	27       	25       	0.02%               	0.01%               	0.02%             	0.01%             	0.00%   	-7.41%
Holiness/Holy                      	610      	569      	0.35%               	0.27%               	0.36%             	0.29%             	-0.07%  	-6.72%
Jehovah's Witness                  	1,381    	1,331    	0.79%               	0.64%               	0.81%             	0.68%             	-0.13%  	-3.62%
Church of the Nazarene             	549      	544      	0.31%               	0.26%               	0.32%             	0.28%             	-0.04%  	-0.91%
Baptist                            	33,964   	33,830   	19.36%              	16.27%              	19.81%            	17.20%            	-2.62%  	-0.39%
Methodist/Wesleyan                 	14,174   	14,150   	8.08%               	6.80%               	8.27%             	7.19%             	-1.08%  	-0.17%
non-Catholic Xn                    	105,492  	108,633  	60.13%              	52.23%              	61.54%            	55.22%            	-6.33%  	2.98%
Lutheran                           	9,110    	9,580    	5.19%               	4.61%               	5.31%             	4.87%             	-0.45%  	5.16%
Total Christian                    	151,496  	159,506  	86.35%              	76.69%              	88.38%            	81.08%            	-7.31%  	5.29%
Seventh-Day Adventist              	668      	724      	0.38%               	0.35%               	0.39%             	0.37%             	-0.02%  	8.38%
Catholic                           	46,004   	50,873   	26.22%              	24.46%              	26.84%            	25.86%            	-0.98%  	10.58%
Mormon/Latter-Day Saints           	2,487    	2,787    	1.42%               	1.34%               	1.45%             	1.42%             	-0.03%  	12.06%
Presbyterian                       	4,985    	5,596    	2.84%               	2.69%               	2.91%             	2.84%             	-0.06%  	12.26%
Episcopalian/Anglican              	3,042    	3,451    	1.73%               	1.66%               	1.77%             	1.75%             	-0.02%  	13.45%
Article says Agnostics had largest decline & does not mention Wiccan (which rose 1575%).
I doubt the value of most of the data in the article - seems denominations are mentioned just to satisfy editors who want their religion mentioned.
:As we pore over the data and try to figure out what's the most appropriate way to summarize the most important information--your point about Wiccans, for instance, is clearly well taken--let's try to assume, yes, good faith, and avoid making unhelpful, and I believe unfounded, assumptions/claims about other editors' supposed ulterior motivations.—DCGeist 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've entered that. Seems just right.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: It is significant, but not, I think, in the context of a general encyclopedia article on the U.S. In a religion- and/or polling-specific article (and we do have Religion in the United States), it would be worth going into this. But given our limits in this article, I don't think this data will really inform most readers.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your overall suggestion here that there was a problem in angle and emphasis is well-taken. Focus now on major shifts and groups of significant size.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite right.—DCGeist 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptists & Rastifarians declined more than agnostics. Wikkan had largest growth 

message: Language is lumped in with ethnicity for the table (reasonable), but lumped in with religion for text (less reasonable). Any good reason for this? --JimWae 09:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The present text arrangement seems most helpful for structure (and reasonably reasonable), so infobox now split to follow that for consistency.—DCGeist 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Jim, in your response to your edit summ "still problems - Evangelical very small - Wiccan increased much more," I quote your observation above that "small changes in small groups produce disproportionate percentage changes - which are not of much relevance to the U.S. as a whole." The evangelical population is not "very small," nor, clearly, is its growth rate of 326%. As of 2001, 1.032 million Americans identify as evangelicals--surpassing a standard benchmark of significance--versus 134,000 Wiccans. ARIS itself lists evangelicals first among groups that "appear to be" the "top three 'gainers' in America's vast religious market place." P.S. Thanks much for all the effort you've been putting into this.—DCGeist 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I feel there should be more coverage of religion in the history section. Not only the historical significance of the separation of church and state, but the Puritan migration, the First Great Awakening, and the Second Great Awakening as well, each essential to understanding American history and the present-day character and influence of Christianity in the country. The founding and growth of Mormonism is also, I think, worthy of mention.—DCGeist 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I disagree that the groups are "too small to be a significant trend." The 1 million line is a standard benchmark of significance in this context and in this article specifically--note our infobox that lists all languages spoken at home by a million or more Americans. Remember as well that 0.5% of the American population is a heck of a lot of people to readers from many other countries. The growing population of evangelicals also clearly does have political significance as BSig says. While, of course, not the sole source of religious conservatism and its effect on American politics, they are an important factor. As for those that have shrunk, the only two faiths over the 1 million line that have shrunk more than trivially are Judaism and Jehovah's Witnesses--each has shrunk less than 10%; simply not on a comparable scale to faiths that have grown by more than 100%.—DCGeist 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just to give my two cents worth, the reason evangelicals need to mention here is not just because of their growth rate and population but because of the political "christian-right movement" they represent. Evengelicals have come under the socio-political spot-light and are therefore a demographic worth mentioning. The ongoing debates over the seperation of church and state as well as creationism vs. the truth (evolution ;-) [yay for free speech!] should mentioned here as well... then again this article is already long. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't say they were the sole source of the "christian moral majority" movement but that this group is indicative of the movement (which is why this demographic has such a high profile in the press). Signaturebrendel 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, giving the facts--properly contextualized by the other facts we provide in terms of trends and overall percentages--isn't likely to mislead. We might clearly (and, of course, efficiently) state that the population of self-described evangelicals remains rather small compared to other denominations. [UPDATE: Done.—DCGeist 09:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Tracking down the 2004 Fourth National Survey of Religion and Politics made me realize that we were referring to "evangelicals" in the article just as ARIS does--those self-describing as "evangelical" without specifying a denomination. Of course, the number of people who identify and are commonly referred to as "evangelicals" is much greater, as the Bliss report appropriately describes. Substituting this information (as well as citing Bliss itself) much more clearly reflects the significance of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. than did the very narrow trend figure. A closer read of ARIS shows that the growth in Congregationalist/UCC membership is probably largely due to shifts of people from one Protestant denomination to another--arguably not of great enough significance to glance on in this article. The growth of Islam and Buddhism, however, reflect larger trends in immigration and shifts from very different beliefs, and still appear worthy of mention.—DCGeist 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great study! Extremely interesting! If I have the time I may start an entire article on Political ideology and religious affiliation in the US. (Afterall, I haven't written a full-length article since January) Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it's 43% - 26.3% seems right. I do think that ethnicity & language are a much better match than ethnicity & religion. The second largest lanugage in the US is directly related to the hispanic population (an ethnicity) - I don't think I actually need to point out the relationship between ehtnicity and language, do I. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a little complication in how to express the Bliss evangelical figure in our limited space. As you can see, they separate out white and nonwhite Christians. So yes, the most direct way to report the finding would be: "A different study identifies 26.3% of Americans as white evangelical Christians." That seems rather awkward to me. So I calculated the total percentage of white Christians per Bliss--26.3 (evangelical) + 16 (mainline Protestant) + 17.5 (Catholic) + 2.0 (other Christian [est.: 2.7 x .75 (white % of total pop.)]= 61.8% of the total population. Then 26.3/61.8=42.55% of all white Christians are evangelicals. I believe the expression in the article at present is sound statistically. Again-- the way it seems we'd have to express the plain 26.3% figure strikes me as ungainly. Do you favor it? Other options?—DCGeist 03:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: :(from archive)
I wasn't directly asking the question whether it's a country or not. I was just wondering why the article doesn't say it's a country in the first sentence like ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN WIKIPEDIA! Fair answer..(Icedevil14 01:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence states the US to be a federal constitutional republic-which implies that it is a country. Signaturebrendel 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the term federal constitutional republic is one which many people might not be familiar with.  Perhaps the word "independent" could be inserted before the phrase.  Or country could be used in the lead, with federal constitutional republic going somewhere later in the article.  Black Harry 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but it is the most accurate description. I suppose you could use the term "country" though I think most people knwo the US is a country and can, therefore, figure out that federal constutional republic is a term describing a country. Let's see what other editors have to say. Signaturebrendel 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article for every country I looked up does explicitly use the word country in the lead Black Harry 03:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, though I would like to keep this up on the talk page for a couple of hours in case anybody else wants to weigh in on the issue. Personally I am still in favor of retaining the current wording. Signaturebrendel 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Plus i think the person who started this thread should get a lil credit for bringing this up Black Harry 05:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't the first time it's been brought up.  The change away from "country" to a more descriptive text was recently discussed.  Check the most recent archives.  The sentence as it read before was so overly simplistic that it seemed out of place, given the language used in the rest of the lead. Personally, I'm in favor of retaining the language that plainly implies that the country is just that, especially since we refer to the United States as a country in two other places in the WP:LEAD. MrZaiustalk 05:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I agree with MrZaius -if it isn't clear from the above- to keep the current wording. Signaturebrendel 05:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry but my definition of lead is different from Wikipedia's; i consider the first paragraph to be the lead.  However i think it would be better to put country in the first paragraph, then use federal constitutional republic in the third paragraph when the founding of the country is mentioned.  And i was totally unaware of the first discussion on this Black Harry 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd object less to adding "The country is" to the second sentence than trying to work the word into the first one.  On the archives, they're easy to miss on a page that's archived as frequently as this one.  Could be worse, though.  Check out the frequency with which they've been archiving Talk:StarCraft 2. MrZaiustalk 06:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In light of the above discussion I've added country - simple enough and the standard for wikipedia articles on countries around the globe. See United Kingdom (done well here) and Germany for examples among others. --Northmeister 06:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Job Black Harry 06:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not particularly.  Moved to second sentence for readability's sake.  Saying it's a "country and.... republic" makes it sound as though those are two entirely separate concepts, rather than type and subtype. It'd be entirely different if there were a way to do it "well" as in the UK and Germany, but surely this suffices. MrZaiustalk 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the and was confusing.  I see no problem with using country in second sentence.  Waiting to see how long until someone complains about it though Black Harry 06:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll endorse that as well - makes for better structure in second sentence. --Northmeister 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Country or federal constitutional republic

message: Please add the templates  and  to the top of each archive page, as per this.  These are standard practices for archiving talk pages.  I've gone through and made sure that all 27 archives are now like this for ease of navigation and uniformity.  --BrokenSphere 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I've been archiving this talk pages for several months now and didn't know there were standard archiving templates. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To future archivists

message: I'm not convinced the source being used for this figure () is providing a median, rather than a mean, for several reasons.
*I would expect the median to be substantially different from the mean, but the difference is less than 2%.
*The source does not state that it is a median--when unstated, the general assumption is that an average is a mean.
*The way to calculate a mean income for a total population is straightforward--take total aggregate income and divide by total population. The only way I see to calculate a median income for a total population of household members is to take the median income per household ($46,326) and divide by the average number of people per household--approx. 2.6 (see )--giving $17,818. (Note that when we take the mean household income provided by the source--$63,344--and divide by 2.6, we get $24,363, much closer to a good hit.) I don't see how the figure of $24,672 can be a median.
—DCGeist 07:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another way... you can cacluate the median income per houshold member for each household. When households are asked for the median income they are also commonly asked for the how many persons reside in that households (that's how mean household sizes are calculated) - it is very easy then to divide the gross annual income of a given household by the number of members - doing so for all households in the survey should yield the data set needed to calucalte the median. Question is does the US Census Bureau actually do so? Well, they should and I apperantely I assumed that the source above gave a median... I will check w/ Census Bureau to find out whether it's mean or median. PS. I too, would expect the median to be considerably lower... then again, household size often off-sets income gains made by households and dividing the millions of impoverished through the income of the wealthy may yield a non-inflated mean? Anyways, I'll check to see - good catch. Signaturebrendel 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Income per household member 

message: I put recent polling data in the Government/politics section a few days ago. I think it makes more sense there--as does the discussion of geographical political tendencies. Not that they aren't part of culture, but we do recognize (as is standard) general political as a distinct topic.—DCGeist 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: mmm... wise decision. Why didn't I think of that when I added that info! (darn it! :D) But please leave the figures for academia in the article, as its political ideology differs from that of the general public to a significant degree. Acadmia is hugely important to creating public policy - it is where horizon of society is widened. Thus, when acadmia's political orientation differs from that of the overall public by such a large degree, both figures need to be mentioned. Othewise readers will falsely assume that American acadmia is ca. 41% conservative as well. Signaturebrendel 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just saw the recent c/e of the respective section - looks great! Good job. Signaturebrendel 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal/conservative 

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

message: Over the last twenty four hours, no less than 9K was added to the article, and only 3k removed. A good number of the edits were positive growth, including the citation of previously unverifiable paragraphs. However, do try to stay as close as you can to a 1:1 addition:deletion ratio, to at least maintain the current size. A lot of the main articles linked to from here could use expansion and attention as well, if you feel the need to add something to an already lengthy topic. That said, I think we're still doing reasonably okay.  Will try to recalculate the prose length this morning. MrZaiustalk 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Though I have to say somethings such as gender roles and the changing face of the American family were completely missing from the article and it was quite difficult to add a mention of these subjects w/o inflating the article. As far as I know, however, these edits only contributed about 2k in length. I think a lot of the growth comes from additional cites - afterall refs constitute quite a large share of this article's length. Anyways, I agree the remove/add ration stay below 1:1. I look forward to seeing the latest length calculations. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added essential, fundamental information to "Independence and expansion" as efficiently as possible. If necessary, the last two sentences of the first graf--on Crown loyalists and split Native American sympathies--which have been there in some form for a while can be cut, but I think they help to complete (summarily, of course) the picture of the revolutionary period.—DCGeist 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - Definitely ought to stay, since that's pretty much all the coverage we have of Canada and makes up a large portion of the Native American coverage.  Hard to work that in without having editors throwing NPOV flags one way or the other - Working it into history seems to have worked well. Think we're running out of things to cut, although I do look forward to getting a chance to read through the new culture section.  Might be a sentence or three uncovered in the main that can be moved, but I haven't really looked yet. MrZaiustalk 05:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article growth rate