Talk:United States/Archive 20

message: Both the map and the introductory geographical section ignore the existence of Alaksa and Hawaii (ie, "from the Atlantic to the Pacific...")
This is clearly inaccurate.
:We've been over this before. Yes, technically the US streches from the Eastern hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere. The map does indlude the 2 States, but the area occupied by the US is simplified as stating that the US streches from Atlantic to the east to the Pacific in the east would a bit confusing. (Somewhere below or in the archives we did go over this before.) SignaturebrendelNow under review! 05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaii and Alaska

message: I've added parantheses around the aliases, as the introductory sentence is so long, and becoming more difficult to read. Richard Allen 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: We've met the required number of participents to start the project. Jaxad0127 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the project is now online. I'm very busy in my non-virtual life this morning so you'll have to help me built the project page as it needs to be expanded. I have built some of the basic framework and the project US is now open for business! Regards, Signaturebrendel 15:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States|WikiProject US]]

message: Ok, if I understand how the FA nom went, the main complaint is that it's too long, (Though when I read it, it seemed much shorter and more engaging that other long articles) and now it's 98Kb or something. Is anything being done about this? Homestarmy 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ga Collaboration

message: > Whereas the freight rail network is among the world's best (and most congested)
This statement from the article is bullshit. US railways are not electrocuted, they all ran on diesel and that is both technically backwards and eco-politically incorrect. If you consider that even the broke and humiliated ex-soviet russians managed to finish catenarizing their entire Trans-Siberian freight-passanger railway by 2004, it is gross and silly to call the US freight rail network one of the best. 195.70.32.136 16:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, 195.70.32.136. Sometimes, the 'quality' of a transportation network is a measure of its ability to connect many different points, not the efficiency of what moves the vehicles along the paths. By this measure, a network that requires a highly tangled/circuitous route to get from one specific point to another specific point is 'worse' than one that allows a direct, or nearly direct, connection between the same two points. Maybe the article should be more specific about the way in which the U.S. freight train network is among the world's best. (I would have to do my own research before feeling comfortable about making the edit myself.) — President Lethe 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well America's rail network certainly isn't technologically as advanced as that of Europe or Japa-it was neglected to long. It does however move goods efficiently from A to B, which is its purpose afterall; thus perhpas "best" should be replaced with efficiency or "ability to connect many different points." The term "Best" maybe too subjective and therefore often misunderstood in its intentions. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Europe and Japan have excellent passenger networks. What of their freight networks, though? --Golbez 23:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are modern than in the US, largely because of government subsidy. They are however, not more efficient in getting goods from A to B than the American system, at least that's as far as I know. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think it's important to understand that the article mentions the freight rail system.  Europe and Japan certain have much more availability of public passenger transportation by train, but the United States has a very efficient freight rail system.  It's actually improving too as many companies are choosing to ship goods via train instead of plane and truck due to traffic congestion and fuel costs.  There lies our inefficiency...with our passenger vehicle transportation infrastructure. --Thethirdperson, 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's best freight rail network? Without electricity? That's a joke! 

message: Couldn't the history section use at least some form of subsections? I realize we want to keep the article trim with the split-off to the main history, but it jumps over thousands of years of Native presence in a couple sentences (one I just added with a ref from the History article) to the first European. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the article on the political history of the United States of America have to retroactively address thousands of years of indigenous history pre-USA?  Indigenous history is obviously treated at length in other articles. It is only relevant here as it affects the topic of USA.  Links to indigenous peoples of the Americas and others should suffice.  NoraBG 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is USA the main article on the geographic region or is it just about the political entity? The word "country" in the first sentences could mean either. If we removed this ambiguity your question could easily be answered based on WP policies. Fourtildas 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...USA redirect to United States. Jaxad0127 03:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, United States of America should talk just about the political entity.  For one thing, the geographical region of the US doesn't really make any sense except as a political entity (the Canadian border is mostly just a line drawn on the map, as are many of the state lines, especially in the west).  As well, it's not really the proper size to be useful from a historical perspective.  It covers a huge number of regions and climate areas, so it's not useful to discuss early development of civilizations, and if you want to do an overview of the regions, it would be more appropriate to do that in something like North America rather than just focus on the United States. - Flooey 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No they arn't. This article is suppose to give a comprehensive snapshot of the United States. Seeing the complzity of this article's subject matter, only the most essential attributes of this country may be mentioned. The Amerindian Amerindian cultivation of goosefoot, squash, and sunflower is interesting but should be mentioned in a seperate US article- I am personally not familiar with the topic but perhaps there is even enough for a whole seperate article on that-if the main editors wish to create such an article. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I still advocate, as I did here, getting rid of this special section for Amerindians and instead integrating such data into the appropriate sections of the rest of the article. This section's presence has the effect of either elevating Amerindians to some special, superior status (no other group gets its own section all to itself in the article) or shoving them into a Wikipedia reservation (no other group has almost all of its mentions conspicuously crowded into one area). — President Lethe 18:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I highly agree - I've shortened the Iraq War section dramatically and merged it with the 9/11/2001 section. - Barfooz 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, the current war in Iraq may be a controversial issue reight now, but is it really such a defining feature of the US? No. This article is already very long, we need to narrow the info we mention down to what is really essential in describing the US. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me - My initial concern was that they were grouped because of the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It is now presented much better so they are two events just under the same heading for grouping purposes.  I should have read more of the article before jumping in and adding such content.  Morphh (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I'm sorry, but the climate section is a real mess. I read it but i can't figure out HOW is the climate of the USA. The only information I get it that is very variable...what a guess! in a continental size country! how couldn't I figure out. Seriously, that section is not about climate but about extremes and trivia. If someone could elaborate, it would be great. Not me, I'm no expert and I don't even live in the USA. David 12:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the USA is so large and weather fronts aren't spaced wide enough to cover the whole country, so at any one time you won't see a single similar pattern over the U.S., unless it's like some continental size heat wave like we had this summer. (And even then, the panhandle was cooler than the rest of the U.S. almost, that was really weird.) Homestarmy 23:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want specifics, we have many regional and state article. But it would be akin to asking what the climate of Asia is. --Golbez 03:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two many climate zones in the US, to describe the climate in the same manner as one would do for a smaller country such as France. There is Reainforest in Hawaii, Desert in Arizona, Artic parie in Alaska, Continental nother forest in the north-east, etc... In Chicago it snows and temparatures are routinely below 0 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter, while one can wear short-sleeved shirts all year long in souther California or Hawaii. A country the size of that of the US has many different climate zones and a description of the national climate is therefore going to be correpondingly complex. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To see the length, you click edit this page, and a message pops up at the top of the edit window saying "This page is 101 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." You can also enter the page's name in the search box and press Search rather than Go. --tjstrf 16:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. -- Beland 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: In the U.S. there are living lots of ethnic groups wich settled in Russia. In North America are living ca 2.000.000 Russian-Germans (Rußlanddeutsche), Russian Jews (Russische Ostjuden),... . Wich ethic tribes from the former Soviet-Union immigrated to U.S.? In 2004 a lot of Turkish families from Caucasia went abroad (to the U.S.), because they were persecuted by  Russian population. Are this groups assimilate in the society? Simon. PS: Please correct this text if something is wrong!)
:The degree of assimilation depends on each individual. Also, to what part of the American culture should they have assimilated?- it's a difficult question. I would say there are probably several "ethnic" communities similar to Brighton Beach, New York in the US where these people have retained their ethnic identity. Signaturebrendel 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People from Russia 

message: I recently added Homeownership in the United States to the list of "Main articles" relating to the economy in the United States. Now, however, a problem has occured. There are six econ articles but there is only place for five in the template. The following are the six articles:
#Economy of the United States
#American middle class
#Household income in the United States
#Homeownership in the United States
#Science and technology in the United States
#Transportation in the United States
Which should be omitted? I have three recommendations:
*Move American middle class to the culutre section
*Move Homeownership in the United States to the Demographic section
*Omit Transportation in the United States as it related to the national economy the least?
Please share your suggestions and insights. Thank you. Signaturebrendel 06:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than 5 econ articles 

message: And I found an answer. I noticed that in the demographics section we use the  template in sub sections. I have applied to same principle to the Economy section and have to say it seems to be working great. There are not only less than five articles in the first template, the list of related article if now much more comprhensive and easier to read. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution found ;-)

message: Many immigrants also hail from Slavic countries, such as Poland and Russia, as well as from French Canada.[75] 
       
This sounds weird. I support a change to something like:
Many immigrants hail from French Canada as well as Slavic countries such as Poland and Russia.--72.94.90.144 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the first sentence does sound a bit akwards. Go aheas and change it ;-) Signaturebrendel 06:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Those Slavic Frenchies

message: When the estimated population reaches 300 million, will this article get a lot of extra hits? Just in case, I installed an automatically-updating template to provide a population estimate. 
If anyone needs help "tuning" this population estimate template (}, just ask me. --Uncle Ed 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't automatically update if the article is printed or mirrored. Please make sure you include "as of [date]" when you make reference to the time when the article was rendered. -- Tim Starling 10:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. What's the best way to do that? Some sort of template giving the current date? --Uncle Ed 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably list the current date/time UTC. Jaxad0127 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use : "". -- Tim Starling 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: It is amusing to have indicated only PPP, while an argument is divided about the credibility of GDP(PPP). You should also carry GDP(nominal). This comment was left by 222.146.222.142.
:True we should include nominal as well as PPP. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  if GDP(PPP) and GDP(nominal) should be written together. 

message: Does anyone think this article could use a criticisms section?  It doesn't read as a bias article but I think a section devoted to that could make it better.TrevorLSciAct 07:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have actually discussed this before. Doing so, would be kind of strange. There is criticism for the actions of every organization, including countries. The larger the organization, the more controversial and there more ciritisism. It goes without saying that a country as large and unfluential as the US is going to be critised. Besdies, criticisms for the US are feature in the numerous ...in the United States articles. Also, consider that this article is supposed to give an overview of a very complex subject and is very long as is. There is really quite little to justify a seperate section just for criticisms. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 08:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisms? 

message: Small point which many of you colonials seem to be unaware of: English is NOT synonymous with British.  First paragraph says english colonies: strictly speaking they were British colonies.  England is part of Britain but Britain is more than England.Retsudo
:I think it was named England back then though, the formal name changed several times throughout history. Homestarmy 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhpas the phrase you read intenitionaly stated English instead of British. I am German and I also do know the difference. If you could tell me precisely where the phrase is that was according to you factually incorrect, maybe I could fix it or explain its meaning. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at history, (some of) the colonies were founded under England, but the revolution happened under Great Britain. So, you're both correct and incorrect. — Jaxad0127 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well acutally the colonies were Dutch and English in the beginning. The revolution did happend under GB. I just feel the need to point out that not all of the 13 colonies were founded by the English; they were, however, all British by 1777. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. But if I remember correctly, only the city of New York (and surrounding areas) was founded by the Dutch. — Jaxad0127 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well New Amseterdam and the sorrounding area was one of the most populated areas-then and now. But actually as far as I know parts of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania dutch country) and Delaware were also dutch colonies. Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely forgot about those two. I vote we change the wording from English to British. — Jaxad0127 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I forgot the Swedish founded new Sweden. So it was the Dutch, the English, and the Swedish who colonized America. So to sum it up: America was colonized by the Dutch, English and Swedish and in 1777 gained independence from the British. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so everyone knows, the Pennsylvania Dutch weren't Dutch, they were German.  (Minor problem with the word Deutsch) Karm Locke 05:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that makes a lot of sense; I was wondering a part of the US predominantely settled by Germans was called Dutch country ;-) SignaturebrendelNow under review! 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not quite, they did settle key areas of the 13 colonies and they did lead. True Spain was the first but none of the areas in the 13 colonies was ever under Spanish control. Also, in the beginning Dutch and Swedish settlements rivaled those of England. Many people often forget that key parts of the area later part of the 13 original colonies was colonised not by the English but also by the Dutch and Swedish. The Dutch and Swedish colonies are significant enough to justify one humble sentence in the intro. Mentioning only English colonisation is wrong and misleading. We either have the choice of mentioning the "Big three:" England, Spain and France; or we can concentrate on the area that later became the 13 colonies-obligating us to mention the Dutch and Swedish colonisation. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The present day continental United States has been inhabited for at least 15,000 years by indigenous tribes.[2] In the 16th century European exploration and settlement began, led by the English, Dutch and Swedish.
There is no indication anything other than the continental US is being discussed at that point - and it is just too much detail to get into & explain even further that early in the article. Intros are supposed to be an overview of what's to come. --JimWae 15:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well if we're talking about the continental US altogether, we need to mention the French and Spanish. I live in California and the local history here is that of Spanish and not English colonization. (So much that the city of Monterey flies a Spanish Flag in front of city hall) In other words, only naming the British is a quite New-England centric approach. It fails to mention the history of California, the entire South-West, Delware, New Jersey, the Mid-West, as well as that of Florida. Thus I beleive that we cannot just name the English. As I have saind, if we are indeed mentioning the history of the entire continental US we need to mention France and Spain. (Perhpas then we can leave out Sweden and the Neatherlands, as their colonies were very small) I have made some changes to the section to reduce the amount of detail. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English / British 

message: It is claimed, "Since its establishment, the liberal democratic nature of the government has grown." There may have been a time when this was true, but it isn't any more as the United States is now a country where the President can have anyone he wants tortured on a whim. The article needs to be amended to reflect the termination of America's former image as a champion of democracy. ReeseM 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ture the exectuive branch has gained power and is IMHO too powerful. Nonetheless the US is till a liberal democraticy which in recent years has grown. For example in 1960 there was still a massive lack of civil rights in the South and as late as 1933 there were still publi lynchings. Since then the US has incoperated a broader definition of civil rights and made them a reality for more and more Americans. People in the US today enjoy far greater liberty and freedom than in say 1930 or even 1960. Thus it is fair to state that the "liberal democratic nature of the government has grown." Rather small recent set-backs in federal policy are not sufficient cause to change this particular sentence. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date statement in the introduction

message: There has been little acitivity on this page, so I was thinking about archiving all disucssions up to the one titled "September 11, 2001 and the War on Terrorism." All these discussions seem inactive now, I just want to see if there are any objections. (If there arn't I'll go ahead in 48h). Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 04:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving of disucssion

message: This phrasing seems a bit misleading:
:"The President ... acts as the  commander in chief in times of war and national emergency."
The President is Commander in Chief all the time, no? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, that does sound misleading. So go ahead and change it. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 03:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government and politics 

message: I think that the picture of the lanuch of a space shuttle is too vague when describing the national space program. The picture is also used in the NASA article. Instead of the shuttle, we should have the logo of NASA instead. 198.111.167.130 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but isn't the picture of the Space Shuttle a lot more attractive than just logo. I mean you have to admid, that it does add esthetical value to the article. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Space

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Oppose "United States" is the most common and well known name. Moving it would then require every country article to be moved as well, inlcuding moving "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". TJ Spyke 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: whats the % of foreign born people in usa? for example, germany is 20%, uk 15%
:According to the US Census Bureau, Foreign born Americans constitute roughly 12.3% of the US population, numbering roughly 35 million. That is, however, only counting legal foregin borns. If one considers that there are roughly 12 million undocumented workers who weren't born in the US in addition to foregin born Americans the total number of foregin borns jumps to 47 million; roughly 16% of the population. Also, I'm German and I really doubt that 20% of Germans are forgein born. (It's more like 7% max.-I don't have the actual figure right now) Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the Census Bureau had the duty to count all persons, whether citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants? The apportionment of congressional districts is based upon actual headcount, regardless of legal status.  Kevinp2 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No its isn't. Undocumented workers are not counted. The population clocks do not count illegals, who also don't count in determining political representation. The official population of the US is 301,000,000. The actual population is 313,000,000. The things is that illegals do not have a legal status. That said, undomcumented persons are counted by the Bureau but are not included in the offical figures used for representation nor are they included in the country's offical population stats. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  foreign born 

message: When do we want to revise the government/politics section to reflect the recent party shift in the midterms? I favor a hold on it until all the results are official.--Primalchaos 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its pretty sure that the Democrats took the House (That wasn't even a close race! ;-)). The problem is the Senate, as of now its tied-it all depends on the results coming in from Virginia. As soon as we get those, we can go ahead and make the according changes. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising for recent elections 

message: The Biminis in the Bahamas are 50 miles from Florida. The article intro states there is a sea border between the US & the Bahamas - which would not be true if international waters were in between. Google Earth does not show an international border there. Even if 25 miles were the territorial limit (which some countries do claim) I do not see any need to mention sea borders in intro at all anyway - as the purpose is to locate the USA - not ALL nearby countries --JimWae 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the mention of sea borders with all Carribean nations is not needed, the location of the US is sufficiently described. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea borders