Talk:United States/Archive 16

message: It is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world, and has existed for over 200 years Anything being put in the opening paragraph shouldn't be a matter of contention. Either it is definitely the oldest constitutional republic in the world, in which case we take out 'considered to be'; or it is one of the oldest, in which case we say that; or we remove this claim from the intro entirely and leave it do be dealt with in the appropriate section. Nomist 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dispute the claim that the USA is the oldest still existing constitutional republic. (Ref. to the Library of Congress website at  ). I.e. the above part should be removed or rephrased to "one of the oldest". The fact that San Marino is a rather small country probably lead to this being overlooked. Travelbird 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article on San Marino says it was founded in AD 301, but it doesn't mention a constitution. I'm thinking that it came after the US. Maybe we could say the the US has the oldest constitutional government. Jaxad0127 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it does (look right at the top for "Constitution"). The date given is October 8, 1600. That would be over 150 years prior to the US Constitution of of 1787. I'd still prefer one "of the oldest" because that preempts the discussion about what constitues a valid "constitutional government" . Travelbird 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still don't see it anywhere in the San Marino article. Jaxad0127 05:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not on the San Marino article but on the article by the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/sanmarino.html#constitution Travelbird 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, but from the looks of it, the government was reorganized in 1926. That would still leave the US Government as the oldest. Jaxad0127 16:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The government wasn't reorganised, rather an electional law was passed. That would be similar to an American amendment to the constitution, only that (as in many countries), details of how the government is elected are not included in the constitution of San Marino, but are organized in a seperate law. Travelbird 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest constitutional republic? 

message: I added several  tags to the article, but was inexplicably reverted.  They are intended to show where citations are needed so that the article complies with WP:V, not to question the validity of the statement.  Should anyone working on this article deign to improve its verifiability, I'd be happy to point out where it's necessary; just leave a note on my talk. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess there's no need to add those tags now.--Ryz05 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Fact]] 

message: Of all the featured images that we have, why was this one chosen? There is a very high chance that this image the product of vanity on behalf of some Jesuit College Preparatory School. This image is neither striking enough or notable enough to appear outside of the JCPS article. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I will change it.--Ryz05 06:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education image 

message: There are certain questions and controversies that keep cropping up.  It would be great if new editors would read the Talk Page archives first before jumping in.  However, most don't.  Moreover, it's not that easy to say "Go read archives 6, 8 and 9 for the discussion of your suggestion." unless you have the locations of all the discussions of a particular issue memorized.
So here's a solution... Instead of having only chronological archives, have a few key topical archives.  Now, the next time someone suggests that this article be moved to "United States of America", you can just say "Please read Talk:United States/Name".  Similarly, you can request that people read Talk:United States/Introduction or Talk:United States/Human Rights.  I know the archive box could be formatted better.  Someone please make it prettier if you know how.
Next tasks "to do" re topical archives.  Each archive needs a summary of the current consensus on that topic and the justification.  For example, the consensus is that the title of the article is "United States".  Why?
--Richard 09:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added topical archives

message: The statement under "Military" that "American defense expenditure is estimated to be greater than the next twelve largest national military budgets combined" is true, but somewhat misleading. As a percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 4% on military. This compares higher than France's 2.6%, and lower than Saudia Arabia's 10%.  This is historically fairly low for the United States. 
Scott5834 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't get much vandalisms. The tag was put up awhile ago so the article can be improved, without having to do too much reverts everyday.--Ryz05 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this article gets vandalized quite often, though I'll admit that the rate has decreased this year thanks to the liberal application of the protection policy.  A couple of years ago, I saw bad days where it was vandalized as often as every ten minutes.  --Coolcaesar 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Link to archived discussion 
Perhaps the fact that the United States will be classified as a second world country in a few years (at the pace it is declining) should be mentioned.
:Can you provide some referencing for that claim? Because as far as I know, the US will continue to be a dominant influence in the next century.--Ryz05 01:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second World. The definitions were, First World = Capitalist. Second World = Communist. Third World = those nations that were the pawns of each side, and almost invariably poorer. --Golbez 01:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegedly line in 9/11 section 

message: It has been brought to my attention that many articles within Wikipedia are limited or misleading due to their content being created or edited by an American citizen, or a party with access only to US dates and events. For example, the Console Wars section is clumsy and misleading to those from other English-speaking countries, or to foreigners who speak English. There are a considerable number of these people who use Wikipedia every day, and as such I think that this should be beared in mind in future editing.
:I think you got the wrong article. What Console Wars section? In the future, it's a good idea to post new messages at the end of this discussion page so others can see.--Ryz05 t 13:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning American Editors of Wikipedia 

message: If I turned in a paper citing to just Web pages like this article does (that is, back in the days when I attended a certain University of California campus), I would probably flunk the class or get a C at best.  In fact, that's what happened to many of my classmates who did their research purely on the Web!  With a topic as big as the United States, there should be plenty of high-quality books and articles out there that can be cited as sources.
This article still has a long way to go before it can become a featured article.  Not that I have the time to research this mess and provide proper citations, though---I'm too busy with personal and work matters and I'm directing most of my time on Wikipedia to coming up with a solution for the huge hairball that is Freeway.  But I'm raising the issue so that hopefully someone else can take care of it.  --Coolcaesar 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the references section, there are a number of books, so I'm not sure where you get the notion of "paper citing to just Web pages." If you want more books and references (as if it's not already too long), just say so. How many books serving as references will satisfy your hunger? --Ryz05 t 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quality of the sources cited to support this article 

message: "one of the most educated countries in the world, with a litercy rate of 99% (male and female)- defined as anyone age 15 and over who can read and write."
Oh the irony... someone should learn to spell 'literacy' before they claim to be literate.
Might be a good idea to edit it if you have nothing else to do.
:Done.—G.He 16:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling is one thing, typing is another. Most people aren't perfect when they try to type fast, especially when trying to summarize an article at the same time.--Ryz05 t 01:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: *Should the article have a reduction in size? Or an expansion with more references? Because people are saying the the article is too large, and that it should be "cut down significantly." So I'm wondering what you guys think. Is the size appropriate for this article? Below is someone mentioning the size of the article being too large.--Ryz05 t 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here're people calling for expansion (and omission):
*Object This is a good article and great effort but also a very long article albeit on a huge topic which means that it has kinks to work out and some omissions. Here are a few  things I noticed in quick first run-through:
**No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else. 
***That pisses me off, because I added that a long time ago when I did my own overhaul of this article. I'm very annoyed that it's been removed in the interim. --Golbez 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bwithh 02:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the size of the article

message: Okay. I have been an Wikipedia for a while. Can we PLEASE have some sort of consensous on whether E Pluribus Unum is still a motto of the United States? It's getting really annoying for it to continuously be switching between "(1776-present)" and "(1776-1956)" R'son-W 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I've read leads me to the conclusion that the U.S. had no official motto before 1956, but that E Pluribus Unum was (and is) a motto on the Great Seal of the United States. In other words: E Pluribus Unum is official motto for the seal and used as de facto motto for U.S.; In God We Trust is official motto for the country itself, and only comes along in 1956. But I could be wrong. See Archive. President Lethe 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See the archive.  I already noted the last time we went over this that "In God We Trust" is the national motto.  --Coolcaesar 07:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E Pluribus Unum (again…) 

message: "...Its global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs around the world currently remain unmatched."
Is there sources for "unmatched"? In economic affairs the EU as the biggest economy in the world and the vast implications of China's supergrowth certainly have at least comparable global influence. In scientifical and technological affairs EU, Japan and South Korea certainly match. Europe has always had a profound influence in cultural affairs all around the world, Japan and South Korea have nowdays a huge cultural influence in Asia. So I'm not sure about "unmatched" in any but military affairs, and even in military affairs multiple countries maintain a mutually assured destruction to any country. Perhaps "unmatched" should be replaced "high"?--Christinam 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I think all of your suggestions have been addressed. I don't control the article and it's a collaboration, but I don't see why your other edits are useful in any way. They don't improve the article, IMO.--Ryz05 t 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 65.96.154.197 reverted the article with the following edit comment - "rvt to last by me- too much bad edits making nothing but a mess."
I reverted the 65.96.154.197's reversion not because I thought the previous text was clearly superior to the text following 65.96.154.197's reversion but on general principle.  I thought 65.96.154.197 was being arbitrary in insisting on his version of the intro paragraph.  (That's what the diff seemed to imply.)
However, on reviewing the comparison between 65.96.154.197's previous version and the version that User:Christinam edited, I realized that 65.96.154.197 was right.  The various recent edits are a mess.  Any one of those edits is debatable and might be worth putting in but just about every one has a problem with grammar or diction.  Together, these errors make the article look juvenile.  It's better to pull all those edits out and put them back in with proper English.  
We can debate whether or not the various points need to be made and how to do it in an NPOV fashion but let's keep this article sounding professional in the meantime.
--Richard 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 65.96.154.197's reversion, then reinstated it 

message: The reference section is not working correctly. Also, each reference is off by a few numbers. Such that the number states "[42]" but the link is 39.--Ali Karbassi 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. There was a </ref> missing deep inside the article. --Ali Karbassi 18:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Too many of the edits in the US article are unexplained and do not seem to hold much merit. Therefore, the article will be reverted to its original style, otherwise, much of the edits, I'm afraid, rely on too much bias, because the previous edits are made as a result of considerable debate and discussion. Therefore, I suggest any new major edits be discussed first. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not own the article. Just because many have not been summarized does not give you the right to discard them out of hand. I reverted your reversion. Perhaps we should request a protection so we can discuss these things - though we have the peer review page for that, we don't need to fill up this talk page with it [for now]. --Golbez 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many people making significant edits to many of the sections without consulting the peer review is the problem. Sections like Education, which omitted the mentioning of literacy rate as well as the inclusion of the picture on Jesuit Prep school, and in the Science and technology section, where the section was almost cut down to nothing, are some of the problems.--Ryz05 t 16:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Time is not of the essence; we can take our time and work with it. --Golbez 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problems of your edit have been well documented here and in the peer review. Please participate in the discussion page before repeating them.--Janechra 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please participate in the discussion before you repeat your edits as well.--Ryz05 t 19:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many unexplained edits in the US article

message: What is there to discuss? Saying the US is 81 percent white is extremely misleading and it gives people the impression that its 81 percent European which is far from the truth. The US census bureau even states that Americans do not consider people of hispanic descent to be white. I summarized the article and merely included what the census counts as white to make it accurate. Whats the problem? Why do you keep reverting it? You cant just leave out important information. Not all people are going to go in the sub forums and read they are just going to give a cursory glance at the info and say America is 81 percent white European which is not true. It needs to say. 
Jerry Jones 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  demographics... 

message: In the sentence about Nobel Prizes, I changed "key focus on..." to "a heavy concentration in the fields of...".
The above edit still doesn't quite get across what I'm trying to convey but it's a first step.  My point is that because of the beginning of the sentence mentioning Nobel Prizes, the implication is that the U.S. has a "focus" on getting Nobel Prizes in physiology and medicine.  This is obviously not our primary goal.  My change tries to get across the point that we get more Nobel Prizes in physiology and medicine than in any other field.  If we devote more research money to physiology and medicine than to other fields of research, then we should mention that.  I don't have any data on that question.
Also, I didn't make this change but I didn't understand why the U.S. should be "second to the Europeans" in Nobel Prizes.  Is Europe a country?  Do we say that the Asians are third in Nobel Prizes?  I know the nature of the EU is difficult to handle but I think the right approach here is to say that the U.S. has the largest share of Nobel Prizes, period.
--Richard 18:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point there about comparing Americans to Europeans, as Europe is not a country but a continent, so I've changed that sentence. I think the section is a lot better now. If anyone want to dispute, please discuss before changing anything. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very misleading, because per capita many nations get more prizes, and if foreign-educated Americans are excluded, even more dramatically so. I believe the Nobel prize comparison is not relevant to the reader anyway, but if it is, it's should be expressed accurately in terms of per capita with meaningful comparison.--Marielleh 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mentioning about the Nobel Prizes that you just deleted is not comparing the US with other countries or continents in any way. It is true to say that the US has a large share of Nobel Prizes in the sciences, so it should be kept. --Ryz05 t 19:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, what is the meaning to mention it? For example, we don't write that U.S. has a large share of world's rapes, deaths, marriages, etc. - although they would be surely interesting facts - but we don't, because it comes with the size. If you think it should be included, you have to explain why it's important.--Marielleh 20:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a large share of nobel prizes is something to be proud of, so mentioning it is important, while other things, which are largely negative, are not important.--Ryz05 t 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really think that Wikipedia is a forum to write your points "to be proud of", see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Sorry, but argument disqualified.--Marielleh 20:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and technology 

message: How is development of atomic bomb important specific that needs to be covered? Don't push extra pictures when the layout is already full, a picture or story of Neil Amstrong does not contain much information to the reader. Same with the story. Also, "relatively undamaged" is misleading because we weren't damaged at all unless you count a few potential forest fires by Japanese balloon bombs as damage.--Marielleh 20:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The development of the atomic bomb ushered in the atomic age, as that sentence said. Also, the picture is important to include because it is one of the highlights of the Cold War and an important technological achievement, when the first man lands on the moon; something that have not been done again in more than 40 years. Finally, it's not just hydrogen balloons, it's also about the attack on Pearl Harbor, so you can't say the US was not damaged at all during the war.--Ryz05 t 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the development of theories of relativity, first reactors of Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassman and further reactors of Fermi that "ushered" it. You have to give a citation that it's something important. Same for Apollo 11. It sure was a important media spectacle (that would be an excellent reason to include it), but that's about it. Nobody has sent people there, because it's expensive and has no value other than image. It's technologically damn easy if you choose to invest in the equipment. For the U.S., it was just about losing the face after Russians had been the first in everything. You see, poor Indians are nowdays sending guys out there. If you think that the layout must be vandalized, find a pic of Fermilab, a premier American research center, or something other with a purpose to the reader's understanding.--Marielleh 20:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously arguing that it was "technologically damn easy" to go to the moon in the 1960s?  I'm sorry, if that's so I think we're on very different pages... TastyCakes 21:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about this day. We should not waste space on history when the reader can well read the main article.--Marielleh 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the atomic bomb and the space race are pretty central examples of America's role in 20th century science and technology.  And I think the picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon encapsulates that pretty well, but if there's no space for it I don't think it's a big deal.  As far as not being damaged in WW2, physically that may be true (other than Pacific islands), but over 400000 Americans were killed in it, which I'm sure damaged the labour pool if nothing else.  TastyCakes 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pool sent out there didn't really represent the research pool. Actually, the war boosted science. Anyway, I agree that the "relatively undamaged" might suit better.--Marielleh 20:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm aware that some pictures appear a little too big for their respective sections because of the different computer screen sizes. But the picture of Buzz Aldrin on my computer screen fits the section perfectly, so I'm not sure if the statement there's no space for it applies to most people or not.--Ryz05 t 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here.  Plus I think the section deserves a picture and that walking on the moon is as good as any I can think of.  TastyCakes 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, sorry guys, it's my widescreen.--Marielleh 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted because you basically took all the things you talked about above and then did them without any consensus here.  TastyCakes 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Ryz who pushed his edits, without reasons or citations, but whatever. Let's keep the article sounding professional while consensus is searched whether to include Ryz's edits.--Marielleh 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you accusing me of "pushing" my edits without "citations?" Almost all the citations are added in by me. Also, please do not make random edits just because you feel like it, without thinking logically what you are doing, like deleting almost a whole section without contributing something else, which is like vandalism.--Ryz05 t 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok then.  I think the space program and the nuclear program deserve at least a passing mention.  I think there should be some mention of the large number of world class universities as well as corporate research parks that attract top students and researchers from at home and abroad, which is reflected by the number of Nobel Prizes.  The stats on what percentage of GDP go into R&D and the portion of the global total also seem relevent.  Probably the large number of contributions to medicine should be mentioned, but I don't know too much about that.  Also the fact that they lost the lead to East Asia for many consumer electronic type technology probably deserves mention.  TastyCakes 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be wonderful. This is what I'm talking about, real information to the reader.--Marielleh 21:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you would want to shorten the section. It is not that long and what it talks about are all pretty relevant.--Ryz05 t 21:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems of your edits are well documentated above and your edits won't be incorporated to the article until you at least provide some response and seek consensus. There is space for larger section, but it has to be professional content. TastyCakes had wonderful suggestions, I'm going to try find numbers about R&D percentage of GDP.--Marielleh 00:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't answered why you want the section to be cut like what you just did. TastyCakes was never against the Science and technology section to be that size, so I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Also, I do not understand why you take out the previous two pictures in the Education section and included a picture of Jesuit Prep School. Why are you so interested in adding that as opposed to the other two, which are more informative anyways.--Ryz05 t 03:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the discussion when you are clearly refered to it. As you have been noted before, Wikipedia content is not based on stories "to be proud of" but important encyclopedic information for greater understanding of the subject. Nuclear program and space program might deserve a mention, but your edits "ushering in the atomic age", tales of Amstrong or Nobel prizes are nonsense in the form your edit expresses them. The problems of your picture edit are well covered here - neither of those provide any information and the left picture makes the section more difficult to read, while the college sports picture provides link to 2-4 major aspects not covered in the section. It would be nice if you helped to find citations for things such as R&D percantages and research parks.--Marielleh 18:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The mentioning of the nuclear program as well as the Apollo 11 mission deserves a mentioning. If you can improve the wordings there without omitting the information, fine, but otherwise, do not delete them like what you just did.--Ryz05 t 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you missed why regions of military bases count more and continents counts nearly not at all: for instance, one can have a military base in Turkey (=Asian continent) and it has simply 0% use in possible operations against North Korea. It's important to emphasize that there more military bases than just "every continent".--Marielleh 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You can say "every strategic region in every continent besides Antarctica," not just say "in many regions," which is unnecessary as the word "worldwide" was already mentioned.--Ryz05 t 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: --Once again I've had to restore the Cities table. Please see the most recent (of many) votes that were taken on this matter: Talk:United_States/Archive_15#POLL    --Jleon 00:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities table 

message: Someone(s) has/have changed:
:The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it. The former colonies proceeded to form one of the first constitutional republics in the world.
to
:The U.S. originated from thirteen colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
How does substituting a treaty (which, btw, was not ratified until later and was NOT the first recognition of the new nation) tell more about the US than that it was forged by revolution and that it was one of the first (if not THE first) constitutional republics? --JimWae 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Treaty of Paris deserves to be mentioned in the Intro, the American Revolution is already mentioned in the history section anyways. The intro should be more about the establishment of the country and its recognition in the world, and less about how they fought a revolution to achieve it.--Ryz05 t 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be a mentioning of the Revolutionary War in the intro, which I'll try to include if that's what you want.--Ryz05 t 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty more informative than revolution? 

message: Recently, an alternative citation method was created for some of the facts in this article.  A stand-alone "References" sub-page was created.  This page was subsequently nominated for deletion.  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/United States/References for a record of that discussion.  While the page was not deleted, the discussion participants recommended against the use of that alternative citation strategy.  The page has been redirected here pending a discussion by the participants of this page on whether this "references" page can become a useful and sanctioned support page for the main article.  Rossami (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative citation method 

message: Someone has switched Philadelphia to sixth behind Phoenix. This is speculation, it has not officially happened yet. But more importantly, they failed to move the rest of the stats along with each respective city. So Philadelphia's Metro Population and Rank are now attached to Phoenix. Ex: Philly is the fourth largest Metro, and Phoenix the 14th largest metro, not the other way around, etc. What originally tipped me off was that it was listing Phoenix as having a population density of 11,234 which would make it the third densest city in the U.S. behind Chicago and New York. Obviously that 11,234 stat belongs to Philadelphia. As does the 4th metro rank, and ~6million metro population. Also I can find no source placing Phoenix's population at the number listed on this page, it contradicts even the Phoenix Page on wikipedia. Can someone please swap Phoenix and Philly?
:I saw someone edit that before, but didn't do anything to revert it because I couldn't be sure if that edit was right. If you really believe it's wrong, please feel free to correct that mistake.--Ryz05 t 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious Problem in the list of cities 

message: The claim that the USA is "poorly educated" by industrialized standards is utterly without merit.  The real literacy rate may be disputed but the United States has one of the most highly educated adult populations in the world, far above the majority of Europe, all of Asia, and the rest of the western hemisphere.  One can argue this is because American schools award so many stupid degrees that don't amount to anything (for example, Asia and Europe both trounce America in science and engineering degrees), but to omit this fact and focus exclusively on literacy is an exercise in POV cherry-picking of facts. Bjsiders 18:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on that.--Ryz05 t 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what Bjsiders was trying to say that America is not poorly educated. In fact, it is one of the most educated countries in the world, "far above the majority of Europe, all of Asia, and the rest of the western hemisphere."--Ryz05 t 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we all reading the same section?  It appears to me to be well supported-- if you want to contest it, you'll need references to back you up. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current section looks correct. There's nothing wrong with it in my opinion.--Ryz05 t 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The country has a low literacy rate as compared to other developed countries, with a reading literacy rate at 86-98% of the population over age 15,[51] while ranking below average in science and mathematics understanding.
At first glance, the beginning sentence in the section of Education starts the section in a negative tone. Perhaps American may actually be as stupid as this sentence words it, but a rewording could be nice. --Physicq210 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you want it to be worded?--Ryz05 t 20:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Poorly educated"

message: In past versions of the introduction, there has been text that mentions the fact that U.S. has been a pioneer in democracy.  There has also been text that mentions the fact that the U.S. was one of the last to abolish slavery and the legacy that slavery has had on our nation's history.
Neither of these are mentioned in the current version of the introduction.  I have felt that this was a mistake.  Today, I heard something on NPR that made me think that I should raise this issue again.
Here are some links and quotes:
http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/ta/13025.html
"Professor Eric Foner explains in this e-seminar how slavery and freedom grew concurrently in the English colonies in North America. He states, "This is the paradox of American history: that freedom and slavery expanded simultaneously in colonial America." To resolve the paradox, students may be tempted to assume that the founding fathers were simply hypocrites, individuals who claimed to prize liberty and freedom but did not. Or they may argue that slavery is an exception in the story of American democracy, or that American democracy represents an exception to a legacy of oppression and exploitation. None of these explanations suffice. Professor Edmund S. Morgan examines this paradox in his pathbreaking study American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (1975). Morgan writes that "the rights of Englishmen were preserved by destroying the rights of Africans." American freedom and democracy, Morgan concludes, rested on the foundation of American slavery."
Here's a link to an essay by Edmund Morgan...
http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/morgansupp.html
It was NPR's mention of Edmund Morgan that led me to research this on Google.
I reiterate my objection to the failure to mention the role that the U.S. has played in pioneering and fostering constitutional democracy.  I also recognize that this pioneering role has to be qualified by the fact that there have also been difficulties in achieving the ideals of democracy.
--Richard 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Richard. I blieve there's a mentioning of this in the Human Rights section, where it points out how slavery contradicted what was laid out in the US Constitution.--Ryz05 t 16:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as far as we can tell, not in the view of many of the people at the time (including the writers of the constitution) since they viewed slaves and/or coloured people as not really humans. Don't get me wrong, I find such views extremely disgusting but ther is strong evidence to suggest they were held by many at the time and are held by people at the current time (both inside the US and outside of it). Nil Einne 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't see how this would be a paradox at all. It may be mentionable as an erroneous premise, but assuming this premise there is no contradiction with a democracy of the people. - Centrx 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery and democracy - a paradox of American history 

message: Please change the page.  English is NOT the official language of the United States.  The bill below would make it the "national language," which is just symbolism but nothing like an official language.  The bill if passed, would not prevent the rights of everyone in the United States to provide services in other languages. Posted by User:71.249.79.13 15:00, May 19, 2006 (but unsigned)
The recent US Senate bill or whatever is discussed in the languages page. While I'm not an American so perhaps I misunderstand it's significance, it sounds to me like it merits brief mention here as well even if it still has to be approved by the US Congress or whatever 203.173.143.182 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: I have set up a vote for this page to be moved to United States of America. Vote here ending 00:00, May 27, 2006. — Brendenhull 17:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your link for a vote is incorrect. Dpotop 18:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  The longstanding Wikipedia policy (and it has been debated dozens of times in the past two years) is to stick with common names of things.  United States is the common name used by the media, in literature, in many laws and regulations, and in ordinary speech.  It is also used in the U.S. Constitution itself.  --Coolcaesar 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not moved, as there was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We JUST had a vote on this, not two months ago or thereabouts. It's not going to happen. Deal with it. --Golbez 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The more I look at this section, the less relevance I see in the article. We have a nice flowing article, then bam - TABLE! And the ranking isn't even standard throughout the table. I suggest we remove it, and mention some of the more important and historic cities, and link to the articles that handle the listing much better. To put it blunt, it's ugly and doesn't offer all that much information. The cities can be much better handled in text than relying on a huge table. --Golbez 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an earlier vote Talk:United_States/Archive_15#Largest_cities_table, but I suppose we can post up another vote to see how people think of it now. Maybe we can just reduce it down to having the ten largest cities posted again, if people still insist on keeping it.--Ryz05 t 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I don't think it was as fugly back then. It used to be small and efficient, though even then I would suggest removing it. But at the very least, the current incarnation is horrible. --Golbez 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Cities 

message: Football shouldn't be one of the most popular....it is the most popular. 1/2 house-holds in the USA watch the Super Bowl. Madden Football is the most popular videogame three years in a role. NCAA Football draws in a larger crowd then NCAA baseball, NCAA basketball, PGA Golf and NCAA soccer. Also mention that the Green Bay Packers are the most popular NFL team. renegadeviking
:Sources are required. Also, I point out that NASCAR competes very well with football, even in video games. --Golbez 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided a reference for that comment, which I found in the article on American football. In the future, you should add references for such bold statements.--Ryz05 t 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Football America's top sport 

message: #Support And no, you don't need to be logged on to vote. 70.51.9.190 19:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose as per WP:NC: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." -- Mwanner | Talk 20:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #Neutral changing my vote from Support. I would still personally prefer ... of America, but as pointed out by User:Ceyockey below, United States is the common form in ecyclopedias (also  and ). I would still like to see more examples of common usage outside the U.S. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: is the great seal considered to be a coat of arms. other country pages have other names for their symbol. should it say Great Seal or Seal or Great Seal of the United States? AJseagull1 01:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the Great Seal of the United States; however, that is its name. Its description is, it's a Coat of Arms, and it's for the United States. For standardization's sake, we use that term. (By the way, "Coat of Arms of the United States" redirects to "Great Seal of the United States".) --Golbez 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But it's not really a coat of arms. Wouldn't it be more correct to call it a seal, as long as the parameter is there in the template? →bjornthegreat t|c 16:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's not like it would be a unique exception, Japan has an "imperial seal" instead of a "coat of arms," and India and People's Republic of China have "emblems." It would be completely accurate: the US does not have a coat of arms. It should be changed to "Great Seal" AscendedAnathema 02:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Objections over changing to "Great Seal" by anyone, and why? AscendedAnathema 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  coat of arms 

message: That last semi-portection was enacted to prevent overlooked vandalisms when a few sections were moved around and many copyedits were made. Now that those edits are done, I feel it's all right to remove the semi-protection.--Ryz05 t 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The vandals will return. Semiprotection will be re-enabled, in a matter of hours or days, not weeks. I see no reason to experiment with something we know will fail. Again, Ryz05, you're thinking that vandals only attack low quality pages. That is not truth. --Golbez 21:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that vandals only attack low quality pages. I said that vandals tend to attack articles on popular topics that appear messy. You sound like you want a permanent semi-protection for this article, which I don't think is necessary, as we can just revert any vandalisms that do occur (as they do for every other article).--Ryz05 t 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I am not a fan of preemptive permanent semi-protection. I agree with Ryz05. — TheKMantalk 21:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Do not unprotect: First a question — am I right that this talk page is still open to editing by everyone even if the main page is semi-protected? Second, my opinion — I'm not a fan of such a preemptive action either, but I took a look at the edit history prior to the protection on 12 May and the majority of edits in the several days leading up to protection were vandalism from numerous different editors (from widely disparate numerical domains) and accompanying reverts.  I don't think its unreasonable to treat this article as an attractive wall for graffiti. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But hey, not all anons are vandals. I'd rather not turn away potential good editors just because of vandalism by a few other anonymous users (much of it is automatically reverted by a bot anyway, or at least by someone who has it on his watchlist). — TheKMantalk 22:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that not all anons are vandals - I spend time adding IP-related infoboxes to active anon pages to help assist in keeping them from being blindly blocked as the result of the edits of a few bad apples. Your observation needs to be weighed against the history of vandalism on this particular article, though; one need not assume good faith to the exclusion of reasonable extrapolation from past events. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If vandals do return, as they will for every article, we can just revert their edits. I don't think you are trying to put a permanent semi-protection on this article are you?--Ryz05 t 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, yes, I am advocating permanent semi-protection ... personally, I've never once added a protection template myself to this or any other article nor would I get into an edit tug-of-war to try and keep such a template in place in defiance of consensus; I revert vandalism just like the next guy.  Nonetheless, some articles exhibit extenuating circumstances; for instance George W. Bush (this is a mail posted to WikiEN-L by Jimbo Wales on the topic of semi-protecting the Bush article and permanent semi-protection in general ... apologies if you are already familiar with this missive). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it semi-protected.  This article is a big target for vandals.  Semi-Protection—at least that will keep out the unregistared users who vandalize. —MJCdetroit 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care really if this article is permanently semi-protected, I'm just worried about it becoming featured. Will this semi-protection prevent the article from being featured? If that's the case, then it should be removed as that won't be fair, since it is a good article and should have a chance of becoming featured. But if the semi-protection does not prevent the article from becoming featured, then keep it, I don't care. And I'm sure many people want this article featured, right?--Ryz05 t 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you worried about semi-protection interfering with ascension to featured status?  Is there a precedent for this having happened before? I can't see why there would be any conflict between the two status indicators. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the criteria for featured article candidate is that the article be stable and not subject to edit wars (see WP:WIAFA, criteria 2e). Featured articles are also put on the front page when they are Today's Featured Article, and on that day, they are usually one of the highest-traffic articles on the website. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia if an article on the main page has to be protected from editing, and we all know that this is one of the most-edited (and most-vandalized) articles on this website. The lack of stability is a significant issue. It's unfortunate, because there's not really that much that you can do about it. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I generally feel that any article should be able to become an FA, and this article certainly meets many of the criteria. I'm still somewhat on the fence, but it is a topic of concern. The Disco King 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request unprotection 

message: Someone just changed the motto from "Out of many, One" to "One out of many." I'm not an expert on latin, so which is the more correct one? As the two statements seem to have different meanings.--Ryz05 t 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the article on E pluribus unum, and it appears that "Out of many, One" is more accurate. Or we can say "One out of more." I guess the "One out of many" is all right as well, but I changed it back to the original.--Ryz05 t 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with JimWae. "Out of may, one" or "From many, (comes) one" (which is how I've sometimes heard it in the public school system) Jaxad0127 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E pluribus unum translation 

message: The Article states: "About 38% of Americans say they attend religious services at least once a week,[58] and 53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives, as compared to 16% in Britain, 14% in France, and 13% in Germany".
I think the percentages given for Britain, France and Germany are much higher than the actual percentages in reality, although I'm confused as to which of the two statements the comparison is for. In Britain though, most research shows only just over 1 million (out of 58 million) attend church once reguarly, this puts the percentage at 3% - 4%. I'm not sure on figures for France but I'm pretty sure Germany is even lower (almost 0% in former East-Germany in particular).
There is also a marked difference in the role of religion in daily life and particularly politics between the USA and Western Europe (e.g. the well documented "religuos vote" in the USA compared to basically no "relgious vote" in Western Europe) which should maybe be pointed out, although maybe this is already implied? Canderra 17:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Statistics always require a reference. So if you can find a good reference to those claims, then you are welcome to change that statement accordingly.--Ryz05 t 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found several websites which state the figures for the Western European countries are lower, although some websites also seem to state they are higher. The only credible source I can find is [this official poll], however the results require some decoding - Church attendance is only asked to the 44% which stated they had any religous feelings at all and is then split done by religion. Doing some maths however - 0.44*(0.49*0.12+0.22*0.26+0.16*0.24+0.12*0.14) - I get a figure for UK Church attendance of only 7.5% (Although this figure is probably an over-estimate as it counts any attendance above just "several time a year", so weekly attendance would probably be a fair bit less). Should the figure for the UK be changed as the Yougov poll is a lot more reliable than the unsourced figures on the cited website) or are the stated figures for "importance of religion" which is not asked in the forementioned poll? Although, the majority of websites quote lower figures than the ones in the article but to be honest it is all starting to seem a bit pedantic now, simply for some guide figures :| Canderra 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for the data comes from this website . It is from a survey in 1995-1997, so your poll taken in 2004 is a lot newer. If you want to change the data for the UK in that section, you are welcome to, but just make sure that you add another reference to that sentence. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed the data with a more up-to-date one taken in November 2003. It is from this website http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2003/Nov03/r111703 .--Ryz05 t 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: The use of the population clock is not good practice for referencing a population estimate unless one puts the exact date and time for the figure. We should use a more stable mid-year population estimate (either the US Census, the CIA Factbook, or the UN Population Division). I'm going to change this later unless someone can justify the use of a population clock. Polaron | Talk 16:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  population clock 

message: Someone added Spanish next to official language in the country box, and I'm not sure if that's justified. The country still is overwhelmingly English speaking, even though Spanish is the second most popular language in the country.--Ryz05 t 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish in the country box 

message: I'm thinking of making this a featured article candidate once the peer review is done, because I think it's very well written, not too long and not too short, and very well supported.--Ryz05 t 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last one was just a few weeks ago; I sincerely suggest you wait a few more weeks. You *will* get a blowback of people thinking you're overnominating it, whether or not it's actually true. --Golbez 23:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been a few weeks since that last nomination, so I think it's ready to be nominated again, especially after a peer review. It doesn't matter if a person nominates an article a few times, as long as that article is ready to become featured.--Ryz05 t 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does; did you not notice the backlash after your previous attempt? --Golbez 02:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Backlash? They just said it was nominated again soon after the previous nomination, without even looking at the quality of the article.--Ryz05 t 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Expect that if you nominate it again too soon. I COULD be wrong, I'm just saying, wait a little longer. --Golbez 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, after the peer review is done the article will be nominated.--Ryz05 t 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States ready for featured article candidate 

message: I don't think Historical Columbia should be included in the parenthesis next to United States of America in the lead, because noone refers to the US as Columbia anymore. The names inside the parenthesis in the lead are some of the most common names to call the country in writing (excluding U.S. of A and U.S. and A., etc.). It is better to just include it in the See also section at the end of the article. --Ryz05 t 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia as a name of the US? 

message: I can't find where it says in Census 2000 that "the country has 31 ethnic groups with at least one million members each, with numerous others represented in smaller amounts." If anyone can find a reference for this statement, please include it. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This and this may be helpful. The pdf file shows 37 ancestries/races with over 1 million. I couldn't find a comprehensive table from Factfinder but the second link allows you to look up the total population of each ancestry, ethnic, or race group and/or subgroup. Polaron | Talk 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for showing those links so a reference may be added.--Ryz05 t 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic and ancestry groups

message: "Following Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential election, the country experienced the largest peacetime economic expansion in its history, which is primarily attributed to the digital revolution and new business opportunities created by the Internet.[16]"
a) The link given to support this paragraph points to an amateur's anti-Republican rant page;  b) it seems likely that the LATEST expansion would generally be the LARGEST, whenever it occurred; c) placing Clinton's election in juxtaposition to the expansion makes it seem like his administration had something to do with it besides coincidence; d) tech stocks started dropping in the spring before Clinton's last term ended; e) the linked page for the digital revolution indicates that the revolution started in the 80's, well before Clinton's election; f) what definition of "peacetime" are you using here?
).User:nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn 03:52, 30 May 2006 (PST)
I don't see anything wrong with how it's phrased.  It's all factual and the sentence even specifically gives credit for the expansion to something completely out of Clinton's control.  The link might need to be changed if the source is inappropriate.  Surely the CBO has some statistics on this we can use.  Economic expansions tend to get bigger, true, but prior to Nixon the boom/bust cycles of the economy were fairly short.  The long booms of the Reagan and Cliton administrations were uncommon.  Now we have 7-10 year booms followed by busts that last less than two years.  The boom DID follow Clinton's election.  In fact, it started just BEFORE the election.  The recession was over before people went to the polls.  I agree that some clarification of "peacetime" is appropriate.  We haven't officially declared war since WW2, and are unlikely to ever do so again regardless of the circumstances.  Are ALL economic expansions to be considered "peacetime" from here on out? Bjsiders 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: 80 per cent of Americans are Christian, down from 90% in 1990. The current info in the religion section is wrong
:Can you provide a reference for your argument?--Ryz05 t 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion2