Talk:United States/Archive 23

message: A minor quibble, but it relates to neutrality. In most Commonwealth countries,1783 is considered to be the year of the United States' independence from Britain due to the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which ceded British sovereignty over the colonies to their inhabitants, in September of that year. Mentioning the treaty in the introduction alongside the Declaration of Independence would help ensure a world view.G. C. Hood 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tell people what words they can and cannot use. And you are quite incorrect, almost every nation has different 'declared' and 'recognized' dates. Our declared is the declaration of independence; our recognized is the Treaty of Paris. Prior to the treaty, no one knew if this plucky (there's another hard word) young nation would survive. You need to learn a little civility. --Golbez 05:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're making less and less sense with each rant you post. --Golbez 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Founding

message: Anyone think either the Senate Majority Leader or the President Pro Tem should be listed in the infobox, and if so which? --Random832(tc) 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fewer is better than more. After all, why stop there? Include all justices, perhaps the joint chiefs of staff, the cabinet? --Golbez 10:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, having the four leaders of all three branches (congress has two, one for each house) is the best solution. Otherwise you could have a long, long list. Signaturebrendel 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have the leader of the senate, the VP. The President pro tempore is almost entirely ceremonial, except for the line of succession (which does not include the chief justice). --Golbez 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Golbez, you have it backwards.  On the contrary, the President pro tempore is the real, working power; it is the President of the Senate which is largely ceremonial, and who never participates in Senate business except on those rare occasions when he gets to vote to break a tie.  Gene Nygaard 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True, Harry Reid does carry the real power and the VP/president is largely ceremonial. Many people, however, expect to see the VP in the listing of leaders and as he is the "ceremonial" leader of the Senate we might as well list him. Signaturebrendel 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate 

message: "After many failed U.N. resolutions" is wrong.  It was US unilateral sanctions that Hussein said no to exactly because they weren't endorsed by the UN.  The UN sanctions were about to be lifted because they were complied with and the US made up its own rules in order to have an excuse to get into Iraq.  Is wikipedia rewriting history? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.85.107 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When has wiki NEVER re-written history? If enough people believe it to be true, then it must be true... according to wiki.
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq sanctions 

message: I know that this article is already too long, but I really think that Mark Twain should have at least a mention in the literature section.(Lucas(CA) 05:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; done. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Makes sense. Signaturebrendel 07:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Twain

message: Speaking of literature, I absolutely do not think that Beloved should be mentioned over works like the Catcher in the Rye, The Bell Jar, Lolita, As I Lay Dying, and Moby Dick. What the hell? I understand the idea here, keeping the section short, but Toni does not deserve the mention, quite frankly, until the main page, with all of her contemporaries, and with her much more talented predecessors. This is a clear act of literary activism, and it has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with satisfying the urge to give the nod, so to speak, to contemporary works of fiction. Can somebody please remove this? --J.Dayton 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature

message: I tried to clean up a mammoth paragraph in the section on healthcare, as it didn't really read right. One thing that struck me was this: it is stated that 14.2% of the population were without insurance for at least part of a particular year, then that one third of these were from well-off households (income >$50000) and one-third were eligible for public insurance but had failed to sign up. Then it's stated that only 2% were "truly without access" to insurance. I'm not sure where this figure comes from as 14.2% - 2*(0.333*14.2%) leaves almost 5%. 
Also, what exactly is the cutoff on household income before a person is "truly" unable to afford insurance? Many people will choose not to have insurance so they can afford something else; others who are not among the 14.2% will have chosen to go without cars, vacations or whatever to pay for what is in their view an essential.
I think that in this section care must be taken to provide only verifiable facts. Attempts to influence the reader's opinion on the desirability or otherwise of a healthcare system funded (partly) by private insurance belong elsewhere. I got the impression that this rather confused paragraph came about as people with opposing views attempted to counteract one-another's arguments, and this is not an appropriate forum for those discussions to be aired IMHO.
Any views?
—Casper Gutman 19:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia nearly always does a poor job of having controversial articles not reflecting viewpoints. Why Wikipedia needs a "criticisms" section for every article is beyond me. But "healthcare" is a controversial issue and the US is a controversial... you put two controversial issues together and Wikipedia will really fall flat on it's face and attract the biggest idiots this site has to offer.--24.91.161.79 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well stated.  I don't edit this article much but as a reader, this section has always bothered me as well.  Healthcare is a "hot button" issue and promises to become even more so now with divided government.  We have to be really careful with statistics as they can be manipulated very easily.  Where the same statistic is interpreted differently we need to give the fact of the statistic and then provide the different sides' explanation of what those statistics mean (as long as reliable verifiable sources are given, of course).  That is best done in the Healthcare in the United States article.  There should just be a brief summary of pure facts at this page.--WilliamThweatt 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed there's an item on the "To do" list that involves cutting this section down and removing some bits to the healthcare article. Should help! —Casper Gutman 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we are not supposed to discuss our "views" here. I personally diagree with your overly-optimistic assessment. As for editing the section considered that there are great variations within states, MA for example does have universal health care and CA may soon follow suit. But please try and not to have our opinions influnce the editing of the article. The neutral info is that 15% are uninsured anything beyond that is POV territory. We just spit out Gov stats- please live up to your own standard of not attempting to influence the reader (that goes for conservative POV as well). There are studies done by the UN that rank nation and there are stistics from our government-let's stick with just sputing out the numbers. I don't mean this as a threat or anything, but I will remove conservative POV when it attempts to sway the reader. Signaturebrendel 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on - my overly optimistic assessment? I didn't assess anything, I just tried to rearrange the things that were already here into an order that made sense. The paragraph I edited was reasonably well referenced and I saw no reason to doubt the truth of most of it. My problem was that it read like an argument, with different voices changing places with one another. If I have a personal POV on this it is most definitely not what I would think of as conservative: I'm British and a strong believer in the ideals behind the foundation of the NHS. If you see any statements you disagree with the neutrality of, be bold to rephrase or remove them! —Casper Gutman 09:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healthcare exclusion 

message: The Apple pie picture is disrespectul to the United States, see . | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be removed from this page for being "offensive" to the subject. Does anyone else agree? · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said on the discussion page, I don't find the image offensive. Let's see what the outcome on the image discussion page is (I'm thinking about starting an RfC to get more editors involved in the discussion). Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Image talk:Motherhood and apple pie.jpg]] 

message: Poeple refer to the Untied States singlarly( ex. The Unites States is a nation in North America.)  When in fact it is a collection of semi-sovereign states( a federation: A form of government in which powers and functions are divided between a central government and a number of political subdivisions that have a significant degree of political autonomy) (state:  the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign state; "the state has lowered its income tax")  Therefore, that same sentence used as an example above should read: The United States are a federation in North America).  The latter example was the form used pre-civil war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.167.250 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key lies in the "semi-sovereign." The US a fully sovereign nation with a united foreign policy. Nonetheless you are right to the extend that US states have considerable autonomy- something that the name "United States" actually reflects pretty well ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can spin that on its head to say that the United States is a 'federation of [insert descriptor]'.  Also note that the introduction indicates the US is a "federal constitutional republic. Corticopia 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You can use "united states," descriptively as a plural subject, but when you're using it as the name of a single nation it would be used as a singular subject. "A government, a party, a company (whether Tesco or Marks and Spencer) and a partnership (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) are all it and take a singular verb. So does a country, even if its name looks plural." - Economist.com Research Tools: Style Guide Jecowa 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is an interesting subject of debate. The United States was (or were *wink*) always referred to plurally in its early days because of the independent nature of the states themselves. However during the 20th century, with increasing nationalism, it became more commonly referred to as a single entity. If a section can be written mentioning that, I'll try to find the source where I read that. Blaiseball 00:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We live in a post-Civil War era, remember? Besides, the autonomy of states has been drastically reduced in a practical sense, though whether that's a good thing is a matter of personal opinion.  Ekoyek 19:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic Usage of the name  "United States" 

message: I am unable to edit the United States article. Why? Is there an ongoing dispute? Featuresaltlakecity 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, as you might have guessed, a high-profile article. A lot of IPs and people just browsing the internet think it is funny to leave their mark on the US article. Just get a couple of edits somewhere else and after about 300 edits (that's less than what it sounds like) you should be able to edit this article. You could for example, create a user-page for yourself, afterwards you should be able to edit the article. Or you could describe things you want to change here. Signaturebrendel 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to edit 

message: Can we remove the following sentence under Demographics.  It seems completely unnecessary:
"The percentages of whites among the general population is, however, declining."
Regarding demographics, please note that African American is considered a race by the United States census, not an ethnicity. If you use their terminology, you must quote them correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.74.135.178 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People (shakes head), they really love labeling... sigh... even the DoC particiaptes... Signaturebrendel 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: There should be a table or chart that lists the 50 states at the year of their admission into the Union. It could also include other facts like population or largest cities, but definitely a table. There is not much I can find that chronologically lists something like that. I think that would be important to this article. What is the consensus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.31.106.187 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in the U.S. state article and other articles, like List of U.S. states by date of statehood. --Golbez 08:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it could easily be noted in See Also. So I have. :) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 States 

message: The sentence "Within American political culture the Republican Party is considered "center-right" or conservative while the Democratic Party is considered "center-left" or liberal" is a gross over-simplification of American political ideologies that history simply does not bear out.  The terms "conservative" and "liberal" transcend left-right politics, and should be considered separately.  For example, a person can be considered economically liberal, while maintaining a socially-conservative viewpoint, and so on.  Simply put, right =/= conservative, and  left =/= liberal.  This is Political Science 101. A simple fix would be:
"Within American political culture the Republican Party is traditionally considered "center-right", while the Democratic Party is traditionally considered "center-left".
O0drogue0o 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very ture! A person's view on abortion has little to do with their view on labor unions. There is definitely a great difference between economic and social liberal/conservative views. Ever since the neo-cons came long, however, conservative seems to always mean right wing. In other words, the Republicans seem to have combined right-wing and conservative social/economic ideas. So now, being pro-school vouchers means being anti-abortion (yes it is crazy!). The Dems did the same, just the other way around. So the sentence is (unfortunately) accurate. If you have a proposal that would make it more accurate, however, please add it! Signaturebrendel 06:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Within American political culture" - The other 95% of the world considers these "parties" to be indistinguishable arms of their corporate owners. (so who "considers" otherwise?)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those affilated with one of those parties such as myself. There are key differences (e.g. pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion) in their ideologies and social policies. Signaturebrendel 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political System

message: This poll has been closed by an admin because (a) this issue has been tested repeatedly, including a very recent decision to keep this name (b) proceeding directly to a poll is not the prefered form of discussion on Wikipedia.  The anonymous editor who wishes to move the page should first explain their reasoning here and invite discussion.  It would be especially helpful if they have something new to say that has not been said before. Johntex\talk 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: What the...
Ok, this made me laugh. Fixing it now. PrinceForte 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Proper subject heading was "Geography."PrinceForte 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia by fixing that vandalism!  Looking through the page history, it appears it was missed by another editor cleaning up vandalism yesterday, and went unnoticed (or at least uncorrected) until you took action.  Good job on helping keep Wikipedia clean. —Krellis 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double but poop...? 

message: Though John Roberts is a Republican, his office is apolitical. He is unelected and his party is not mentioned in the context that it is currently seen on the leaders section of the country infobox. I'm removing the reference that he is Republican. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 11:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the party mention of Roberts is uneeded. Signaturebrendel 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Party of the Chief Justice 

message: Should California be added as the largest state in the infobox?(SUDUSER)85 04:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Largest state in terms of area is Alaska. California has the largest population. --theSpectator talk 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the most populous state is actually not a bad idea- we're the gold standard for states anyways ;-) (CA is called the golden state-in case someone who doesn't know readers this) Signaturebrendel 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not, I mean, the way things are going, eventually we're going to move the whole article (and then some) to the infobox, so why stop now? yes this is sarcasm --Golbez 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got your point- we do need to draw the line somewhere-you're right. Isn't small text great? Signaturebrendel 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest state 

message: The CIA factbook :  298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) 
So where does the number 300 million come from? Potaaatos 17:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: US Census Bureau, current (not July of last year) estimate. Go to www.census.gov and click on population clocks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The number comes from the US Census Bureau's current estimate. Just follow the citation link! As for "Why can't the US just say the exact number"- becuase you cannot count 300 plus million people, conducting an acutal census is impossbile in a nation with millions, let alone hundreds of millions of people. You can only have sample data (even the Census is sample data) and complex mathematical calculations to ball-park America's population. Any figure is going to be off by millions in a nation this size. Signaturebrendel 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 300 million?

message: I was doing a bit of browsing through wikipedia and found out as of 1990 to present the US has become a hyperpower because it has dominated militarily, economically, and technologically on a world stage, even though people most commonly call it a superpower, just thought I'd bring that up maybe for a change of wording, here's the link  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower
:That's just one theory of several. Others argue that the US is the sole superpower, while yet other beleive in a multi-polar world. Signaturebrendel 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperpower 

message: Because several sources have claimed the United States is a Hyperpower, I think that perhaps a vote should be held to decide whether or not this information should be mentioned on this page as such:
"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States emerged as the world's sole Superpower, or Hyperpower."
After all, the last time this issue was decided was quite a time ago so far as I know.   
In order to keep track of votes easier, I think that it will be a good idea to copy and paste the following after you vote:
Votes For: 
Votes Against:
My vote is strongly support. 
Votes For: 1
Votes Against: 0 
Reticulum 00:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling a lot of people are unhappy that you hopped right to a vote, because voting is typically evil on wikipedia. --Golbez 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Democratic system=partiality, which is something wikipedia I think would like to avoid. AllStarZ 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperpower Vote 

message: Why is it that when I search for "USA," I am directed to the same information about the United States as I am if I type in "United States of America," with the exception of the presence of the Mexican flag instead of the flag of the United States of America?  Is this a joke? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.198.42 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's serious. Of course it's a joke, or rather, vandalism. --Golbez 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "USA" redirects to this article, but with Mexican flag?! 

message: Someone has re-added the short names to the lead sentence, again. I believe I already addressed this a few months ago. Jay(Talk) 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead name

message: I am sorry, but I believe this subsection should include "Mexico" as a "Military ally of the US". It certainly isn't an enemy, and since it is spending 4% of its GDP, and losing a lot of personnel, fighting drug dealers that export to US consumers, I don't see why it shouldn't be listed.
I understand that the article cannot possibly list ALL of the USA's military ally, and I also understand that adding Mexico would be controversial, for a lot of reasons. That is why I wanted to discuss it before adding. What do you think?
My arguments in favor are the countless number of Mexican officials that die every year, (including the Mexican Secretariat of Public Safety, and close friend to President Fox, Ramón Martín Huerta who died fighting against drug criminals, who commit their crimes in the US). Another reason is the comparatively high amount of resources Mexico devotes to these issues, the long history (decades) of cooperation between the armed forces of both nations in common causes: prevent illegal immigration, prevent drug trafficking to the US, and keeping a secure border, and the closeness of the two nations. If anything else, the Mexican aid to the victims of Katrina...
Sure, the UK is America's closest ally, politically... But Mexico is America's closes ally geographically (along with Canada). The two countries share one of the largest borders in the world! And sure, Mexico's armed forces may not be as impressive as those of Japan, but then the GDP of both nations is not even comparable. Mexican officials die daily fighting America's most wanted (who have been recently extradited to the the US), while I don't think that the Japanese armed forces can say the same thing... 
Hari Seldon 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are good reasons for including Mexico, there are good reasons for mentioning Canada. There are also good reasons for mentioning Japan and Germany. But this article is already too long. Details need to be mentioned in the forgein relations of the US article. Signaturebrendel 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Japan is menctioned, Germany, Canada, and Mexico are not. On the other hand, Germany and Canada are part of NATO, which is menctioned... while Mexico is not part of NATO and is not menctioned elsewhere. I understand that the article is too long, but adding Mexico is 5 letters and a comma, and perhaps brackets for wikipedizing it. Overall, it should not be more than 10 characters added. Is this really so bad? Hari Seldon 07:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your reasoning (Germany and Canada being mention under the NATO heading w/ only the UK being mentioned twice due to the "special relationship"). I guess adding Mexico can't hurt. After all living in California I see what a great cultural influence Mexico has on the US furthermore there is great economic interdependency. I'll try and figure out a way to mention Mexico in the section. Signaturebrendel 01:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started another topic specifically on this which is still on the main U.S. talk page. However, I wanted to point out that Mexico, while it has strong ties to U.S. law enforcement is really in a war for their own country, not the United States. It would make more sense to mention Mexico in the economic and demographic sections as it has influence on the US ( and vice versa) via its large ex pat population in the U.S. and their economic relations, especially NAFTA. Since the article currently states countries with "strong ties" to the U.S. the existing countries should remain and Mexico should be left out only because the US has less of a feeling of brotherhood with Mexico than with the currently listed nations.Lockeian (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations and military