Talk:United States/Archive 21

message: I think American should be changed to "United States" in most places. American is a colloquial term, and United States (or U.S.) the legal one. Also, "Native Americans" should be "Native North-Americans". That's only if its not planned to include Inca references :D
I should add too that the references to "American Literature" and "American Art" speaking only of U.S. artists, is , at the least, insulting for the big legacy of the great painters, novel writers, poets and musicians all over the continent.
:I'd think "Native North-Americans" would be inaccurate.  "Native Americans" is a phrase with its own meaning, but "native North-Americans" would include anyone who is native to North America (i.e. whoever was born there).  I think "indigenous" or "aboriginal" might be more appropriate.  24.72.103.137 10:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word American 

message: Since when did the HDI change from .944 to .948? 
74.117.72.239 06:17, 1 October 2006
:See List of countries by Human Development Index for references. -- Beland 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HDI

message: I think it's inappropriate to have a section on this topic and not a section on other major events in united states histor (vietnam war, gulf war, war of ___, etc, economic events).
It seems more like a partisan hack.
"The history of the United States: Revolutionary War, Civil War, Great Depression, WW2, Republican George Bush's Screw-Up In The Middle East."
:Yes, even though I agree that Bush screwed things up, the recent War in Iraq should not receive any more attention in this article then say, the Vietnam, 1st Gulf War, etc... This article is to provide an overview of the US, not merely its current issues; thus we must be careful in how much text we devote to current issues. Signaturebrendel 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, timelessness is one of the characteristics of an encyclopedia, and giving undue weight to the sensational or current is a violation of WP:NPOV. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11, 2001 and the War on Terrorism 

message: I just re-read the 9-11/War on Terror section and found something that might be misleading. Throughout the section the word ally is used as though it pertained to the same list of countries. The problem is that the US allies in Afgahnistan are not neccessarily allies in Iraq. For example, Germany send troops to Afgahnistan-which was all in all a classic NATO effort. Iraq is a different stroy, only some of the allies in Afgahnistan are allies in Iraq (mainly the UK). Thus I think we need to tweak the wording a little to reflect that the word ally in Afgahnistan does not include the same list of countries as in Iraq. In the Iraq paragraph we could perhaps replace the phrase: "the United States and its allies" with "the United States and some of its allies" or "the United States and coalition forces." Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on terror allies 

message: 1) native american deaths in the millions
g. fisher | 
Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples | 
UN World Conference Against Racism
*existing sentence: "the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous tribes, including Alaskan natives, who migrated to the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago."
*suggested re-edit: "the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous tribes, including Alaskan natives, who migrated to the continent over a period that may have begun 35,000 years ago and may have ended as recently as 11,000 years ago. It is estimated that between 2-10 million native americans died because of colonization." 
2) US as empire
[] | 
fox news | 
 |
*existing sentence: "After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to intervene in overseas military conflicts such as the Gulf War. It remains the world's only superpower."
*suggested re-edit: "After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to intervene in overseas military conflicts such as the Gulf War. It remains the world's only superpower. The global influence of the US has imperial characteristics."
3) US motive for invading iraq was oil 
washington post | 
globalpolicy.org | 
bbc news | 
February 15, 2003 anti-war protest
*existing sentence: "After the invasion, only a limited number of non-nuclear stockpiles were found, and the Bush administration later admitted having acted on flawed intelligence."
*suggested re-edit: "After the invasion, only a limited number of non-nuclear stockpiles were found, and the Bush administration later admitted having acted on flawed intelligence. The motive for the invasion was disputed before it happened however and discussion about US interest in Iraq's oil resources was widespread in the months before the war."
 
4) 'consequence'
*existing sentence: "The United States has vast economic, political, and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a subject of great interest and discussion around the world.
*suggested re-edit: "The United States has vast economic, political, and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a matter of great consequence around the world."
--8r1ck 13:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sources and re-edits

message: I tried putting de facto in parantheses, but it was reverted with the reason of "that implies that it's the official language, but de facto." De facto and official are two different things. De facto means "in fact" or "in practice" or "in reality," very different from official. Without the parantheses, it sounds like "English de facto" is the official language (which contradicts the previous statement in the infobox that the US doesn't have an official language) or that the US uses the de facto English, which doesn't exist. What does everyone think? — Jaxad0127 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article de facto, the normal wording would be "de facto English". --tjstrf talk 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, "de facto language" is correct, not "de facto English," since there isn't an accepted de facto form of English, which I pointed out earlier. — Jaxad0127 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English de facto

message: Under the Geograpy section is says 
"The United States is the world's second largest country by land area, after Russia."
This untrue The US is the 3rd or 4th largest after Canada and diputedly China.
:LAND area. Canada's land area is actually 4th or 5th in the world; its total area is 2nd because of the many lakes it has. --Golbez 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land area incorrect 

message: "Between 1830-1880 up to 40 million American Buffalo were slaughtered for skins and meat, to aid railway expansion and to help subdue Native Americans by denying them a primary resource."
this sentence about buffalo which i just put in environment has been immediately removed and labelled "POV assertion of motive". this is more miserably biased editing. the 40 million number and the word 'slaughter' were both footnoted with 2 other internal links. which bit is asserted motive? it's all sourced except perhaps for the 'denying primary resource' which was nevertheless in just about all the stuff i read about buffalo slaughter and can easily be footnoted. but who needs 3 footnotes in a sentence?
how about this from the existing edit:
"After many failed U.N. resolutions and Saddam Hussein rejecting demands to surrender, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq in March of 2003."
sounds like POV assertion of motive to me. i should not be surprised that a jingoistic country of 300m produces some jingoistic wiki history writers. it's vandalism, it's denial, it's sustained and it's seemingly consensual. no more contributions from me here you'll be glad to hear. --8r1ck 12:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Buffalo section's issue is with the assignment of the motive as including to help subdue the indians by 'denying primary resource'. The claim that it was for food and meat isn't controversial (therefor no POV issue), to claim it was part of campaign to subdue the Indians is controversial (hence POV issues).  It may be able to be reworded, but as posted, it was advancing a POV, with out citiations. Bo 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the buffalo mention in up in the westard expansion section.  I mentioned take a look to see if the 'denial of primary resource' is done in a NPOV way.  Thanks.  Bo 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Buffalo almost died out because European settlers in addition to Indians killed them for food, clothing and sport. The "dying of the buffalo" was caused by over-hunting. I don't think most White settlers killed the Buffalo w/ the intention to whipe out the Native Americans (some might have though). As mentioned above, the statement certainly carries with it some validity but needs to be presented in an NPOV manner. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I take it that I was successful in adding the information in a NPOV way.. Thanks!  Bo 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  buffalo 

message: I foolishly left my account logged on when I left my computer, and one of my friends vandalised this page. I have tried to revert the edits by that person, but I may have missed some, so I sincerely apologize. Rossenglish 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology for vandalism on my account 

message: I've spend some time considering how to shorten this article, but I really can't see where to begin. Potentially, we could remove some categories that are less importation, and just have the link to the subpage, but I'm not quite sure where to begin on that either. As long as we don't actually add to the main page, aside from current events, we should be okay?71.111.98.144 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually do think of this article as being excessively long considering that this article covers the entire United States. The US is one of the most complex countries on earth and even just giving a glimpse of it is going to take a good seized article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through the article, there are many things which are clearly not all that important to a broad overview of the country.  I've added some suggestions to the todo list, which you can see at the top of the talk page here.  Normal article length is around 30K.  You're right that this is a big topic; perhaps something on the order of 40-60K would be appropriate.  But right now it's over 100K, and that's definitely too big.  This needs to be a relatively brief survey, targeted at people who aren't interested in too many details, but just want to get an overall picture.  Quite a bit is left up to subarticles for people who want to take the time to go more in depth, or who are looking for a specific piece of detailed information. -- Beland 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taken a look at some of the suggestions. Everything looks about right - the trick is getting started :). I think current events should be the only one that goes into detail - everything else should just be a brief summary. Also, lots of sub-topics should be just completely removed and placed in the sub-articles, thus cutting down on length/size. 71.111.98.144 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length Issues 

message: Post 9/11, suggest changing "Federal Republic" to "Police State". --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I got the joke and I agree the executive has gained way too much power- of that's what you're implying. Congress is supposed to make laws (hence, legislative) and not the president (he may merely suggest them and dis/approve of them). SignaturebrendelNow under review! 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Government Section 

message: In the religion section it impies that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Protestant denomination.  This is incorrect.  the LDS Church stands alone, apart from Orthodox churches or the Protestants.  Thanks.
204.113.19.8 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested edit for the Religion section

message: This article is featured in two languages... but not in English. I know this is an irrelevant point, but I thought it was kind of interesting, especially since this article appears to be far more detailed than other featured articles in English. Freezing the mainstream
:Well, actually this article is too detailed. The main complaint during its FA canidacy was its length. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't it interesting?

message: Under the infobox at the top of the page under Largest City (New York City, NY) could someone add the Smallest City, which is Maza, North Dakota, since it is the smallest city in the United States. I cant do it for I have an IP # and IP's are blocked. 68.111.174.76 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We only add a country's largest city to the country infobox. People are usually more likely to seek info on a country's largest, not smallest city. As we do need to keep an eye out for infobox length, I am personally undecided whether or not we should mention a nation's smallest city in the infobox. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 09:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would definitely suggest not adding the smallest city, as that could change tomorrow when someone incorporates a new city with a population of 4 or less, or if Maza grows by even one.  In addition, the amount of effort to definitively find/verify the "smallest" city in a country with a population of 300 million would be huge, and the definitions surely vary as well.  Even mentioning this on the article's page would seem to be speculation. -- Renesis (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'accord. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maza, North Dakota

message: Somebody should add a list for all the states from largest to smallest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesk111 (talk • contribs) .
:Already done.
:*List of U.S. states by area
:*List of U.S. states by population
:Jecowa 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest-Smallest States 

message: Historically speaking, the United States declared Independence on July 2nd, not July 4th. (We celebrate 7/4 only because Congress realized the day before that they forgot to celebrate Independence day). Quoting United States Declaration of Independence:
Independence was declared on July 2, 1776, pursuant to the "Lee Resolution" presented by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia on June 7, 1776, which read (in part):...
I think that the proper date should be listed in the infobox, with some sort of mention about observation on July 4th for historical reasons. IMacWin95 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Independence Day (United States), the July 2 declaration was secret and preliminary, and the final draft of the declaration document itself wasn't done until two days later after a flurry of rewriting. It was not announced to the people until July 4. There's a difference in "the day you decide to declare independence" and "the day you actually declare independence." Your assertion of it being July 4 because Congress "forgot" seems incorrect, based on that article. --Golbez 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence not July 4 

message: if theres only one superpower whats the point of naming it hyperpower also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.53.233 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, the term isn't really useful IMHO, but does exsist. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not the place to debate what American's should or should not do.  The fact is that both terms ("superpower" and "hyperpower") are in common usage with respect to the US (especially "superpower"). Johntex\talk 21:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hyperpower