Talk:United States/Archive 19

message: This page was 274 kb long so I archived it-I do not know whether or not the Civil War Revert discussion is still active-If not I would like to archive it as well due to its size. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I went ahead. Signaturebrendel 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: A US-related GA, Household income in the United States is up for FA. See my post w/ nominee link on the US project discussion page:. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Household income in the United States]] up for FA

message: Under the "Government and Politics" section, the writer stated; "--discrimination is fading with a more tolerant culture and the passage of numerous anti-discrimination laws, embraced by the majority of Americans." If the laws are indeed 'embraced by a majority of Americans', then this passage needs to cite statistical data. If not, this should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.251.138  (talk • contribs) 
:Seconded. Most Americans probably don't know what goes on in the US Congress. The recent Immigration Bill, yes. But generally, no. User:Green01 1:47 PM, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I bet someone can easily grab us a reputable public-opinion pole to cite. The fact that most Americans and their elected representatives aren't constantly saying "We need to bring back discrimination and get rid of all these laws against discrimation" probably indicates something about how Americans feel about such laws. — President Lethe 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are really no relaible statistics on public opinion (yeah, there are polls, but their results vary greatly) as such is relatibvely objective. The passage sounds correct and I agree with Lethe that an opinion poll or respecatable source can be found. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Embraced by the Majority of Americans

message: The second sentence of the disambiguating hatnote talked about "disambiguation pages" and didn't mention redirection.  It seemed needlessly confusing (esp. to those not familiar with WP) and a bit self-referencing, so I've changed it to a more standard text, also including unpiped links to the dab pages (as it seems de facto to not pipe within hatnotes so it is clear where links go).
I was tempted to remove the first sentence of the hatnote for brevity, but I wasn't totally sure that it was unnecessary, so I left it.  However, redirect here hatnotes usually don't include this article is about... text (even where it would help disambiguation), and English speakers should know that United States &c nearly always refer to the United States of America.  Not to mention, that it is obvious at a fleeting glance what the article is about when viewing it (i.e: reading it through a visual as opposed to an aural or tactile user agent) with the infobox and all.  Any opinions?
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: Can anyone offer proof of the 80/20 ratio for the country's distrubution of wealth or is this an assumption based on urban legend and the pareto principle.  I think it should be taken out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.147.35 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 August 2006.
:Hi, 192.91.147.35. Please, sign your posts on Talk pages. I suggest using a web search engine to look up such terms as "income distribution united states" and reading some articles on it. For example, in the near future, I may end up reading http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html, http://www.econlib.org/library/ENC/DistributionofIncome.html, and http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/CDA99-07.cfm, among others, which I found by that method. — President Lethe 22:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. The U.S. billion has nine 0s after the 1. In the U.K., although the billion once commonly had twelve 0s, it now has 9. The reader should consider the context. That said, I will link the word in this article to the "Billion" article. (This confusion, by the way, is why I prefer to use numerals, instead of words, to represent those large numbers. But (1) it gets us into the problem of significant figures and (2) the style preferred by other editors is to use the words instead of the numerals.) — President Lethe 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: This is a very small thing, but is Ice Hockey really that popular in here that we'd say The Big Four as opposed to the big three? C'mon, here Hockey is definitely a niche sport. 68.48.204.116 10:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is. --Golbez 10:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that Ice Hockey is a niche sport, although a large one. Half of the players in the NHL are from Canada, and while college games are broadcast regularly in the other three sports, it's rare to see a broadcast of a college hockey game at all. Howaboutadog 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports 

message: After high school, students may choose to attend universities, either public or private.
i find this sentance somewhat problematic, i think it should refer to a few more things.
such as, if Grades and Money permit it, since poor people and those with poor grades cannot simply choose to go to college. or perhaps refer to the more affordable and grades-not-mattering community colleges aswell Qrc2006 09:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  education 

message: i am sushant from india. i just want to ask united states government that you are compelling others to sign ctbt. first why don't you sign it. afterall you are also the part of this world. let us all take pledge to destroy these weapons. but i only want united states to sign it first. then i am sure that india will sign ctbt.
your welwisher Sushant gupta 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think Sushant meant the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which we have signed but not ratified.  The U.S. is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  That said, Talk Pages are not the place for extended discussions of national policy or any other topic that is not directly related to the editing of Wikipedia articles.  Take this discussion to a different forum, please.  --Richard 06:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why don't united states sign ctbt

message: ===Insular Areas===
There is a major error in the Administrative Divisions section of the page.  When discussing insular areas, the article puts in parenthises "United States Minor Outlying Islands."  This is a specific group of islands which by no means encompasses all United States insular areas - the largest of which, Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands all have a different status than the Minor Outlying Islands.  I would fix this problem myself immediately, but the page is locked to non registered users so I hope someone makes the changes as soon as possible.
128.59.180.62 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure someone will look into it. Or you could register yourself and make the change yourself. You don't have to give up all kinds of personal information when registering. — President Lethe 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This bit of terminology may be tricky. "Political entities" could also mean "politicians", "political parties", "public policy", &c. The administration of government within the United States is divided between the federal and the state; on the state side, it is divided among the states. Right beneath the section header, the linked article is about "Political divisions". I'm not sure what change, if any, would be best for this section name. I thought of "Subnational divisions", but that seems also open to misinterpretation. Anyway, the body of the section should (if it doesn't already) make quite clear what is meant by the name of the section; after all, we should no more base our understanding of a section on just its name than we would think the content of a whole book is limited to whatever the title brings to mind. (By the way, in I:B above, where is 436? Is it just a typo or am I misunderstanding?) — President Lethe 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative Divisions 

message: There is a major error in the Administrative Divisions section of the page.  When discussing insular areas, the article puts in parenthises "United States Minor Outlying Islands."  This is a specific group of islands which by no means encompasses all United States insular areas - the largest of which, Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands all have a different status than the Minor Outlying Islands.  I would fix this problem myself immediately, but the page is locked to non registered users so I hope someone makes the changes as soon as possible.
128.59.180.62 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure someone will look into it. Or you could register yourself and make the change yourself. You don't have to give up all kinds of personal information when registering. — President Lethe 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insular Areas

message: The heading "Administrative Divisions" is a misnomer.  The 50 States, DC, etc., are NOT administrative divisions of the United States -- they are Political Entities.  In particular, the several states are constitutionally parallel jurisdictions to the United States (i.e., the federal state), not subdivisions of it.
The ADMINISTRATIVE Divisions of the United States are:
I.  U.S. Congress
A.  Senate
1-50.  The several states 
B.  House of Representatives
1-435.  The Congressional districts
437.  Non-voting delegates
C.  Article I Courts (tax, bankruptcy, etc.)
Etc.
II. U.S. Executive
A.  The President and Presidency
1.  Executive Office of the President
a.  White House Office
Etc.
B.  The Cabinet and Cabinet Departments, Agencies, etc.
C.  Government-owned Corporations (e.g., U.S. Postal Service, etc.)
Etc.
III.  U.S. Judiciary
A.  Supreme Court
B.  U.S. Court of Appeals
1.  First Circuit
Etc.
C.  U.S. District Court
1.  California
a.  Northern District
b.  Eastern District
c.  Central District
d.  Southern District
etc.
Since the information currently labeled "Administrative Divisions" is about Political Entities, not about the actual administrative divisions of the United States as a federal state, the heading should be changed to "Political Entities" or at least to "Political Divisions," though constitutionally they are not actually divisions of the United States.  The territories are real property owned by the United States, and they can be sold or disposed of by the United States.  The District of Columbia is also real property owned by the United States, but the U.S. Constitution effectively forbids its sale by requiring the United States to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over it.  The 50 individual states, on the other hand, are sovereign entities which are NOT the property of the United States and cannot be bought or sold, or their boundaries changed in any way, with their express consent.
207.200.116.138 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This bit of terminology may be tricky. "Political entities" could also mean "politicians", "political parties", "public policy", &c. The administration of government within the United States is divided between the federal and the state; on the state side, it is divided among the states. Right beneath the section header, the linked article is about "Political divisions". I'm not sure what change, if any, would be best for this section name. I thought of "Subnational divisions", but that seems also open to misinterpretation. Anyway, the body of the section should (if it doesn't already) make quite clear what is meant by the name of the section; after all, we should no more base our understanding of a section on just its name than we would think the content of a whole book is limited to whatever the title brings to mind. (By the way, in I:B above, where is 436? Is it just a typo or am I misunderstanding?) — President Lethe 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Administrative" should read "Political"

message: "After European exploration and settlement in the 16th century, the English established new colonies"
there were old ones? maybe drop the "new" or change to new settlements? maybe mentioned that these were conquests of allready inhabited lands? Qrc2006 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about "new". Paragraph already says lands have been inhabited for 15,000 years. I'll remove "new". — President Lethe 20:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I was just going to remove "new" when I remembered why it was there. It was to differentiate English control of colonies STARTED BY ENGLAND from English TAKEOVER of colonies STARTED BY OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. Still, the differentiation remains without "new"—so I'll still remove "new". — President Lethe 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new colonies? 

message: The start of the History section says, "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 various indigenous tribes ...". Shouldn't this be qualified in some way to take account of the Vinland colonization, which was an earlier European colonization of the Americas (even though it didn't last)? Nurg 08:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First European colonization of the Americas 

message: Just asking Zazaban 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the opinion of the US from non-americans 

message: Why is there a Cold War template at the bottom of the page? Surely we can't expect to have a template for every war America has been involved in on this page, so why this one?--Daveswagon 19:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War template? 

message: "In the U.S. women are generally more religious than men, at 42% and 31%, respectively." These figures, giving an average of 36%, don't seem to square with the general religious figures (46% attendance or 86% who are non-non-religious). Ditto Blacks and Asians at 49% and 28%. What measure of "religious" is used to deduce these sub-figures? Marskell 10:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed the same thing and sometimes wondered about it. Perhaps, if I look at the source cited in the footnote, I'll understand it better. Looks pretty interesting; may read it today. — President Lethe 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This graph explains at least part of it. It's the division into 'shades' of religiosity: "When it comes to your outlook, do you regard yourself as" "Secular", "Somewhat secular", "Somewhat religious", "Religious", "Don't Know, Refused". — President Lethe 03:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, in light of that, what do others here think about changing the statistics we list in our article? For example, if the breakdown of Asians is 21% "Secular", 9% "Somewhat secular", 34% "Somewhat religious", 28% "Religious", and 8% "Don't Know, Refused", then there is significance in the combined percentages for "Somewhat religious" and "Religious" (34 + 28 = 62). We should figure out a good choice of words that represents the combined figures but also won't cause some source-checking reader to say "You write that Asians are 62% religious, but the graph at the cited source clearly shows that they're only 28% 'Religious'." — President Lethe 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious numbers 

message: Did america used to be called Americana? Just i have heard this used alot and can be synonomous to mean america. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.0.93 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 31 August 2006.
:Hi, 81.132.0.93.
:Please, sign your posts on Talk pages.
:The word Americana is a noun that means "American things", "American stuff". The things can be concrete, like food or architecture, or abstract, like laws or culture. If someone points at a building and says "This is an example of early Americana", it doesn't mean "This is an example of the early United States", but instead means "This is an example of early American stuff [(in this case, architecture)]".
:Other denotations for Americana include "books, papers, maps, etc., relating to America, esp. to its history, culture, and geography", "Materials relating to American history, folklore, or geography or considered to be typical of American culture", "The culture of America", and "any artifact (such as books or furniture or art) that is distinctive of America".
:Americana is also "A city of southeast Brazil, a suburb of São Paulo. Population: 153,779."
:President Lethe 17:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, 71.209.210.158. Please, sign your posts on Talk pages. Well, 1507, the first known use of America certainly antedates "the 1590's and 1600's", "1598", "1600's", and "the late 1500's". Yes, President Lethe does know about the language called Spanish. :-) Thanks, though, for pointing out more Spanish uses of Americana. I had interpreted the question as being about English names for the United States. — President Lethe 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United states of Americana

message: == I noticed that there was no mention of the original capital of the United States.
York was the first Capital of the United States, it was the birthplace of the Articles of Confederation and it was here that the words "The United States of  America" were first spoken.
Please see http://www.yorkcity.org/history/index.htm
Breecher 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Breecher. I'll put in a link to "List of capitals in the United States". But I think the words "united States of America" were probably first spoken in Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was drafted, approved, and signed—and, right across its top, it has those words. — President Lethe 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Annapolis, Maryland was "the temporary capital of the United States after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Congress was in session in the state house here from 26 November 1783 to 3 June, 1784, and it was here on 23 December 1783 that General Washington resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army" - before New York. Signaturebrendel 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On US history - Capital 

message: 'The United States of America, also known as the United States, the U.S., the U.S.A., the U.S. of A., the States, and America, is a country in North America.'
I think this seems like an ugly and inappropriate way to begin the article. I don't think all the different names are necessary. Different names should be given at the start of an article so that people who refer to the subject by a different name still know what the article is about. Every english speaking person surely knows what 'United States of America' means, we don't need to make the introduction uncomfortable to read by including all these short-forms and nicknames. Sincere apologies if this has already been discussed. Abc30 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent is to assume nothing in the intro and lay the ground for all alternate namings. I agree that it is confusing; the center subordinate clause should be shifted to the end: "The United States of America is a country in North America; it is also known as the United States, the U.S., the U.S.A., the U.S. of A, the States, and America." --Mmx1 20:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory sentence 

message: Okay dudes, we HAVE to put this thing in here. I mean if it's going to be an international holiday, like Martin Luther King Jr. Day then we HAVE to put this in here, you guys got three days to do it, or I'll put it in here myself. -The Bird
Why's that relevant to the United States page? Looking at your talk page, you have a history of vandalism, plus the John Lennon Day page has been deleted, so please don't put it in yourself. Cordless Larry 11:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin Luther King Day isn't actually mentioned in this article (though King himself has a brief mention), so there probably wouldn't be cause to add John Lennon Day even if it were a sufficiently significant holiday to have its own page (which apparently it isn't, given that it was deleted). *Dan T.* 11:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Lennon Day 

message: The caption about Mount Hood:
"Mount Hood, an active volcano in the Pacific Northwest."
Should read:
"Mount Hood, a dormant volcano in the Pacific Northwest."
:Yes, technically it should. But some might mistake the term "dormant" for extinct-though I do not think such confusion is likely. In order to be clear that Mt. Hood is still active and could erupt the editor must have decided to use the word "active" instead of dormant. Both terms are okay IMHO. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography and Climate 

message: Under the name section, I think it would be of interest to add the Najavo (Dine) name for the US:  Wááshindoon bikéyah ałhidadiidzooígíí. Clearly it related it to Washington, but if there were anyone who understands Navajo its precise translation would be great to find out...
--198.59.190.201 22:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's some 'trivia' 'worth including' in the article. Many languages' names for the U.S. are just literal translations of "United States" and/or "America"—but a name that mentions either George Washington or the city named after him is something else. Does anyone know someone with more Navajo knowledge? — President Lethe 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "disputed" or "uncertain"—but "arbitrary" implies that there was no thought behind it. In fact, Vespucci definitely had something to do with 15th-century Europe's discovery of the place, and it seems that the first recorded use of the word came after Vespucci got involved. Also, when the name was given, it was given to a place, not specifically a country. And there are other places whose names are based on a person's first name: Georgia (George), Maryland (Mary), St. Petersburg (Peter), Constantinople (Constantine), Chiddingstone (may be "Cidda's stone"), the Philippines (Philip), Cooling (may be "Cul's family"), the Carolinas (Charles), Chattenden (may be "Ceatta's hill"), Chilham (may be "Cilla"), Chillenden ("Ciolla's valley"), &c. ... (Very many places in the U.K. have their origins in persons' given names.) ... Cambodia (named after Cambu Svayambhuva), Israel, the many places named after mythological figures (Rome, Romania, &c.), the many places named after saints, Leningrad, Stalingrad, the Solomon Islands, Alberta, &c. ... And the text does link to a webpage about other theories about the origin of America. — President Lethe 16:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I confess I feel inclined to say "See? See what happens when we unprotect the article?" :-| — President Lethe 07:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmmhmm. --Golbez 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right the unprotection is a great success. It was vandalized 4 times in 6 hours and It hasn't been vandalized in over 4 hours since. :) —Centrx→talk • 08:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's been vandalized 4 times in 10 hours. That's not a sterling success. Lower than usual, but don't worry, the vandals will figure out that it's unprotected. --Golbez 08:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly should be semi-protected if there is an attack. It has throw away edits and more frequent attacks because it is high-profile, but it is not like Gay where the very subject of the article is to some fools an invitation to vandalize. It doesn't need to be protected for a whole month, at most a few days every once in a while. Counting by users/IPs, which is more accurate, and discounting some edits and users that would on first glance appear like they might be vandalism that would have been blocked by a semi-protect, there have been only 4 users vandalizing in the past 20 hours that would been blocked by the semi-protect. It is a rather low level of vandalism that is usual for any frequently visited article. —Centrx→talk • 15:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "but it is not like Gay where the very subject of the article is to some fools an invitation to vandalize" It's not? A lot of people hate America, or think it's funny to pretend they do. --Golbez 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately a lot people do thinks its funny to vandalize the US article. I think semi-protection is more than justified, considering that this is not only a super high-profile article but also one of which many people think its fun to vandalize. Besdies having vandal edits may seriously compromise the intergrity of WP, even if we clean them up quickly. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually that has suprised me many times. The simple act of creating an account-which is really simple does deter most vandals. I think many anon IP vandals are just struck by the mood and start vandalize, then they get into it and do not even consider signing up. (My theory on anon vandals) Nevertheless I do think that semi-protecting this page is a good idea, although there arn't many problems at the time. Also, I am in favor of making WP for registered users only, but that's a different issue I guess. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually just making an account doesn't work, as semiprotection also locks out new accounts. So they have to make a new account, then wait a few days, before they can vandalize a semiprotected page. --Golbez 22:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so only a vandal you is very serios about his destruptive business would do so. As I said, commonly vandalism is a spur of the momoent thing. Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And accounts used exclusively, or mostly (I think), for vandalism are closed. Jaxad0127 03:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism