Talk:United States/Archive 12

message: The official name of the US is the United States of America, not United States, though rendered to that very often. This article should be moved to United States of America to perserve its official name. --Alvinrune 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been proposed many times previously and has never garnered a consensus to move and more often than not the discussion degenerated into barely disguised incivility. Please review the archived discussion pages before making a serious attempt to raise this contentious issue again (which after having been beaten to death umpteen times already is highly unlikely to come to any sort of consensus now). BTW, the condensed version of why it remains at United States is the practice of using common names as article titles, enshrined as policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)older≠wiser 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Move 

message: My impression is that the article is heaving with blue text, which makes it more difficult to read. In my view, this makes it a less attractive resource, particularly for children and non-native speakers, who may be more easily put off by the visual complexity of blue-peppered text. Although links are a valuable aspect of Wikipedia, they can encourage some readers to go off exploring a range of other topics, when our primary task is to enlighten them about the United States, through a relatively easy, continuous read. Wikipedia's style manual says:
'... On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if ... more than 10% of the words are contained in links; [if] it has more links than lines; [if] a link is repeated within the same screen—40 lines, perhaps;...'
The manual refers to years, such as 1995, 1980s, as 'low added-value links ... date forms such as year only (e.g., 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance.' (My highlighting)
A rough tally shows that 26% of the words in the opening paragraph are blue, and 19% in the history section. The opening of an article probably requires a higher density of links, but could I put in a call that contributors keep their eyes out for unnecessary links, bearing in mind that just because an item is not linked doesn't mean that the reader can't key it into the search box and (typically) be rewarded with another article.
Specifically, I'd like to suggest that the 'low added-value' years (as opposed to dates) be delinked unless there's a good reason not to. Sure, some of the year articles have information relevant to the article, but there is  a link to Timeline of United States history at the top of the section; that's a much more focussed, relevant link, and the individual blue years, if anything, will detract the reader from that link. I'd also opt to delink centuries: the link to the 20th century, for example, tells my children:
"The 20th century lasted from 1901 to 2000 in the Gregorian calendar. Common usage sometimes regards it as lasting from 1900 to 1999, but this is considered incorrect due to the nonexistence of a "Year Zero" before AD 1/1 CE. The 20th century is also sometimes known as the nineteen hundreds (1900s), referring to the latter usage. Decades are almost always considered as starting with the "0" year and named accordingly ("1960s", etc.), so the first decade of a century technically overlaps back into the preceding one. However, a number of arguments have been used to justify the common usage. One was advanced by the scientist Stephen Jay Gould, that the first decade had only nine years. Another was that the astronomical year numbering system for years does have a year zero, the year normally known as 1 BC. In 2000 the International Organization for Standardization clarified ISO 8601 to use the astronomical year numbering system, so retrospectively endorsing all the people who had celebrated the new century a few months earlier. The term is also used to describe various periods that overlap with the calendar definition, most notably the Short twentieth century and the Modern period. It also had a place in popular culture shown by its use in names such as 20th Century Fox and the Twentieth Century Limited."
Wow, that's really helpful in the opening paragraph on the United States. In my view, a balance is required to make the text easy to read.
Tony 02:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many links? 

message: I'm wondering what sort of laws there are on United States citizenship, or maybe more specifically necessary qualifications for naturalization. --Ihope127 17:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship laws? 

message: Two days ago 130.237.205.96 posted this statement on the talk page of the Germany article:
Currently it says the form of government is "Federal Republic", whereas the United States page says "Democratic Federal Republic". Germany is hardly any less of a democracy than the USA. Either the US page or this one should be changed.
He received no answer but since I think that 'Federal Republic' suggests a democratic system, maybe it wouldn't be wrong to delete the word 'democratic' before 'Federal Republic' in the United States article.NightBeAsT 23:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more democratic federal republic? 

message: you'r the only one who'd reverted me so you'r the only one I need to work it out with so far. after I thought about it, dough, I should also put it on the talk:u.s.. I'm pretty sure you havn't fully explained anywhere why you reverted here.
I think 
"Americans (except some convicted felons) enjoy universal suffrage upon reaching the age of 18,"
is more truthful and more importantly more honest than 
"Americans enjoy universal suffrage upon reaching the age of 18,"
perhaps we could take out "convicted". I'm not married to it.
I think it's worth including.
that's all for now. thankz, Schzz-niddl-bam snip snap sack 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: aight. I found the revert of my work. it was anonymous. so sad. Like I said in my un-revert edit summ- if there's a new objection there's no place like right here to voice it. Schzzl niddl. Ishka Vonn Tzz-weezly 19:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: <font color=darkred>I don't think so</font>

message: Can this be made a little larger? What's the point when you can't see the details. Tony 00:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiny pic of state and local government 

message: Why is this in the summary article? Can it be moved to a daughter article? If this is to be retained here, I can think of dozens of more important tables that should be included. The article is already dauntingly long for a summary. Tony 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal holidays? 

message: I've combined the two previous sections, which were too short to require separate sections. However, the information is seriously lacking, given the rich and complex issues in question. A sentence such as 'US foreign policy has swung about several times over the course of its history between the poles of strict isolationism and imperialism and everywhere in between' will not do. 
Can we lift the quality of this section, keeping it 'neutral', of course? Tony 05:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign relations and military 

message: Does anyone think it's possible to get this article up to standard for peer review within the next month or two? I note that it's one of Wikipedia's most visited articles; therefore, it's important that it be a featured article, don't you think? Tony 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we start the ball rolling soon to have this considered for FA status? 

message: I propose that the list be moved into the daughter article, which treats the issue in great detail. The introductory information in this section, slightly modified, would sit nicely in Geography, with a link to the daughter article. 
When we put this main article up for FA consideration again, people will complain that it's too long and has uneven levels of detail. This list, and the table of federal holidays that I've removed, are prime examples.
Does anyone object?
Tony 07:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest cities section 

message: While we fuss over the list of cities, the description of the economy languishes. In view of the vast, historically critical influence of the nation on the world's economy over the last 150 years, improving this should be a top priority. It's embarrassingly bad at the moment. If anyone would like to list the categories that should be included, please do so here. Tony 02:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section is '''seriously''' wanting 

message: I've moved some HTML comments from within the Largest cities section to here, as they appear to be discussion of the article rather than the warnings one usually uses HTML comments for:
Louisville is the 16th largest city. This is just a list of populations within a city. At 703,282 it makes it in. Ever since 2003, counties like St. Matthews and Jefferson have been officially part of Louisville. If you count the counties that surround it (metro population) it is 1.3 million.
and
There is confusion over pop of Louisville, KY - it recently consolidated with Jefferson County - but cities previously in county are still separate cities.
The above list was extended from the usual 10 to 20 so that Detroit & SF would appear - but just being 15th most populous does not merit appearance when other cities that "tell the story" of the USA do not appear
Global cities
12 pts: NYC
10 pts: Chicago, LA
09 pts: SF
06 pts: Boston, Dallas, Houston, DC
04 pts: Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis 
Other cities that "tell the story" of US culture: Vegas, New Orleans, Nashville, Seattle, Detroit, Philly
Cities form a great part of the culture of a nation. I'd like to see this section expanded, with another column on major features of each city - NYC is a seaport, financial centre, media centre, international (UN)...; LA is media centre, seaport, ...
I've got no opinion on this stuff; I just thought I'd move these comments to where people are actually likely to read them. android79 18:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest cities 

message: Is there any particular name for the USA mainland, ie 48 states (50 minus Alaska and Hawaii) and Washington DC?  Everton 09:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two names I have heard, The Forty-Eight Contingeous (sp.) States. I have also heard The Lower Forty-Eight (however this one doesnt really make sence but it is used for that)--Shimonnyman 09:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The main ones are "Contintental US", "Lower 48" and "48 Contiguous States". --Golbez 22:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main ones I have heard are "Lower 48" and "48 Contiguous States."  Lower 48 refers to the fact that the 48 contiguous states are more south (thus appearing literally lower on a vertically mounted map) than Alaska.  --Coolcaesar 01:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but the reason it doesnt make sence is Hawaii is even further south thats all. But it is an answer to the question emtymology isnt quite important i dont think. --Shimonnyman 03:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Although continental United States is indeed common it too is inaccurate, Alaska is on the same continent and not included. Of the three common phrases only Contigous States is accurate. Vicarious 03:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name for the USA mainland 

message: Isn't the line that says that the U.S. was never a colonial power somewhat inaccurate?
Here's what Dictonary.com defines as a colony:
col·o·ny 
n. pl. col·o·nies
 1.
    1. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
    2. A territory thus settled.
 2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.
The U.S. annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii after its monarch was overthrown by a coup by settlers of European descent (see the Kingdom of Hawaii page). How is that not colonisation by the definition given above? Ditto the Phillipines and the other overseas possessions. 
Or to turn the argument around - if the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii wasn't an example of colonisation, then is it right to say that, say, Britain wasn't a colonial power when it annexed the Sikh Kingdom and other sovereign territories in India and elsewhere? 
80.93.2.202 16:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Colonial Power?

message: User:NWOG insists on inserting a POV-laden summary of human rights in the US. There is already a separate article on this very issue that is much more balanced – that is, not simply a list of selected human rights abuses. Rather than revert again, I'll suggest here that it be removed. android79 14:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to a short human rights section but NWOG's version is extremely one-sided. It's a laundry list of Howard Zinn style complaints, with no mention of constitutional protections such as the rights to free speech, a speedy trial, legal representation, etc. Any section that's added to this article should be short and based on the content of Human rights in the United States. Rhobite 14:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a prominent link to Human rights in the United States is sufficient, but I wouldn't oppose a short summary based on that article's content. android79 14:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that NWOG's hit list mostly concerns itself with cold war foreign policy, not human rights within the U.S. Rhobite 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights section 

message: This description was added and I reverted it because I just don't think it's accurate.  If parliamentary countries are always referred to as "parliamentary" and that is incorrect, then I say change it on those.  I don't think the U.S. page is getting any sort of special treatment (see all the vandalism to understnad how hated this page is).  Thoughts?Gator1 23:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential system? 

message: In the first sentence it says that the US is referred to poetically as 'Columbia'. This sounds like an obscure fact which if it belongs in the article at all, certainly shouldn't be in the opening sentence. Astrokey44 13:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we just had a HUGE fight about this less than six months ago, please check the archives.  It has to remain because Columbia was well-known as referring to the mythical female personification of the U.S. (the female counterpart of Uncle Sam) up until the start of the 20th century.  Many things today were named Columbia for that reason, such as Columbia Pictures.  --Coolcaesar 04:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia poetically? 

message: The "United States" article begins this way:
:For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation).
The intent is clearly to refer users who arrived at the page in error to the appropriate disambiguation pages.  I thought that intent was much more clearly (and usefully) expressed this way:
:This article is about the republic, or nation; for other meanings, see the disambiguation pages for US, USA, and United States.
However, when I made the change, Jerzy reverted it, so I think either I'm wrong about my version being better, or else I violated some rule.  If the former, can someone explain what's wrong with my idea, or think of a better way?  If the latter, what rule did I break?
--GraemeMcRae 04:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For alternative meanings, see the disambiguation page for US, USA, or United States.
--GraemeMcRae 14:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "disambiguation" reference at the top of the article. 

message: I don't know whether this has been discussed before and if it has been, I'll shut up.
Wouldn't "United States of America" be the proper name for this article and "United States" only a redirect. After all this is the name of the country and there were and could be other "United States", even though there are none at present.
Str1977 13:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been raised many times, please check the archives.  The consensus has always been to keep United States because that is the far more common usage in the vast majority of American publications (even government ones).  "United States of America" is very, very formal (not to mention a mouthful to say) and is only commonly used in documents with legal effect like passports and legislative bills (for example, a bill's preamble will always say something like "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled").  --Coolcaesar 04:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US or USA

message: Looks like last edit before vandal was  07:55, 18 October 2005 GraemeMcRae 
—Gaff ταλκ 08:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism