Talk:United States/Archive 24

message: Independence should not be listed for the United States on the federal level.  To do so is factually and legally inaccurate since the United States is a new entity founded after Independece was secured by the will of the people.  I instead recomend that each states have listed the source of their independece from before joining the Union.  That would nullify conflict, be legally accurate and not make false assumptions.  Here in Louisiana we were never under British rule and to use a blanket independece would lead some ignorant of the history to assume that Louisiana was also subject to britian when that is grossly NOT the case.--Billiot 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here in CA we were never under British rule as well-we were Spanish colony, then Mexico, then US in 1850. But the US, the concept that is the United States, started in the 13 colonies, who were British colony. Most states like CA or LA were then annex by that former British colony. Listing all states, would make for a really long infobox. You're right about one thing though-people too often forget that the US was actually colonized by three different (four if you count the Neatherlands in the 17th century) colonial powers and different US states have very different histories. The history of California is very different that that of Texas, Iowa, or New Hampshire. But to make this simple, we just follow the political entity known as the US throughout history and most states come in only after they were annexed. Signaturebrendel 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we were colonized by four countries (England, France, Russia, Spain), five if you count the Netherlands. Alaska is a state too, remember? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 12:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While 4th of July is celebrated as the day of independence, the United States got independent officially only after the war of independence, on September 3, 178320 greatest historical myths, when british king George III and US leaders signed the Treaty of Paris.20 greatest historical myths --195.56.14.113 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No one said the Treaty of Paris granted independence. It did however end all competing claims on the nation. The USA was not de facto independent in 1776. --Golbez 14:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm of the opinion that when the original 13 colonies said that they were not being represented by the british monarchy and listed their grievances, it was pretty clear that they were declaring their independence, which is what the infobox says, "Independence: Declared July 4, 1776". The Treaty of Paris was the recognition that that declaration was valid, though the United States had been de facto independent from Britain from an Inernational standpoint for seven years. As for listing other states' independences? That's ludicrous. Only three states have been independent nations, and only two of them were internationally recognized. Texas, Hawaii, and the one that was unrecognized internationally, California. All other states were merely territories that were handed over by other sovereign nations, and then became states. None of them had ever been independent. And yes, I realize that the 13 colonies considered themselves independent, but I think that the fact that they declared independence from Britain together, and then quickly formed a confederation speaks that they were one nation. Besides, would you list "July 4, 1776" thirteen times in a row? A tad redundant if you ask me. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independence in the Box

message: Why is the article title not "United States of America"? Shoreranger 03:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:United_States/Name. — Jaxad0127 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Title

message: American history is a very rich history. It has been through many major wars and movements. Its constitution is so strong that it has had only 28 Amendments in its entire history. Many of its Amendments are for rights not included in the Constitution. The US has worked its way to being the most powerful nation on the planet with the most high tech arsenal of weapons.--Purplethief1 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice but this isn't a discussion board. Signaturebrendel 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then do tell, Why this is under a tab labeled discussion? There is no need to ignore reality and be rude in the process. --24.128.42.251 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:BrendelSignature is absolutely correct.  The discussion (Talk) page is for discussion of the article, not the general subject that the article is about. If User:Purplethief1 wants to turn his comments into a concrete proposal for addition to the article, such a proposal would be appropriate here -- but his comments as expressed above were not. Raymond Arritt 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Great Britain" shouldn't it be "United Kingdom"? Most other countries that have declared independence from the "British Empire" are classed as "United Kingdom" on here. 81.208.167.238 15:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The United Kingdom did not exist until the Act of Union in 1800. The other countries declared independence after 1800. Prior to 1800, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain. --Golbez 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USA's History

message: Could someone point me to the screenshot of when the United States article was deleted and it said something like "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. View 3000 deleted edits?" I remember seeing it but I don't remember where it was. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Screenshot

message: Hello!  Please comment and weigh in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas).  Thanks!  Corticopia 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though voluminous in text, the nomination and points made therein are rather clear and, even though the article has been updated, remain unchanged.  Wikipedians can decide for themselves.  Corticopia 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_America_%28Americas%29|Nomination for deletion]] of 'North America (Americas)' 

message: Thanks to those who commented on this prior AfD.  Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in.  Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Again ...

message: Can we have a nice picture for California like beaches, and people in Santa Monica or Malibu instead of high rise buildings picture placed between New York City and Chicago (which does not add much to the article in my opinion). Also something nice and quiet for Dixieland (Louisiana) would be very welcome.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.234.208 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice Pictures

message: I'm new to this article, so please forgive me if the following concern has already been vetted:  the lead section's third paragraph (in the current version) says the U.S. has been the sole world superpower since 1991.  I think some sources would argue that China is now or will soon be a superpower as well.  Shall we change the wording?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that the US was the sole superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union and that today is an influencial nation. If you want to read more about the issue see the superpower article. Currently most experts agree that the US is the only country that can be recognized as a superpower. Signaturebrendel 19:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sole superpower?

message: I think it is self evident the US is the only Super Power in the world at the moment.  China and the PLA forces are certainly on the rise but they are decades from being considered a Super Power.  Remember to be a Super Power you must be able project forces globally, China is only a regional power as they can't operate much outside their borders.  Their technology levels are rather low considering they have to rely on Cold War Soviet technology for the bulk of their military purchases. 69.242.205.212 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the article superpower. Also, WP talk pages are not discussion boards. Signaturebrendel 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpower

message: "American football becoming very popular in many developed areas of the world, especially Canada and Germany, where most of the teams in NFL Europe reside."
To suggest American football has an international dimension like baseball or basketball is very inaccurate. To describe it as very popular in Canada or Germany is stretching the truth.
:Well, I'm not a sports buff, but the only American sport that has truly spanned a global following is basketball. Baseball would be distant second. The sentence above does not seem important enough to fit into this article. Signaturebrendel 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Baseball is huge in Latin countries, and popular in some asian countries (South Korea and Japan). It's just non-existent practically everywhere else. But it's more popular than football (soccer) in some latin countries. I would imagine the only place besides the states where amer. football has a claim to popularity is Canada, where the CFL enjoys some success. --W.marsh 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports

message: The chief justice doesn't have any real power, but seeing that the VP is also there, it might be a good thing to show the three branches of government in the US.  69.12.143.197 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it, as the Cheif Justice is the head of third branch of the US Government.  Presidential succession does not make someone more important.  Every branch is equal, it's the entire point of the government.  The Cheif Justice heads the Supreme Court, which exercises checks on the other two branches just as the other two check it.  John Roberts, while not seen as often, is every bit as important as President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi.  DoomsDay349 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add the Chief Justice to the list on the right that says "Government" 

message: I have recently re-written the economy section. Making it more neutral, 4Kb shorter, yet more informative. While I am fond of the Wall Steet picture, I could really use the space for a pie-chart explaining economic stratification in the US. So, I have taken the liberty to add my pie chart and rm Wall Street. If you have any suggestion or feel really stronly about having the Wall Street Pic in there-let me know. Signaturebrendel 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beauty vs. Utility 

message: Who took out mention of the US and it's contributions to the Internet? I wouldn't think this is a minor detail since, you know, we're on the Internet right now.--Rotten 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite know what you have in mind but it does seem minor in this article as it is not key to understanding America-though I suppose a short sentence on Internet development in the US can't hurt-if you find a good source. Signaturebrendel 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was stuff in there but some pinhead deleted it. I put back in the sentence.--Rotten 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet 

message: "A recent BBC poll, interviewing 28,000 individuals in 27 counties, found that 51% of respondents saw the US as having a mostly negative effect on global affairs." 
What's the point of that line being included in the article? Ryratt 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current perception of US policy around the other corners of the global village. Signaturebrendel 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we put opinion polls of other countries in their respective articles? Ryratt 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are authoritative, sure. Signaturebrendel 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend it be taken out because it is not cited. If one could see the other countries included in the poll, it would put it into context. Ryratt 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your recommendation, I see your point, but still think the poll is worthwhile keeping. Signaturebrendel 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Poll 

message: This artical contradicts every other page on the size of the united states in comparason to Canada and should probably be changed accordingly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.178.254 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does? Canada is larger in total area - but smaller in land area alone. Can you specify which sentence is contradictory? --Golbez 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: Since when is the official name of the U.S. "The Federation of the United States of America?"
:Since someone vandalized it. --Golbez 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official name

message: :By 1770 they had a population of three million, about half as many as Britain itself. However, no representation was allowed them in the British Parliament.
Isn't this an urban myth? As far as I know Britain offered representation several times but Ben Franklin (who wanted to accept it) was ordered to refuse because it would have led to less support for independance. Wayne 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not an urban myth.  If you think you are correct in your claim them show proof.  I can tell you as someone who has a degree in this subject that your claim in nothing I have ever heard of and would be really amazed if you could produce it.--Billiot 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I thought they were a good idea to have in the infobox.. why remove them? -- drumguy8800 C T 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because at that size they're completely illegible and add nothing to the article. --Golbez 03:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Per above, they add nothing to the article, except a couple of kbs (though not many). Signaturebrendel 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City seals 

message: Wiki articles have to based on solid scholarship, of which there is plenty on inequality. Please drop the speculation and try quoting some reliable sources, that is serious economists. The problem of using raw data is the problem of OR -- that is it's too easy for editorts to do their own reinterpretation. That is not allowed in Wiki. Try reading Yellin: Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco November 6, 2006, "Economic Inequality in the United States" online at  Rjensen 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the US Census Bureau or the CIA factbook entry. Both say, income inequality is rising! Besdies the aritlce you gave me link to above shows Ms. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco sayin that "we find striking evidence of increasing inequality." I guess I should tank you for finding an article that so shows such a reputable source agreeing with me! I am not the one nit-picking through articles toback up a conervative agenda-I am the one trying to quote the CIA factbook-hardly OR. The CIA factbook is hardly raw data! I have started an RfC-let's get some other users involved! If you want a thin-tank report try this one. Signaturebrendel 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  drop the OR 

message: To state my case, here are several quotes (some of which I have used during this discussion) that support the notion that income inequality is rising.
"When we look at data on the distribution of real wages, which constitute the bulk of compensation, we find striking evidence of increasing inequality"  -Ms. Yellen, CEO SF Federal Reserve
"we distinguished two periods: the Age of Shared Prosperity (1946-1975) and the Age of Growing Inequality (since 1975)... the general pattern is unmistakable in the data on wealth, income, earnings poverty..." (p. 291)- Dennis Gilbert, sociologist, Cornell University
""In sum, when money income is examined, each of these indicators shows increasing income inequality over the 1968 to 1994 period." -US Census Bureau
"The wage distribution has become considerably more unequal with more highly skilled, trained, and educated workers at the top experiencing real wage gains and those at the bottom real wage losses. One factor is the shift in employment from those goodsproducing industries that have disproportionately provided"- US Census Bureau
"The Gini index for households indicates that there has been growing income inequality over the past quarter-century. -US Census Bureau"- US Census Bureau
"The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households." -CIA factbook
"If you go back to 1979, prior to the period when the growth in inequality really took off in the United States, the top 5 percent on average had 11 times the average income of the bottom 20 percent. If you fast forward to the year 2000, the most recent economic peak, you find that that ratio increased to 19 times. So over the course of those two decades, the gap between the wealthiest and the lowest income families grew from 11 times to 19 times." -Jared Bernstein, co-director of research at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., co-author of The State of Working America 2002/2003
I have provided these quotes for those coming here, via RfC and will not check this page again until 12 hours have elapsed and some new editors have had the chance to look at the issue. Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes supporting the statement that inequality is increasing

message: In the second sentence of the article: "Forty-eight contiguous states lie in central North America between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, *bound* on land by Canada to the north", the word "bound" should be "bounded". (It would be "bound" if Canada "binds" the US to the north, but it doesn't, it "bounds" it...) 144.254.45.145 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bound/Bounded