Talk:United States/Archive 13

message: The wording "...cultural dominance of the United States..." is funny and inaccurate.By cultural dominance we can understand obviously some parts of mass media cultural products, like movies from the big californian studios, few trade names in the industry like Coca-Cola or Burger King, and many names in pop-music.
However culture refers commonly to much wider areas in the literature, fine arts and social sciences which are more important in any country than the imported *products* of some american corporates.
I think the sentence should be changed to better express the difference between the global market of mass media cultural products, where USA is the dominant player and what is culture as a whole.
In fact, yes, I agree, because the total aggregate of the system equals a beknowst amount which could be used in a beneficial manner subsequently over the possessions formerly held by innovative strategies and technological bums.
--AntonioB 16:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign relations and military 

message: Someone (not logged in, but using an IP address that has a fairly long history of useful edits) added a Science section, an addition which was reverted a short time later by User:Tyler McHenry with the explanation that gave four things wrong with the new section: (1) POV, (2) vague and (3) not a useful addition, (4) not in line with Wikipedia style.  My opinion is that it might be possible to address each one of these objections, and turn the section into a valuable addition to the article.  I do agree with User:Tyler McHenry, though, that it isn't suitable as it stands.  In the hope of resurrecting it some time in the future, and to take some of the sting out of the revert for the person who submitted it in the first place, here it is, exactly as it was in the article, ready to be edited and improved:
:The United States has made many significant and fundamental contributions to scientific and engineering knowledge.  The prodigious efforts of its scientists have directly contributed to the strength of the national and world economy.  Its scientists have received more Nobel Prizes and published more original papers than any other nation.  Most original patents have been awarded by the national government.  It was the first nation to create an atom bomb, design a nuclear reactor, and land people on the moon.  The national government funds several national labs.  Many international scientific and engineering organizations are in the United States.
:However, the United States' scientific leadership is in jeopardy since the Bush Administration does not fund scientific efforts at the same level as previous administrations.
Now, for my ideas about how to improve it.  First, if the section is about Science, let's confine it to science, and not engineering.  Second, let's just say what the U.S. has accomplished in science without speculating on how this has strengthened our economy.  God knows, we don't want to step into that!  If the author knows how many papers have been published by people of each nationality, and how many patents have been awarded to people of each nationality, lay those factoids on us!  Otherwise, let's just stick to what we do know -- the Nobel prize count is well documented.  And if you're going to pick out some great inventions for which the United States is known, can you please pick something like the transistor instead of the atomic bomb?  As far as the funding of science is concerned, much of it is funded by corporations, not the U.S. government.  Bell Labs, for example, was a powerhouse of science from 1925 to 1984, funded completely by AT&T and the Bell System.  So if the author has information about the funding of science by country, and in particular whether (and by what amount) funding has declined during the Bush Administration, then, please lay those factoids on us, too.  So the next paragraph is what remains of the section after the unsubstantiated parts have been excised and the one part I know how to substantiate has been substantiated.  I invite the original author (or anyone else) to answer the questions I've raised here, and either fix the paragraph, above, or add to this paragraph:
:The United States has made many significant contributions to science.  As of October 2005, U.S. scientists have received 114 Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology or Medicine, which is more than the next four countries (Germany (34), United Kingdom (29), Switzerland (19), and The Netherlands (17)) combined.  (See Nobel laureates by country).
--GraemeMcRaetalk 08:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, I do think it's reasonable to include a section on Science, it's just that the section as written was a jarring drop in quality compared to the rest of the article, which is a well-written rather high-profile article; the paragraph just seemed like US cheerleading with an anti-bush barb thrown in. I think your proposal is a good way too go about this, although I suggest that any science section focus on tangible acheivements made by US scientists or companies rather than listing accolades (i.e. link to some of the most important actual advancements that the nobel prizes were won for instead of linking to the prizes). -- Tyler 09:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point, Tyler.  My main objective in moving it here is to give the person who wrote it an opportunity to spruce it up and get it back into the article.--GraemeMcRaetalk 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: I remember back in the late 90's, the estimated population of the United States was over 360 million.  Now they are saying that there's less than 300 million people in the US?
:I remember being taught in the late 90's that 270M was the rough population figure for the US. Maybe my textbooks were outdated... -- Tyler 23:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, would love to know where you heard 360 million. That's at least 25% larger than any official census estimate from the present all the way back to 1980.--chris.lawson 01:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census accuracy?   

message: Alright, I moved a boatload of stuff over to a daughter article here. Thoughts? Improvements? Matt Yeager 01:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! Would it need to be tied in with the main article Demographics of the United States?--sansvøix 03:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Already is (well, at least it's linked to). Matt Yeager 05:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race 

message: Why does the final box, "International Ties of the United States", list "Continent of Europe" and "European Union"?  Is there some logic here that I'm missing?
Scrutchfield
:Wow, I see no logic to that box at all. Thanks for pointing it out, it should be fixed or removed. --Golbez 23:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union 

message: In the picture of Americana (baseball bat, US flag), why is the apple pie there? Apple pie originated in Europe, I believe, not North America.
----
See Apple pie in American culture. :-)  President Lethe 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of "Americana" 

message: 1. I used the word superpower in the introductory paragraph: "Also referred to, with varying formality, as the United States, the U.S. (or the US), the U.S.A. (or the USA), the U.S. of A. (or the US of A), the States, and America, the superpower consists of fifty federal states and one federal district."
2. It was removed as being point of view.
3. I specifically linked to the "Superpower" article—which readers should see, along with many other sources (too numerous to list; both in Wikipedia and without), to determine the term's validity when it's applied to the U.S.
4. I inserted the term as a relatively agreed-upon fact.  My insertion is not meant to say that superpowers are good or bad, and is not meant to say whether it is good or bad that the U.S. is a superpower.  It is simply a thing that most persons familiar with the word would agree on.  If you ask "What nation or nations is or are superpowers in the world today?", the first answer almost invariably will be the U.S., in whatever country you ask the question.
5. I inserted it in the introductory paragraph for this reason:  it seems to me reasonable that an encyclopedia article's opening paragraph on a country should provide four basic bits of information: (a) the name by which the country is generally known in the language of the article; (b) the general form of the country's government; (c) the general geographic location of the country; and (d) anything that is highly likely to be considered a defining characteristic of the country, such as some sort of extreme (largest population, smallest area, northernmost, southernmost, coldest, rainiest, only one with absolute monarchy, whatever, ... or superpower).
6. The opening paragraph gives common names of the U.S. in English; gives a very basic description of the form of government; offers the general location on the globe; and describes a feature that, in this case, is not only a defining characteristic but, indeed, is considered by many to make the country unique (the only one of its kind) in the world.  In introducing a country, it's likely to be interesting, informative, and useful to the reader to offer some detail that sets the country off from most, or all, others.  We could point out the United States' high rank in land area or in population; but the U.S. is only close to the top in those areas, not actually superlative—while it is a superpower, and is very often defined, by experts and laypersons alike, as the single superpower in the present world.
7. Later in the same article are the words "Since the mid-20th century, following World War II, the United States emerged as the dominant global influence in economic, political, military, scientific, technological, and cultural affairs."  That's a pretty good definition of a superpower.  But, in the opening paragraph, we might want to be more concise, offering simply the word rather than the definition—and, as I said, the word superpower itself is a cross-reference to the "Superpower" article.  There are many defining characteristics of the U.S.; but one of the most significant, and the one that may well make the U.S. unique in the present world, is the country's superpower status.
Please, consider these points.  If there is disagreement, let's discuss it.
Thanks to all for their efforts with this article.
And, to those to whom it matters, Happy Thanksgiving!
President Lethe 16:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The USA is as superpower. That is a significant and distinguishing status, and therefore appropriate in the introductory description. --StanZegel   (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not a matter of American nationalism; the United States is objectively the nation with the world's largest economy and military-industrial complex.  It's the country's most defining characteristic, and deserves lead mention.  Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 20:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Superpower" in introductory paragraph 

message: The foundation date has stood for some time as 1607 (Jamestown). Calling the date of the first permanent European settlement within the present boundaries the date of foundation of the United States, seems to me quite a stretch. Being the first British settlement to last, it could also be the foundation of Canada. Was Israel founded when the first settlers arrived there? Or perhaps, instead, the foundation of the USA should be pushed further back to the first permanent human settlers: Native Americans?--JimWae 05:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundation date

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: The article has these two points. "The immense military and economic dominance of the United States has made foreign relations an especially important topic in its politics, with considerable concern about the image of the United States throughout the world.", and "The United States Armed forces are considered to be the most powerful military (of any sort) on Earth and their force projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other nation, or collaboration of nations."
Do these conform to the NPOV policy? The military dominance of the US is pretty clear indeed, but this sounds a bit too extreme, and you could think of counterexamples. For example, Russia posesses more nuclear weapons, and it could be argued that a united Russian-Chinese force would be quite a match to the US military force. I, therefore, think that the sentence should be rephrased somehow, so that the American military dominance remains clear, but it doesn't sound like "US can kick anyone butt anyway". Thoughts? Solver 21:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrivaled US dominance 

message: Alright... as I'm looking over the page, it looks really, really good. It's got a ton of useful information and (while it's longer than most articles) it really isn't too long. I think this page is just about ready to take a second try at becoming featured. The "pending tasks" thing at the top of the talk page has basically been reduced down to "make the page better", which (naturally) is going to be a never-ending job. I think this page is as good or better than most FA's. Thoughts? Matt Yeager 05:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Half the lead is on geography - with too much detail. The 4th paragraph has 2 topics & should be 2 paragraphs, with the 2nd expanded a bit--JimWae 06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, the intro needs a bit of work. Once that's done, though... Matt Yeager 06:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get this page featured 

message: lets see if this helps progress things...
Delete and add link
*--sansvoix 09:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Afraid that is not the case...--sansvoix 21:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion Poll

message: In a series of edits, and without much discussion, we have eliminated most of what used to constitute a Geography and climate section, removed the only non-urban image of the country, and removed even having a link to Geography of the United States. I've only recently gotten involved in this article, which clearly has a lot of active editors. Was this really intentional? On a less active article, I'd tend to just revert something like this. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you should decide if you think the things removed should be put back, and if so, do it.  Then start a discussion afterward if they get reverted.  It never works to ask "should I do this", because as you can see, no one ever responds.  Not until you do it, at least. -- Dpark 21:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: "in 2004 the European Union, as the second-largest military force, had a combined total of 1.6 million troops, and a defense budget of €160 billion, with less than 10% of that being spent on R&D."  This combines a good point with a misleading comparison that verges on factual innacuracy.  The EU is not a sovereign state, and does not have its own armed forces, independent of its members' governments.  Perhaps the perception that it is and does should feature elsewhere in the article, as an example of US citizens' sketchy knowledge of the rest of the world :).  Member governments can and do make their own decisions on foreign policy, miltary spending and the exercise of armed force.  The Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria have policies of military neutrality, while Britain and France have considerable force projection capabilities.  Afganistan and Iraq are recent examples of wide divergence of policy and action.  There is a 'European Rapid Reaction Force', but it is based on inter-state cooperation, like NATO (except that it is limited to to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations).  Perhaps it would be better to compare US miltary force and expenditure with the sum totals of all the other members of NATO? 
--Countersubject 14:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: European Union as second-largest miltary force

message: Putting them here as to avoid an edit war.  They were removed from the bottom of the Economy section.--sansvoix 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The deleted paragraphs

message: See United_States#Largest_cities
Discuss at Talk:United_States#largest_cities
Vote (non-binding poll) at Talk:United_States#Opinion_Poll
FOR Removal
*Chart already has its own article on wikipedia
*List of 20 biggest cities is generally not considered important information regarding a general encyclopedia article on an entire country:
**Contributes little to the understanding of the United States as a whole --More page space is devoted to cities than regions.
**No other country aricle has a section containing a chart of big cities.
**Very few readers would likely expect this list to be here, but if interested could still click on a link given.
*The United States Article is too long, something needs to go.
*It contributes to a percieved U.S. haughtiness. (opinion)
Neutral
*Size of section is partially a reflection of patriotic pride in the major cities. (Can be seen as a reason to keep or delete or modify) (this interpretation, either pro or con, is personal opinion)
*change to something that tells more about the country - ranking by metro area
*These are all large cities, and many of the top ten at least are well known outside the country. Maybe a top ten ranking is enough, with a link to the full list at the top or bottom. --Big Adamsky 14:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Removal of City Pop Chart

message: I used Jeff Madrick, from "Inequality and Democracy" in George Packer "The Fight is for democracy" for the figures he cited the census, business week, and forbes. I also added a bit from Alan Greenspan. The fact that Alan Greenspan considers it a threat to the USA's survival and we didn't even address income inequality here illustrates that we need something on it. 70.57.93.147 19:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New economy paras.

message: One of the copmlaints when this article was up for featured status was that several of the templates used in this article have the look of footers.  This is still the case.  e.g. Template:United States and Template:United States topics, in particular.  It's a jarring effect, because they appear to be the end of the article, but aren't.  I've tried  dropping the footer style entirely.  The result can be seen at User:Dpark/Sandbox/United States.  Since we don't really want direct text insertion because it makes maintenance more difficult, I would say we could partition the information out into separate templates (e.g. Template:United States 2) which both this article and the original template could then use.  No duplication that way, but we don't need to keep the footer style.  All this is assuming others like the change, of course.
Compare United States#Political_divisions vs. User:Dpark/Sandbox/United States#Political_divisions and United States#Related_topics vs. User:Dpark/Sandbox/United States#Related_topics.  And of course, try looking at the whole article, scrolling through it, to see if it's more visually appealing.
Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to make the talk page have a white background, so you'll have to excuse the blue.
So, what does everyone think? -- Dpark 23:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footers 

message: That was me who made the previous edit (forgot to sign in). washington D.C. was originally land from both Virginia & Maryland. The Virginia portion was given back (now Arlington County?, Va). Can't believe such a glaring error would be in such a big article. Jcam 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current D.C. land once part of maryland

message: Insert: 'the idiot-nation of planetary destruction' as one of the synonyms for "United States". Yama Thi Khuu 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Synonyms Internationally Used

message: I included this because it was where I got the information about the number of military bases.  I thought that including references was encouraged.  Perhaps I'm including it in the wrong place, or maybe references aren't as important for a general article like this one.  I wouldn't mind having some clarification on this, as I'm new to this whole editing business. -- Aislar
: Dunno.  You might want to ask the person who removed it.  Drop a line on his/her talk page.  To be honest, though, a Nobel prize acceptance speech is a slightly odd source for this article.  I'm sure the number of military bases could be found at a more specifically relevant source. -- Dpark 12:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I chopped the Pinter link. I know Pinter has some good things to say - but he's a playwright, and there's a million such links. If it goes anywhere it should be on a more specific page e.g. criticism of US military bases. - Jgritz 12:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand perfectly why the link shouldn't be on this page.  Just wanted to cover my "bases" with regards to the statistic.  Thanks.  Aislar 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Harold Pinter link

message: Could I encourage everyone to go through and edit out all of the unnecessary uses of U.S. and America.  It is understood that the article is about the United States so the terms do not have to start and end every sentence.  Just my opinion but it does make it tough to read at times.--Looper5920 08:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of America and U.S. 

message: Article is MISSING, deleted by one of many anti-american admins here, no doubt--Diatrobica;l 22:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We were attacked by a pagemove vandal.  This article disappeared in the chaos. (Unless of course I'm part of the conspiracy to delete the US...). Mark1 23:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Deletions and undeletions of pages with long histories are still a bit sluggish, and get *real* ugly when fifty people are trying to do it at once. I think it's sorted out now. --Brion 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: United States

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, Jguks page is NOT (as of 17/12/05) wikipedia policy (many other "Wikipedia:" articles are)--sansvoix 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So this is just some guys' little analysis website done as a hobby with zero peer-review? That really shouldn't fly as a secondary source in an encyclopedia. Why are people so hot to add it here when the primary sources on American history can easily be found? Are they affiliated with the site or something? 67.124.203.233 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure.  It is a very popular site, and it is factual and informative.  I use it for references when I am looking for impartial facts on religion.  Many Chritsian (or Muslum, or whatever) sites tend to be kinda biased, this one isn't trying to convert.--24.68.35.200 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: and that was a typo on my part Jguk.  fixed.--sansvoix 03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RELIGOUS TOLERANCE!  There is a right way, and a wrong way, the FACTS GOD sent us.  That small group of Canadians have abandoned their faith, and are waging a Jihad against their own religion.--Koool 04:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia, there is a Neutral Point Of View, which means that any personal views you may have about what is the "right" and the "wrong" way, religiously, are irrelevant to the content of the articles. *Dan T.* 12:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: For those of you that would like to write a short summary about American-Canadian culture, please contribute to the new article stub.--Culturesoftheworld 19:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[Cultures of the World]] article